Some interesting correspondence

Marcia Turnquist writes:

I sent an email to NOAA a few days back, calling their arctic report card video propaganda and I got an inquiry back from a Jana Goldman, asking why I thought so. My response is below. You HAVE to watch the video I referenced. It's priceless.



To: 'Jana Goldman' Subject: RE: arctic report card is...

Jana, Where do I start? The following statements in the video are either in dispute or, worse, blatant advocacy and fear mongering:

*Changes in the arctic are starting to amplify each other. I seriously doubt that. The evidence is weak.

*Warm temperatures continue. Yes, and they've been in the arctic before. Check records for the 1920's and 1930's.

*Loss of ice impacts sea level. Of course it does, but nothing dramatic is happening. No cities are drowning, Vanuatu is not under water. Al Gore still buys lovely beach houses.

*Polar bears are losing habitat. There's still plenty out there and their numbers are fine, even growing in some regions. Polar bears have lost habitat before, much more drastically, and they survive today.

*The shellfish pictures. I'll bet they had nothing to do with REAL ocean water. What did you do, stick them in acid to get those pictures? Absolutely ridiculous and you should find out and get rid of those pictures. The ocean remains alkaline last time I checked.

*The wind has shifted and now the warm is in the arctic and the cold is in the US and Europe. This is a blatant attempt to explain why "global warming" has called cooling and it only comes off as desperate. The likelihood that CO2 had anything to do with this is laughable.

*And finally, the last sentence, which is priceless: Taken together, these interconnected shifts are indicators of continuing arctic change relative to the previous decades at the end of the 20th century. First, what the bonzai does that MEAN? It says NOTHING! Second, the language shows another sneaky attempt at advocacy science and fear mongering. In other words, it's baloney. And please don't tell me that all of this is backed by peer-reviewed science, because I know it's really pal-reviewed science among people of like minds getting paid for like results.

Good luck with your PR job... You're on a sinking ship.

Sincerely, Marcia

Physicist Dr Gordon Fulks then wrote a congratulatory letter to Marcia:

Dear Marcia,

You are certainly correct that the video from NOAA Director of Communications & External Affairs Ms. Jana Goldman has all the earmarks of propaganda and no scientific content. This video is designed to reinforce the prejudices that earlier propaganda has introduced, without the caveats that are necessary in science. For instance, any legitimate scientist would have to indicate that many scientists do not agree with the standard rubbish about carbon dioxide. Please see the attached letter to President Obama from many senior scientists, probably none of whom are on the NOAA payroll and subject to NOAA restrictions. Did you know that scientists working for the National Weather Service are prohibited from disagreeing with NOAA's political stance in public?

But what do you expect from a US government agency headed by Professor Lubchenco who hails from our own Oregon State University? She has always advocated the heavy involvement of politics in science and is surprisingly ignorant of basic science. When at OSU she promoted the "Dead Zones" she found in the Pacific ocean off of Oregon as an indication of a dying planet. It is good that she left for service in the Obama Administration when she did, because her "science" was collapsing. The poor ocean conditions characteristic of the warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) were changing back to their cold and highly productive phase. We have had great crab and salmon seasons of late. Should Lubchenco have known? Sure! The work of Mantua at UW and Russian scientists long ago established the reasons for the cyclic behavior of salmon runs. And the PDO is now known to be highly important to the earth's climate.

I remember a conversation that my father had about 50 years ago with the world-famous meteorologist Sverre Petterson at the University of Chicago. They were aware that the "Southern Oscillation" (El Ninos and La Ninas) was important to the world's weather and were hoping that the coming satellite era would allow them to better measure what we now call the PDO. My father was a high level administrator in NOAA's predecessor agency, ran the National Weather Service in the Midwest, and was a professional meteorologist.

But Public Relations people like Ms. Goldman who have no background in science can hardly be expected to do better than their boss who has credentials in biology but not in the physical sciences, let alone physics or meteorology. It is as H. L. Mencken said long ago: "A man cannot be expected to see the flaws in something if his income depends on his not understanding it." That is especially true of those without requisite credentials.

Why is it so important for someone who is purveying "science" to the public to have an adequate background in it? To answer that ask yourself why it is so important for someone who is purveying medical advice to have an adequate background in medicine. Working for an organization that has paid scientists on staff, all of whom are required to support the Anthropogenic Global Warming orthodoxy, is hardly a legitimate fallback.

The underlying issue that Director Goldman may recognize but is intentionally ignoring is the cyclical nature of weather, climate, the oceans, ice ages and so on. All of these very well known and very well documented phenomena are largely due to the fact that we live on a fluid planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium, a variable star that we call the Sun, and a planetary system that involves a big brute called Jupiter. These produce the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Thermohaline Circulation, the Arctic Oscillation, the solar cycles and Galactic Cosmic Ray effect on clouds, and the Milankovitch Cycles. And that is just the beginning.

Ignoring all of these in favor of a little man-made carbon dioxide is just plain stupid. Running an effort that promotes the stupidity for political control, as in George Orwell's '1984,' is worse.

Received via email




Another false prophecy

There was a big melt in the Arctic in 2007, which gave lots of Warmists erections. Below is one such, from National Geographic of 2007. The Arctic ice has since then substantially bounced back

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.

One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years ago, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by the Associated Press (AP).

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, 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."

More HERE





Warmist climatologist considers faking sick rather than debating

Email 3183:

date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:18:40 +0000 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Press coverage of polar detection paper to: Phil Jones

Hi Phil, I managed to back myself into a debate after all and am agonizing over it. Pat Michaels wants to go after the historical context ie a ice free arctic not being unusual. should I just fall ill? do you know about ice free arctic in paleoclimatic context? do we have arctic proxies? Gabi

SOURCE

Pat Michaels confirms that she did not in fact turn up. Warmism just can't stand informed scrutiny




NYTimes sings budget blues for climateers

If only Michael Mann got more money to waste. The New York Times editorializes today:

Is there a connection between last year’s extreme weather events and global warming? The answers might be a lot clearer if the Republicans in Congress were less hostile to climate change research.

So what happened to the $50 billion or so spent over the past 15 years?

And then, precisely what sort of research would be conducted?

After all, everyone agrees weather is not climate. A corollary to this reality is that bad weather is not climate change.

If all we would get from more spending is yet another trumped up conclusion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are the root of all weather misfortune, we’d rather just concede the inevitability of that conclusion and save the money.

SOURCE





The Keystone XL pipeline—a line in the sand for America's future

Ask people about the future of energy, and you’ll probably hear mention of “solar,” “wind,” and “ethanol.” These developing energy technologies have been invested in, loaned to, subsidized, and mandated—yet they’ve repeatedly fallen short.

If the vaunted renewables aren’t yet ready for prime time, what will we do if, for example, Iran makes good on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and blocks a significant supply of the world’s energy? Just the fear of a supply disruption bumped up the price of oil.

The geopolitics provide a perfect backdrop for pushing the pipeline that will boost the economy through more jobs and price stability, provide energy security, and help balance the trade deficit. Opponents see building the Keystone XL pipeline as a flashpoint for the struggle between old and new energy paradigms—yet with the failure of so-called future energy, the pipeline is representative of our energy future.

Untold billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been spent trying to force renewables into an unnatural economic timeline with the expectation that the laws of nature will bow to the laws of politicians. Yet, not one of them produces a significant percentage of our energy needs. If we lost 20% of our renewable energy, we’d never feel it. If we lost 20% of our oil supply—the amount that goes through the Strait of Hormuz, we could be back to the rationing and gas lines that are reminiscent of the Carter administration.

“President Obama repeatedly assured the American public that a slew of taxpayer-funded projects in his 2009 stimulus package were ‘shovel-ready.’ Yet few of these projects ever got off the ground, and the jobs they produced were negligible,” says National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow, Bonner Cohen. “By contrast, the Keystone XL project really is shovel-ready. And even though it would produce jobs and energy quickly, he refuses to give it the green light.”

In a time of economic war, the Keystone XL pipeline is a job creator that requires no new technology or research, no taxpayer funding while generating new tax revenues, and no new infrastructure—all with virtually no risk (financial or environmental).

Harold McGowen, President and CEO of Navidad Resources in Tyler, TX, explains it this way: “There is nothing new about pipelines. We already have over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the United States, including about 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines. These crude oil pipelines have safely and efficiently transported the crude oil that is required to sustain the food supply, transportation, and quality of life of every American for decades. Pipelines continue to be the safest mode of transporting the lifeblood of the nation. They are safer than trains—which can derail; sea-going tankers—which can rupture, sink and run aground; and trucks—that can crash.”

The Keystone XL pipeline, and the tens of thousands of true shovel-ready jobs it can provide, isn’t just about moving oil from Canada to the US, it will allow for safer transport of new oil discoveries like North Dakota’s Bakken Field that produces more than 400,000 barrels per day. Because there is not enough pipeline capacity, Bakken oil is currently being taken to refiners in Louisiana via rail with the Bakken Oil Express’ capacity at only 100,000 barrels per day. Increased capacity, provided by the pipeline, would encourage additional oil development in the West, benefitting production in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.

With the Keystone XL pipeline able to safely transport approximately 500,000 barrels of oil per day, the US could reduce oil imports from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait by 25% (or more)—making us less vulnerable to inevitable Middle Eastern unrest.

For the past sixty years, the US has been a net importer of petroleum products—meaning we’ve been sending our dollars to foreign countries and adding to our trade deficit (more money goes out than comes in). New discoveries, like the Bakken Field, have reduced the amount of crude oil we import, but, as previously illustrated, we still use more than we produce domestically. However, the US is now a net exporter of refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel—making fuel the top single export in 2011.

The Keystone XL pipeline will play an important role in America’s position as an ongoing fuel producer and exporter. Rather than counting on tankers crossing the ocean with crude, it will bring domestic and friendly foreign oil to refiners along the Gulf Coast. Many refiners are located on the coast because the tankers coming from the Middle East dock there. The crude oil is then unloaded and refined. Once refined, the fuel, as always, gets distributed throughout the US, but is now also sold and shipped to countries worldwide. An available and abundant fuel supply drops the price, and all sectors of the US economy benefit.

Economist Ben Stein says, “This country runs on energy, it doesn’t run on the hot air spewed out by environmentalists.”

The debate is not about a simple pipeline; it is really about development in America. It is a literal line in the sand. Polls show that the majority of Americans support the Keystone XL pipeline, yet a visible minority standing in front of the White House (and the White House standing with them) is able to stall or stop it. Similar efforts put forth by professional environmentalists and their “could,” “maybe,” and “might,” tactics, have been able to block or delay long-overdue road projects (that would create jobs), mineral extraction (that would create jobs), and new or expanded shipping ports (that would create jobs).

The Keystone XL pipeline is symbolic of the importance of the 2012 election. If the Keystone XL pipeline goes through—as every other previous trans-border pipeline has—America’s energy future will be taken from the hands of the protester and placed back into the hands of “we the people.” American ingenuity, industry, and exceptionalism will win.

Will the majority wake up, show up, stand up and speak up?

We should, we can, and we will.

SOURCE




Obama's War on U.S. Energy

By Alan Caruba

The Iowa caucuses tell us that the campaign season is now upon us. While we focus on the Republican candidates, there will likely only be one Democratic candidate for president. If you still need a reason to defeat Obama in 2012 consider his administration’s intense effort to deprive America of the energy it needs to function and compete in the world.

If a foreign nation had launched an attack on America to destroy its coal-fired plants, to shut down its coal mines, and to thwart its ability to drill for oil and natural gas, we would be at war with it.

Obama is at war with America. Between the waste of billions squandered on “Green” energy and the attacks on all aspects of the energy industries in America, the one reason to defeat Obama is your ability to turn on the lights, turn on your computer, and ensure that American business and industry has the energy necessary to exist and compete.

Just try to imagine what your life would be without adequate, reliable electricity.

As a Wall Street Journal editorial recently warned, “Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened a conference on the wave of Environmental Protection Agency rules that are designed to force dozens of coal-fired power plants to shut down…despite warnings from expert after expert, including some of its own, the FERC Commissioners refuse to do anything about this looming threat to electric reliability.”

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned that “Environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years.”

The editorial noted that “For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the ‘scope and timing’ of EPA demands. That could mean nearly a quarter of all coal-fired capacity.”

It is coal-fired plants that currently provide fifty percent of all the electricity generated in America! The EPA is feverishly trying to force a quarter of that capacity offline. Why? Because the EPA claims that these plants are “polluting” the air. The air in America has never been cleaner. The EPA demand for cleaner air is a bludgeon being used to deprive America of its ability to function.

America has more than 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal (not counting Alaska) or nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second largest reserve. According to the Institute for Energy Research, “America’s recoverable coal resources are bigger than the five largest non-North American countries’ reserves combined,” i.e., Russia, China, Australia, India and the Ukraine.

The Obama administration delayed the proposed Canadian Keystone XL pipeline that would provide more oil for America’s needs. It imposed an illegal moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. While China drills for oil off the coast of Cuba, access to offshore oil is restricted on both the East and West coasts of America and, of course, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered.

Meanwhile, when combined with resources in Canada and Mexico, the total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels! That is more than the entire world has used in the past 150 years and sufficient to fuel the present needs in the United States for the next 250 years!

The same holds true for natural gas, often accessed by “fracking” a safe process that has been in use for sixty years. The total amount of recoverable natural gas in North America is approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet. That’s enough to last for the next 175 years at current rates of consumption.

In Durban, South Africa the enemies of the United States and all industrialized Western nations recently gathered at yet another United Nations conference on climate change. Its major objective was to deter energy use by Western industrialized nations or, more accurately, to require that the UN receives billions in return for allowing it.

The global warming claim on which the EPA is basing its horrendous rules and regulations is a complete and total lie. There is no human-caused global warming.

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) attended the conference to monitor its mischief and reports that “Obama and his fellow climate travelers are trying to do an end run around the Senate and stick America with the bill. They are creating side agreements that give them much of what they want from a treaty. These side agreements will not come home for a vote in the Senate or other national legislatures. Previous U.S. Senates have refused to ratify UN climate treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols that called for limits on greenhouse gases.

Global warming claims, the basis for EPA rule-making regarding emissions, have all been refuted and debunked.

Antarctic sea ice is at a near-record extent and is expanding; so too for Arctic ice. The polar bear population is thriving. Sea levels are actually dropping. Global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade and the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1998. The frequency of U.S. hurricanes has declined along with the frequency of tornadoes. There is no evidence the Earth is experiencing unusual weather. This list of climate lies is a very long one.

It is all connected, from the halls of the United Nations to the EPA and other U.S. departments working ceaselessly to deprive America of the energy it needs for its very survival.

Obama and his administration must be decisively defeated in November 2012 if the republic is ever to be empowered to pull back from the brink of its destruction.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are 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

*****************************************