Friday, April 12, 2013

Relentless Liars: The Great Green Edifice is Crumbling

By Alan Caruba

The New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club emailed to invite me to attend a “conversation on climate change in a post-Sandy New Jersey” intended to focus on the “impacts of fossil fuel pollution” later this month. “We need to take action to address and prevent the future impacts of climate change. Hurricane Sandy was the latest storm in an increasing trend of more extreme and severe weather.”

There isn’t “an increasing trend of more extreme weather” unless you include the current cooling cycle that has been in effect for the last 17 years, causing longer, more intense winters around the world. I doubt that the Greens can do anything about the Sun which has been in a natural cycle of reduced radiation.

As for hurricanes like Sandy, meteorologists will confirm that on average the U.S. can expect two major storm systems, categories 3 to 5, every three years. In all categories, the average is about five hurricanes that make landfall every three years. So, there is no increasing trend of more extreme weather. There is just the weather.

As far as the Sierra Club and comparable multi-million dollar environmental organizations are concerned, when they say that want to “prevent future impacts of climate change” they are either delusional, thinking that anything can be done to prevent hurricanes, blizzards, and other aspects of the weather or they are talking about imposing a carbon tax on the emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. Congress has already rejected that.

And it’s not just the Sierra Club. The same day their invitation arrived, Friends of the Earth emailed to say “The Pacific Northwest is currently engulfed in a struggle over the dirty future of coal and coal exports in the U.S. If the biggest coal companies in the world have their way, we could have 140 million tons of coal barreling through Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon each year. That’s up to 60 trains per day in some of our neighborhoods and more than 1,000 ships a year through our sensitive waterways!” Can you say fear-mongering? Lies about coal? And a total ignorance of the value to the economy of its use and export?

The Greens regard anything that would provide energy for any reason to anyone as the enemy.

That is why “a panel of experts will discuss fossil fuel projects in our state, their impacts, and ways to reduce that pollution.” Fuel is not pollution. Fuel is what we use to heat or cool our homes, drive our vehicles, provide electricity, and conduct the business of the nation. The air and water in New Jersey is so clean we actually invite people to live here, start businesses here, and to visit as tourists to enjoy it.

“Cutting greenhouse gas emissions from dirty fuel sources is critical to protecting New Jersey” said the invitation. Carbon dioxide levels have actually been rising. More lies. As James Taylor, the Managing Editor of Environmental & Climate News, noted in March, “New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.”

Since carbon dioxide is vital to the growth of all vegetation, from your flower garden to the abundance of crops that feed us and all livestock, reducing it is a very bad idea.

Need it be said that the local chapter is also gearing up to oppose a new natural gas pipeline for the state? Think jobs. Think lower energy costs. Now extrapolate that to the Keystone XL pipeline and to other expanded sources of energy and the benefit to the nation’s economy.

The old guard of the environmental movement is passing from the scene and the entire edifice of the global warming hoax is crumbling. Jim Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) since 1981 has announced his retirement. It was Hansen who told a congressional committee in 1988 that the Earth was heating up. That was the same year that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nation Environmental Program.

Larry Bell, a columnist for Forbes magazine, recently urged the U.S. to cease funding the IPCC along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “While the amount we give to the UNFCC and IPCC may seem like a tiny pittance in the realm of government spending largess, it’s important to realize that (the) true costs of that folly amount to countless billions in disastrous policy and regulatory impact.” Together they have received a total average of $10.25 million annually, set to increase in the FY 13 budget request to $13 million. They are a total waste of money, representing the greatest hoax of the modern era and the redistribution of our wealth.

Environmental organizations are all about controlling our lives. In March, a peer-reviewed paper by the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” was published in their annual journal BioScience. “Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems.”

Too many governments around the world, our own and particularly those in Europe, have passed all manner of laws and invested billions in “green energy” projects, only to discover they are a huge waste and that ordinary people have other ideas regarding the technologies that actually do enhance and improve their lives.

Greens are relentless liars and their lies appear daily in our print and broadcast media. Reality, though, is impacting their efforts. Facts are stubborn things.

Greens are far less interested in the environment than they are in imposing restrictions on the use of energy and the general welfare of humanity. It is pure fascism and always was.


Reducing atmospheric CO2 would take centuries anyhow

From Environmental Research Web:

    "With a middle-of-the-road scenario for carbon dioxide removal, however, a 20th century-like climate could be restored by the late 24th or early 25th century, MacDougall found. But simulated surface air temperature would still be above the pre-industrial temperature by the end of the 30th century, even for the fastest carbon removal scenario he modelled, as oceans gradually release their stored heat.

    "Restoring climate will require removal of more carbon from the atmosphere than was originally emitted by man, MacDougall said. In some scenarios, 115-190% of anthropogenic emissions will need to be sequestered."


Is global warming a hoax? Catholic Online interviews a skeptic

Over the past two weeks, Catholic Online had the opportunity to interview Global Warming skeptic and author, Dr. Mark Hendrickson who is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Readers on Catholic Online have been critical of the flurry of articles featuring news about global climate change, mostly authored by myself. I promised readers a little more balance and to interview a climate change skeptic to showcase the other side of the debate.

I came across Dr. Mark Hendrickson, a widely published conservative commentator and writer. His article on, which we republished here, gave me pause and an opportunity to consider some noteworthy arguments against anthropogenic global warming.

Although I remain concerned about the issue as a problem created by poor creation care on the part of humanity, I wholeheartedly agree that we should provide another viewpoint for our reader's discussion and consideration. I will also admit that Dr. Hendrickson makes some points that are worth consideration.

COL:  Now Mark, what qualifies you to speak as an expert on Global Warming?

HENDRICKSON: I hesitate to describe myself as an expert, inasmuch as that word might best be reserved for climate scientists. I am, however, comfortable with describing myself as knowledgeable about the subject. I have followed it for over 20 years.

There are similarities between the study of economics and the study of climate change-specifically, the fact that nobody can predict the future, because there are far too many factors for anyone to know, and also due to the constant possibility of X factors (unanticipated events) happening.

I think my training as an economist and a logical thinker enables me to detect at least some fallacies, lapses in logic, or manipulation-in short, I have a pretty well developed crap detector. Certainly, any reasonably intelligent person can detect inconsistencies in arguments. (Perhaps the outstanding example of this: The admission by the late global-warming enthusiast, Stephen Schneider that, throughout history, warm periods PRECEDED rises in atmospheric CO2. We all know that cause cannot follow effect.)

I agree with the climate scientist who described the climate as a "coupled nonlinear, chaotic system"-a fancy way of saying, "unpredictable." That means that I do not hold a position as to whether the world will get warmer or cooler in coming decades, because I don't know-and neither does anyone else.

COL:  Global warming, real or a hoax?

HENDRICKSON: If, by global warming, you mean do I think the climate has warmed over the last 100-150 years, the answer is yes. The world emerged from a little ice age in the 19th century. We should be getting warmer now.
Is the theory of man-made global warming a hoax? I think so. Let's say either a hoax or an error. It's a hoax when perpetrated by those who let a political agenda shape science rather than the other way around. Otherwise, I believe it to be an error. A principal reason I make that assertion is because many of the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory have abandoned their own theory. For years they tried to convince us that the more CO2 humans injected into the atmosphere, the hotter the world would get. Now, after 15 or so years of no warming, they admit that the world could cool for 40-50 years even as total CO2 emissions continue to increase. What may one deduce from this? Answer: At the very least, that other factors outweigh CO2 in terms of impact on the climate, and at most, that CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change.
COL:  What about all those graphs showing some degree of climate change? I'm not really talking about the infamous hockey stick, but just the multitude of graphs which reveal some degree of warming. What's the deal with those?

HENDRICKSON: Graphs? They're only as good as the data entered into them. It's the same with computer programs-garbage in garbage out, the oldest principle of computer science. At one point in the 1990s, there were two-dozen major computer programs dedicated to explaining and projecting future climate change, but no two of the 24 computer programs came to the same conclusion. That leaves two possibilities: 23 of the 24 computer programs are wrong, in which case the problem is how do you know which of the 24 to rely upon? Or, they all are wrong. Neither choice is very palatable, nor lends much heft to the arguments of those insisting in AGW.

COL: The satellite data doesn't lie. Images show the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, the Antarctic ice cap is thinning, the tundra is greening, and the temperatures, particularly about the Earth's poles, is warming. Sea level has risen so that coastal communities in Alaska and the Pacific are relocating and locks on the Thames and in the Netherlands must now close more frequently. We have also seen an increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events. Isn't this evidence enough that's something's happening?

HENDRICKSON: Satellite data showed no statistically significant warming in the last two or three decades. Other scientific data show that the Antarctic ice cap is adding 27,000,000,000 tons of ice per year. I believe that the last two or three winters have seen much more ice in the Arctic that in the years immediately prior to that, but it is an essentially irrelevant point. Arctic ice should be of no concern because the Arctic is an open ocean, and according to Archimedes' principle, the water level will be the same whether it is frozen or in liquid form.

During the medieval warm period, which was warmer than today, coastal areas and supposedly climate sensitive places like Greenland were not being inundated.

As for an increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events, that is very much under dispute, what is known as that we are more aware of such events because of increased media coverage and because of increased population density. As for whether there are actually more such events, that is an open question at best.

COL: I read what you wrote about Al Gore's use of Global Warming as his "political hobgoblin." [will provide link]. I'm no fan of Gore and his video didn't convince me of much either. Still, that's a fairly bold statement. Do you have any evidence that shows Gore was deliberately using GW as a hobgoblin to frighten the masses? Right or wrong, could it be he is sincere in his concern?

HENDRICKSON:  Whether Mr. Gore is sincere or cynical is something I'm in no position to judge. There can be no doubt though that Mr. Gore has pursued a politically activist agenda designed to channel money into alternative energies in which he has been invested and from which he has profited greatly. In other words, he has a vested financial interest and a conflict of interest in his policy advocacy.

COL: My understanding is that there is a strong consensus among climatologists that global warming is real and that it's a threat. You say this isn't so. Tell me about your figures.

HENDRICKSON: Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific concept. Consensus is not truth. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine obtained over 30,000 signatures by scientists with advanced degrees urging our government to take no radical actions to combat alleged global warming.

COL:  If less than 20 percent of scientists once believed global warming was a threat, what caused all of them to change their mind? New, more accurate data, or something else?

HENDRICKSON: There is a double standard in the media in regard to scientists speaking on the global warming issue. If they are in the private sector, and perhaps have received funding from an energy company, their word is automatically discredited. On the other hand, if their funding depends on federal grants, they are automatically believed.

One phenomenon that has concerned me over the years is that most of the AGW skeptics have been older scientists-those who have retired or are economically independent. In fact, there have been several prominent scientists who, upon resigning from government employment, immediately began to speak out against the AGW theory. Sorry I can't recall the names. One was the first woman to get a doctorate in-mmm, meteorology?  That may not be the right discipline.

Where do you get your numbers "proving" or documenting that most scientists now agree with AGW theory???

COL:  Let's say there's just no such thing as global warming. The climate is fine. Shouldn't we still practice good stewardship or what I call, creation care? In other words, shouldn't we avoid wonton CO2 emissions and other forms of pollution because it is simply wrong to litter and pollute?

HENDRICKSON: Of course we should practice commonsense stewardship. I disagree, though, with the characterization of CO2 as a pollutant. Oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide (which, being a necessary nutrient of plant life, sits as the base of the human food chain) are the three most essential building blocks of life on earth.

COL: Now, let's say global warming is a real and serious threat. What do we do about it?

HENDRICKSON: Whatever we do, let us not cripple ourselves economically, because at some future time, when a genuine and serious environmental danger arises, we will need every resource at our disposal to cope with such an eventuality. Keep our powder dry and not waste it tilting at windmills.


An argument of desperation:  Global warming affects the oceans only

The debate over global warming and climate change has reached a fever pitch in recent years as both climate scientists and their skeptics have tried to prove one side right over the other, although scientific research heavily favors the former. Contention has flared up once again after an article in The Economist noted that over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface remain flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The skeptics say they had achieved a victory, but climate scientists rebuffed them with new findings that suggest warming is still taking place—just not where everyone thought.

It is true that warming effects have slowed down since 2000 despite an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. But Virginie Guemas of the Catalan Institute of Climate Sciences in Barcelona said on Sunday that it’s because oceans have helped mitigate warming trends. Approximately 30 percent of warming has been shouldered by ocean depths of below 700 meters since 2000, she found, which helps account for the slowdown elsewhere. However, she believes the heat may return to the surface in the next decade. Her findings are supported by a 2012 study and one produced earlier this year that detail the same.


U.S. Government report says don't blame global warming for freak of nature 2012 US drought

Last year's huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn't caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.

Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the American heartland.

Thursday's report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn't see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn't have been forecast.

"This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years," said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event."

Researchers focused on six states — Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa — but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.

He said the jet stream that draws moisture north from the Gulf was stuck unusually north in Canada.

Other scientists have linked recent changes in the jet stream to shrinking Arctic sea ice, but Hoerling and study co-author Richard Seager of Columbia University said those global warming connections are not valid.

Hoerling used computer simulations to see if he could replicate the drought using man-made global warming conditions. He couldn't. So that means it was a random event, he said.

Using similar methods, Hoerling has been able to attribute increasing droughts in the Mediterranean Sea region to climate change and found that greenhouse gases could be linked to a small portion of the 2011 Texas heat wave.


This Week’s Dumbest Global Warming Overreach

It was hot in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Unfortunately, some Democrats couldn’t just sit back and enjoy it. The Hill reports:

    "House Democrats on Wednesday pointed to today’s record-setting heat in Washington D.C. as the latest sign that the Earth is warming.

    "Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) managed a speech on the House floor in which several Democrats joined to say that Congress needs to find a way forward on climate change in light of the growing number of incidents of extreme weather, which included Hurricane Sandy last year. …

    "Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) also cited today’s weather as a bad sign.

    “In Memphis, it does occasionally get hot, but it also does in Washington. I think it’s supposed to be 90 today,” Cohen said."

Apparently no one has explained to these Democrats that the law of conservation of energy dictates that if it is unusually warm in one place, it will be unusually cold somewhere else. The warm spot isn’t evidence of global warming, any more than the cold spot is evidence of global cooling. If I sound testy about this, it is because where I live, in a Minneapolis suburb, we got six inches of snow this morning, with more coming down. This is what my yard looks like:

No global warming here. Unfortunately. And it isn’t just Minnesota; it was only 39 degrees in Arlington, Texas yesterday, the coldest temperature ever recorded at the start of a Rangers game.

Back in D.C., the Democrats had the House chamber to themselves as they whined about the heat:

    "Blumenthal said he invited House Republicans to join his floor discussion on climate change, but said no Republican accepted."

I suppose that is because the Republicans were sensible enough to enjoy the day by going golfing.




Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here and here


No comments: