Thursday, May 02, 2013

Obama’s smear misfires at GOP 'deniers': ‘The inconvenient truth is Obama & Democrats have made utterly ignorant & comical science claims’‏

Climate Depot Responds to Obama campaign's climate smear of skeptics -- Morano: 'Bluntly stated, a man -- President Obama -- who declared his presidency would result in ‘the rise of the oceans beginning to slow’, has no business whatsoever claiming he understands, let  alone  champions science in any way' -- 'A president who claims Americans can ‘do something’ about floods, hurricanes, droughts tornadoes is not pro-science'

By Marc Morano

President Barack Obama’s campaign to smear and intimidate global warming skeptics in Congress is now in full swing. See: Obama campaign launches plan to shame climate skeptics in Congress: ‘It is time to call out U.S. politicians who deny the science behind climate change’ & Obama Tweets about global warming: ‘Climate deniers in Congress refuse to even debate the issue. Make sure they don’t get away with it’

Obama’s new campaign hopes to silence skepticism, despite the fact that the GOP is the party taking a pro-science stand when it comes to man-made global warming fears. See:  Lord Christopher Monckton defends GOP from Obama campaign attack: ‘Obama climate video stars GOP truthsayers’ — Monckton says GOP ‘talking common sense about climate’

The inconvenient truth for Obama is that he and his fellow Democrats have made many utterly ignorant and often times comical climate science claims. Bluntly stated, a man -- President Obama -- who declared his presidency would result in ‘the rise of the oceans beginning to slow’, has no business whatsoever claiming he understands, let  alone  champions science in any way.

President Obama has also claimed he can “block the Sun’s rays to end global warming.” In addition, Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill in 2009 would stop global temperature increases of up to five degrees! Obama said on June 25, “A long-term benefit is we’re leaving a planet to our children that isn’t four or five degrees hotter.”  But Obama’s own EPA said it wouldn’t impact global CO2 levels let alone global temperatures.

Obama goes full witchcraft by telling voters they ‘can do something about’ droughts and floods and wildfires — Climate Depot Responds -- Climate Depot's Morano reminds voters: 'Acts of the UN and the U.S. Congress or EPA, cannot control the weather'

Obama said Americans can ‘do something’ about floods, hurricanes, droughts tornadoes, as though, you can at the ballot box, you vote yourself better weather. He is implying we can legislate better weather.”

The most surprising aspect of this attempt to intimidate the GOP over global warming claims is the fact that on virtually every measure, the scientific claims of the promoters of man-made global warming are failing to stand up to scientific scrutiny. See: Climate Depot Round Up: ‘The great warmist retreat has officially begun. The mainstream media cannot maintain the official man-made global warming narrative any longer' &   CNN Climate Debate! Morano Debates Bill Nye on Piers Morgan  &  Listen Now: Morano Unleashed in One hour UK interview! ‘Do any cursory examination of who is behind this & how this warmist narrative was crafted and you will realize you have been conned by the global warming establishment’

As a result, many high profile scientists continue to dissent or reverse themselves.  See: Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ -- Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: 'We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified'

‘Gaia’ scientist James Lovelock reverses himself: I was ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore! ‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago’              

Climate Depot  has assembled a very small sampling of Obama and Democrats mangling climate science to make cheap political points:

Climate Touchy-Feely: Dem Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2009: ‘Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile’ -- 'We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes'

Obama’s ‘Climate Astrologer’: Fmr Energy Sec. Chu claimed he knows ‘what the future will be 100 years from now’ – Morano response: 'Shouldn't Chu be touting these scary predictions of the year 2100 on a boardwalk with a full deck of Tarot Cards?'

Obama fails climate science in his 2013 State of the Union address — Climate Depot’s point-by-point rebuttal to the President’s global warming claims -- 'Mr. President, acts of Congress, the UN or the EPA cannot alter storms or weather patterns'

Congressional Weather-Makers: ‘Climate Astrologer’ Boxer warns of ‘droughts, floods, fires, loss of species’ — if Senate fails to pass climate bill – July 11, 2009

Dem Sen. Boxer: 2010 failure of cap-and-trade caused ‘hotter days’ and ‘more and more severe storms’

Sen Boxer: Global warming threatens 'the very lives of our grandchildren'

New York Times Columnist Gail Collins goes full medieval witchcraft! Declares ‘a carbon tax/fee is the key to controlling climate change’ — & keeping Arctic ice!

Carbon tax to keep U.S. safe from terrorism?! NYT’s Friedman urges carbon tax to fix America post Boston Terror!

Flashback 2009 NYT’s Paul Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of ‘treason against the planet!’

Gore Unhinged! Loses it on skeptical claims: ‘It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!’ — Climate Depot Responds! -- Climate Depot's Point-By-Point Rebuttal to Gore's Highbrow Scientific Arguments

Sen. John Kerry as Sec. Of State?! Be Afraid, Kerry’s Poor Understanding of Climate Science Poses Threat to U.S. National Security -- Climate Depot's Round up Debunking Global Warming/National Security claims -- Kerry has called Global Warming the Next 9/11 & Has Equated Soviet Nuclear warheads & Iranian Nukes to threat of Global Warming

Sen. John Kerry: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11

2010: Sen. John Kerry: ‘Equates nuclear Armageddon with fluctuations in a natural trace atmospheric gas’

Sen. Kerry: Climate change ‘as dangerous’ as Iran’s nukes; on the growth of climate skepticism: ‘I have to say it’s been a remarkably effective campaign, you can’t sit here and say it hasn’t worked’

‘Just When You Thought Global Warming Couldn’t Get More Stupid, In Walks John Kerry’: ‘Of all the ridiculous arguments in support of climate legislation, national security has to be the most idiotic’

Democrat Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz: ‘Now we can unfortunately rely on our own experience to confirm that the climate, and the weather, is getting worse’ -- 'Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and Congress must act' Senator Schatz claims government policy can improve the weather!

More HERE  (See the original for links)

The most bizarre prediction of global warming doom ever

Thomas Lifson

When apocalyptic religious cults like Warmism fail the reality test, their devotees get desperate and unintentionally start producing self-parodies. The mass slow-mo mental implosion can be hilarious. We have just such an instance involving a group of House Democrats.  The victim mentality is leaping to the rescue for the cause of global warming. Pete Kasperowicz of The Hill reports:

    "Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to "transactional sex" for survival.

    The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.

    "[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health," it says."

Global warming can make you a whore!

My colleague Rick Moran quipped, "What about transactional sex because of the lousy economy?"

This is so stupid it boggles the mind. Barbara Lee, in case you don't know, represents the good people of Berkeley in Congress.



Media Display Ignorance and Bias in Warming Debate

Suzanne Goldberg displayed the establishment media’s inexcusable ignorance and/or willful distortion of the global warming debate in a Thursday ‘news’ article in the prominent UK newspaper The Guardian.

Writing about an effort by the Obama administration to politicize the global warming debate and direct public ridicule at Republicans who are skeptical of alarmist global warming claims, Goldberg describes that effort as one that will “shame members of Congress who deny the science behind climate change.”

Expressing skepticism about alarmist global warming claims and alarmist future predictions by one segment of the scientific population whose prior alarmist claims and alarmist predictions have routinely proven to be false is not “denying the science behind climate change.” Subjecting theories, predictions, and scientific claims to critical scientific scrutiny is the lifeblood of science. Attempting to vilify, stifle, and shut down critical scientific analysis of scientific theories, predictions, and claims is the very definition of anti-science.

Goldberg’s distortion and bias merely grow worse as the article continues. Describing an Obama administration video that attacks Republicans on the topic of global warming, Goldberg writes that the video features Republicans “who are notorious for denying the existence of climate change, or positing bizarre notions about its causes.”

A key point made by global warming ‘skeptics’ is the Earth’s climate is constantly changing. The nature and extent of current climate change must be viewed within the context of the nature and extent of climate change that has occurred for billions of years. To the extent any faction in the global warming debate “denies the existence of climate change,” it is the alarmists who contend that any climate change that may be occurring now must be unprecedented and alarming. It is these alarmists – not skeptics - who deny climate change. Both factions agree the Earth’s climate is currently changing, but alarmists deny the longstanding and ongoing existence of past, present, and future climate change.

Regarding Goldberg’s comment about Republicans “positing bizarre notions about its causes,” she does not identify any examples. How convenient for Goldberg that she does not feel an obligation to factually justify derogatory opinions that she inserts in her ‘news’ columns.


Still Another Low Climate Sensitivity Estimate

As promised, we report here on yet another published estimate of the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity that is towards the low end of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of possibilities.

Recall that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is the amount that the earth’s surface temperature will rise from a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. As such, it is probably the most important factor in determining whether or not we need to “do something” to mitigate future climate change. Lower sensitivity means low urgency, and, if low enough, carbon dioxide emissions confer a net benefit.

And despite common claims that the “science is settled” when it comes to global warming, we are still learning more and more about the earth complex climate system—and the more we learn, the less responsive it seems that the earth’s average temperature is to human carbon dioxide emissions.

The latest study to document a low climate sensitivity is authored by independent scientist Nic Lewis and is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Climate. Lewis’ study is a rather mathematically complicated reanalysis of another earlier mathematically complicated analysis that matches the observed global temperature change to the temperature change produced from a simple climate model with a configurable set of parameters whose actual values are largely unknown but can be assigned in the model simulations.

By varying the values of these parameters in the models and seeing how well the resulting temperature output matches the observations, you can get some idea as to what the real-world value of these parameters are. And the main parameter of interest is the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Lewis’ study also includes additional model years and additional years of observations, including several years from the current global warming “hiatus” (i.e., the lack of a statistically significant rise in global temperature that extends for about 16 years, starting in early 1997).

We actually did something along a similar vein—in English—and published it back in 2002. We found the same thing that Lewis did: substantially reduced warming. We were handsomely rewarded for our efforts by the climategate mafia, who tried to get 1) the paper withdrawn, 2) the editor fired—not just from the journal, but from Auckland University, and 3) my (Michaels) 1979 PhD “reopened” by University of Wisconsin.

Lewis concludes that the median estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.6°C, with a 90% range extending from 1.0°C to 3.0°C. (That’s almost exactly what we found 11 years ago.)

Based on this result, we welcome Lewis (2013) to the growing list of results published in the scientific literature since 2010 which find the climate sensitivity to be on the low side of the IPCC. God knows what the climategaters are emailing today.

No wonder the IPCC is reluctant to lower their best estimate of the actual value of the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity. If they did, they would be admitting that the collection of climate models they have chosen (there is choice involved here) to project the earth’s future climate are, well, how should we put this, wrong!…which would mean that so too is the rate at which the sky is falling, according to the USGCRP and the US EPA.

We, at Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, will continue our efforts to portray the evolving state of climate science and to convince the powers-that-be that national and international assessments upon which EPA regulations are founded (and loony proposals for a carbon tax are based) are fatally flawed. Or as we put it, in our recent (April 12) review of the USGCRP’s draft “National Assessment,” in its current form, “the NCA [National Climate Assessment] will be obsolete on the day of its official release.”

More HERE  (See the original for links, graphics etc.)

The Global Warmists' Last Line Of Defense: The Warming Must Be In The Bermuda Triangle

Where is all the rapidly accelerating global warming that is supposed to be gripping the world?  It’s not in the air. Atmospheric temperature readings show global temperatures have been flat for more than a decade.  It’s not in the upper ocean. Sea surface temperature readings similarly show no recent warming.  It’s not in the polar ice caps. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data show polar ice is currently more extensive than the long-term average.

Global warming activists have finally come up with a last line of defense they know nobody will able to prove wrong: The missing global warming is in the Bermuda Triangle.  No, I am not kidding. This is what they are claiming.

You see, the alarmists have been telling us for decades that rapidly accelerating global warming was imminent and unavoidable. The problem for the alarmists is the warming that has occurred has been modest and decelerating. In fact, it has ground to a complete halt for more than a decade.

So how do Al Gore, Michael Mann and the rest of the global warming Chicken Little’s save face when their promised global warming apocalypse fails to occur? Easy, blame it on the Bermuda Triangle.

“Where did global warming go? The deep ocean, experts say,” claimed NBC News in an April 11 headline.

“Where’s the heat? In the oceans!” USA Today claimed in a headline the same day.

The headlines reflect a prominent global warming activist claiming that he developed a computer model by which global warming can bypass the atmosphere, bypass the upper ocean, and be entirely hidden in the deep ocean; you know, that part of our planet where we really can’t measure or find anything. The missing global warming is apparently hanging out at the underwater space alien base in the heart of the Bermuda Triangle, along with the missing files proving the 9/11 Truthers are right that George W. Bush bombed the World Trade Center, along with the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy files proving that Bill Clinton really did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, and along with the missing film footage proving the seven Apollo astronauts and two Johnson Space Center directors who claim global warming is not a crisis really did stage their moon landings on a vacant lot somewhere in the Arizona desert.

The global warming activists, of course, do their best to make their Bermuda Triangle defense sound scientific. The paper claims all this phantom global warming really can directly bypass the atmosphere and the upper ocean if winds start blowing strangely enough and strongly enough to bury the warming deep in the ocean. Thankfully, we can spare ourselves the dizzying asserted logic of such claims by examining recent global sea surface wind data. As Bermuda Triangle-busting science would have it, NASA satellite instruments show global sea surface wind speeds have declined rather than increased during the past decade

. So much for the Bermuda Triangle….

Nevertheless, it has been quite interesting watching the alarmists go into conniptions imploring us to trust them on this final last line of defense. “No, you can’t objectively verify our claims, but you can’t objectively disprove the Bermuda Triangle either,” the alarmists argue. “Just trust us. And if you do, as a bonus, we’ll show you the secret undersea living quarters of Elvis Presley and Jim Morrison.”


Free market energy policies can end economic malaise

Non-comprehensive, none-of-the-below, Washington-dictated energy policies guarantee decline

 Craig Rucker            

“We can’t have an energy strategy that traps us in the past,” President Obama proclaimed in March 2012. “We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the Twenty-First Century that develops every source of American-made energy.”

At first blush, this sounds like common sense. The US economy and lifestyle “depend on inexpensive and plentiful energy,” the Congressional Research Service noted in a 2005 report, but people tend to forget this until world events cause gasoline prices to spike. Then Washington reacts, CRS continued – passing the Energy Policy Acts of 1992, 2005 and 2007. However, the US still does not have a “comprehensive long-term energy policy” that balances increasing supply with conservation and defines the proper interplay between government and market forces.

Forty years ago, President Nixon announced “Project Independence,” in response to the 1973 oil cutoff by Middle East and other OPEC nations, with the goal of ensuring that “Americans will not have to rely on any source of energy beyond our own.”  His broad-based strategy begat the trans-Alaska pipeline (to get North Slope oil to Lower 48 markets), expanded onshore and offshore oil drilling, an all-of-the-above strategy for electric power generation that brought lignite mining and natural gas into prominence, and a host of conservation measures, including 55-mph speed limits.

President Carter brought very different thinking to Washington – policies that many believe led to declining US oil and gas production and economic “malaise.” President Reagan reversed Carter, but his successors, Congress, courts, environmental activists, regulatory agencies and disparate corporate interests launched American energy policies on a roller coaster ride. This history helps explain why comprehensive long-term energy policies and strategies are less logical and desirable than at first blush.

The term itself suggests policies devised and dictated by Washington, DC politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and pressure groups – many of whom have no real knowledge of or hands-on experience with energy, economics, science, technology, business or job creation.

In too many cases, the policies, strategies, laws, programs and regulations are crafted to promote specific ideologies, benefit companies and organizations with the best lobbyists, and secure tax breaks, subsidies and preferential treatment for political cronies, campaign contributors and politically correct ideas.

“All of the above” too often means all of the above ground and little or nothing below the Earth’s surface: wind, solar, biofuels and wood, for example – but little or no oil, gas, coal or uranium. In fact, more than any other in history, the Obama administration is using its executive powers to delay, obstruct, hyper-regulate, penalize and bankrupt the proven energy that is the foundation of modern living standards.

Similarly, the notion that proven energy strategies “trap us in the past” fails to recognize that “past” energy technologies (oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric) actually provide 94% of the energy that powers America today; are abundant, reliable and affordable; and represent a monumental improvement over the wind, solar, wood, dung and water wheel power that feebly energized mankind for millennia.

Suggesting that we can abandon these vital 94% energy sources – in favor of new variations on antique technologies that Mr. Obama promotes as energy of “the future” – ignores the fact that these politically correct sources are expensive, intermittent, heavily subsidized and wholly dependent on fossil fuels. Moreover, any honest and meaningful cradle-to-grave analysis of wind, solar and biofuel energy reveals that these PC sources are land- and resource-intensive, environmentally damaging, and unsustainable.

The “comprehensive long-term energy policies and strategies” slogan also ignores where the real progress of recent years has been made: in the private sector, especially the petroleum industry, where revolutionary horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies have unlocked centuries of oil and natural gas worldwide. In fact, “fracking” on state and private lands has sent US petroleum production to new heights – even as Washington politics and policies have ensured that production from federally owned and controlled onshore and offshore lands continues to decline.

Hydrocarbon, hydroelectric and nuclear have undeniable problems: oil spills, air and water pollution, radiation and accidents. But laws, regulations, technologies and greater corporate responsibility have greatly reduced their frequency and severity – and errors are quickly and severely punished.

By contrast, human health and environmental impacts associated with wind, solar and biofuel energy are routinely and systematically ignored, and almost never punished. The slaughter of millions of birds and bats annually by US wind turbines is a case in point, and when the impacts are considered in the context of the minimal energy produced via these “renewable” technologies, the damage is especially egregious.

These “alternative” technologies ALSO require perpetual subsidies, taken from hardworking taxpayers and productive sectors of our economy, and given to crony corporatists whose schemes slide repeatedly into bankruptcy. They employ rare earth metals and other raw materials that require vast amounts of fossil fuels, monumental earth removal and widespread land degradation – to build and operate facilities whose energy is so expensive it kills 2-4 jobs for every “green” job created, drives families deeper into poverty, and impairs human health and welfare.

Forty years ago, President Nixon actually sought to develop and utilize “all of the above” energy – every practical source on every list. Today, amid an anemic economy and joblessness far worse than official government figures admit, President Obama balks at approving the Keystone XL pipeline, cancels leasing and drilling on federal lands, tells our budget-sequestered military to buy $26 to $67-per-gallon ship and jet fuel, punishes refineries for not buying cellulosic ethanol that doesn’t exist, and happily lets EPA shut down coal-fired power plants and kill countless thousands of mining, utility and other jobs.

Thoughtful Americans find little comfort in these policies. Twelve million still cannot find work in this moribund, DC-dictated economy. Red-state Democrats like Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mark Begich (D-AK) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) tremble at the prospect of facing voters in 2014. And outrage is properly growing over the massive failures of wind, solar and biofuel startups whose executives (mostly Obama and Democrat campaign angels) skimmed millions of tax dollars for themselves but let their companies go bankrupt and their employees go on unemployment and welfare rolls.

And still President Obama and his minions push for punitive carbon dioxide regulations and carbon taxes, while the European carbon market collapses, EU jobs head to China and India, and thousands die of hypothermia in England. The European emissions trading system is “below junk status,” according to The Economist, and the collapse has been felt as far away as Australia, whose political leaders prepare to reap the whirlwind of carbon taxes that are now 5.5 times higher than in Europe. Is this America’s “future”?

Will ideology continue to trump sanity in the Obama energy and climate policy arenas? The President is putting all his eggs in the basket of “hope” that Democrats will “change” the House leadership and extend their Senate majority in 2014. He has shown little desire to compromise on energy and climate change.

America does not need “comprehensive” energy policies devised and dictated by Washington. It needs policies that unlock our creative genius and allow free enterprise and private sector innovators to operate on a level playing field – one that applies the same reasonable, responsible environmental, endangered species, tax, subsidy and other laws and standards to all companies, investors and energy technologies.

We need simple laws and policies that let our ultimate energy resource (our creative intellect) work – without ideologues, pressure groups and regulators promoting failed, subsidized energy schemes, while continuing to block affordable, dependable energy that actually creates jobs and generates revenues.

Via email



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: