Monday, September 16, 2013

Another national newspaper pisses on global warming

The report from Australia's national newspaper below follows on from yesterday's "Daily Mail" report and is partly based on it

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed "the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux".

The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".

The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet".

After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.

"Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting," it said in a statement.

The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the "summary for policymakers" to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming "pause", with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.

Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.

Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. "Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm," he said.


Weapon of Economic Destruction: The EPA

Are YOU living your life the way King Obama wants you to? He famously said in 2011, "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times…and then just expect every other country is going to say OK.”

Then a couple of months later, when a man asked about high gas prices at a town hall meeting Obama replied, LAUGHING, “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know, you might want to think about a trade-in.”

Fax Congress and tell them to stop the EPA from imposing taxes, fines, rules and regulations on the American people with no input from our legislators!  End the tyranny and control the Liberal agenda!

In 2008 Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe.” At that time, the price in Europe he was aspiring to was around $8/gallon.

If Obama’s rogue Environmental Protection Agency is allowed to continue unchecked, gas prices are going to rise significantly, but they will be the least of our worries when it comes to wrecking our economy and our way of life!

Obama’s EPA has generated 1,920 new regulations and you better believe you will feel their impact in your everyday life and in your bank account!

The EPA, of course, is as corrupt as they come. Former head Lisa Jackson used a fake email address so she could conduct business on the sly, without the public being able to request information under the FOIA (not that the administration is complying with these requests, anyway…it is the LEAST transparent administration in history).

Now, new chief McCarthy is acting in a similar manner and is actually facing a lawsuit by the Competitive Enterprise Institute over text messages she sent as an “alternative” to work-related communications.

A Senate report this week determined that Obama’s EPA has "pursued a path of obfuscation, operating in the shadows, and out of the sunlight.”

The Senate report concluded:

-"EPA’s leadership [has] abandoned the historic model of a specialized public servant who seeks to fairly administer the law and has instead embraced a number of controversial tactics to advance a secretive agenda.”

-"As Congress has raised questions about EPA’s lack of transparency, the agency has steadfastly ignored its constitutional obligation to subject itself to congressional oversight, apparently in an effort to prevent the public from knowing what is going on behind closed doors."

-"In one instance, it appears that EPA deliberately altered the date on a FOIA response to avoid the legal consequences of missing a deadline and then excluded this document from a FOIA production to avoid scrutiny and embarrassment.

-"[O]ur investigation has revealed that multiple high ranking officials have used non-EPA email accounts to conduct official agency business.

Obama’s appointees at the EPA are dodging the truth, furiously working to overhaul our entire culture based on sketchy climate change lies.  This rogue political agency is bringing us a new world order. Congress needs to get on top of this situation, or what do we even need them for? Fax them now!

They are operating in the shadows so American citizens will not know they are handing down draconian regulations, taxes and fines and destroying the economy in the name of junk global warming science.  They are a purely political arm of the Obama administration carrying out his agenda with absolutely no oversight or Congressional direction.

Why are we allowing a government agency to have this much power?

An assault on drilling. Businesses drowning in paperwork. Citizens crushed by taxes. Lost jobs. Yes, Obama believes his “green” energy policy is just what America needs!

Rep. John Barrasso (R-WY) wrote a Wall Street Journal opinion piece noting that “During President Obama’s first term, EPA policies discouraged energy exploration, buried job creators under red tape, and deliberately hid information from the public.”

And, could they be engaging in environmental terrorism?  Barrasso noted that the EPA “has gathered personal information about tens of thousands of livestock farmers and the locations of their operations” which it then shared with environmental groups.

How ridiculous can it get?  The EPA mandates that petroleum companies add 14 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol to gasoline—however, THIS BLEND DOES NOT EXIST outside of a lab.  So the rogue EPA has mandated that unless companies use this NONEXISTENT MATERIAL, they will be fined.  A court upheld a lawsuit on behalf of companies who argued that the reasoning was ridiculous—yet the EPA is ignoring that decision and going ahead and levying fines anyway.

The EPA’s dangerous Renewable Fuel Standards are also coming your way unless Congress gets busy repealing them.  The RFS mandate requires that certain amounts of ethanol be blended with gasoline every year—but our fuel demand is decreasing as ethanol requirements are increasing.

That leaves us with biofuel blends known as E15 that will be so excessive they will damage our engines and void our warranties.  The EPA knows this…but just as they know the cellulosic fuel blends they require are unavailable, they still don’t care. They are not an agency that lets science and reason get in the way of good politics.

The E15 blend can cause serious injury or DEATH! The automobile industry is warning us that our warranties will be voided because our vehicles can’t handle the new blend.

The initial reason for the RFS was to provide an environmentally better alternative to gasoline. However, the Natural Resources Defense Council said three years ago that “What the ethanol industry is actually producing today is causing more climate pollution than gasoline.” Only between 5 and 26 percent of the energy content of ethanol is renewable!

Even ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS are opposing the RFS, arguing that greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production outweigh any benefits we could get from burning less gasoline! The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded that, “The overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel.”

The price at the pump has gone up dramatically, and high corn prices have hurt wheat and soy prices, and also farmers—all while we divert more than HALF of our corn supply into products OTHER THAN FOOD. The New York Times points out that we are producing more and more food for fuel and more people are going hungry.

Where is the Liberal outrage that the world is starving and we need to save humanity? The truth is, the Left doesn’t care about compassion if it doesn’t get them votes! Farming huge amounts of corn to put in our engines instead of into hungry bellies doesn’t warrant a story on the evening news if it doesn’t suit the GREEN, SUSTAINABLE, ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA.

The EPA hands down decrees based on the climate change lie, harming our economy and innovation. On top of that, it is unbalanced by any other branch of government. We just have to take what they give us, unlegislated and without recourse.

Nevermind that Obama has made us a laughingstock around the world, nevermind that four brave Americans died in Benghazi on his watch, nevermind that the IRS is STILL going after conservative groups and veteran organizations, nevermind that the entire country is slowly being dragged into turmoil because of his healthcare overhaul. Nevermind all that. CLIMATE CHANGE is the big idea for this year and the EPA is going to play a huge part in implementing his agenda.

And finally, if you want to help the EPA do its job, DON’T BREATHE. The agency has, after all, declared the dangers of carbon dioxide. At some point, they will tax every breath you take.

Stop the climate change lie. Tell Congress to do their job of legislating and end the EPA’s roundabout reign over the American people!


Another attack on coal

The war on coal continues: The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing plans that would slap a carbon emissions rule on developing power plants. If this sounds familiar, that's because, fearing a legal backlash, the EPA earlier this year nixed a similar plan. You didn't expect that to stop them, did you?

Evidently going to bat for the Obama administration, The Washington Post began its report, "This month, the Environmental Protection Agency will propose standards that will establish stricter pollution limits for gas-fired power plants than coal-fired power plants (emphasis added)." Sounds like the EPA is making concessions to better accommodate the coal industry, right? Not exactly.

The Post continues: "The average U.S. natural gas plant emits 800 to 850 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, and coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds. According to those familiar with the new EPA proposal, the agency will keep the carbon limit for large natural gas plants at 1,000 pounds but relax it slightly for smaller gas plants. The standard for coal plants will be as high as 1,300 or 1,400 pounds per megawatt hour ... but that still means the utilities will have to capture some of the carbon dioxide they emit."

In other words, the EPA is offering a higher ceiling for natural gas plants that on average already produce emissions under the EPA's target of 1,000 pounds. For coal plants, however, the ceiling is significantly lower -- meaning the (intended) pressure is on the coal industry.

"As a practical matter, this means that the new proposal will still stop any new coal-fired power plants for the foreseeable future," observes former EPA employee Jeffrey R. Holmstead. "Given the cost of carbon capture and all the other problems associated with it, any rule that requires [it] will effectively prohibit the construction of new coal-fired plants." But that is Obama's goal, isn't it? Forever destroy the coal industry, the effect on America's economy be damned.


British taxpayer pays for £100,000 showers for sweaty ministers and staff to freshen up after cycling to work at the Department of Energy and Climate Change

The taxpayer has spent more than £100,000 on smart new showers for sweaty ministers and officials to freshen up after cycling to work.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change splashed out on a suite of smart ‘shower rooms’ for staff as part of a £300,000 makeover of its Whitehall building.  It also included almost £70,000 on new kitchens, causing Labour to ask: ‘How many kettles does a minister need?’

As one of the newest departments, created by Gordon Brown in 2008, it already has some of the smartest government offices.

But climate change minister Greg Barker has admitted the department has spent £321,000 in the last two years on ‘smaller refurbishments’.

Almost a third of the bill was for ‘various shower installations to improve facilities for cyclists’, ministers have admitted.

The £104,127 shower rooms were ordered after eco-friendly officials were encouraged to cycle to work last summer to avoid rush hour queues during the London Olympics.

It is thought staff were unhappy at the sight of sweaty cyclists arriving for work at 3 Whitehall Place without having had a shower.

But Labour vice-chairman Michael Dugher, who obtained the figures, told MailOnline: ‘On average people are £1,500 worse off since David Cameron came to power and yet ministers in one department have blown nearly a third of a million pounds on tarting up their facilities.

‘Over £100,000 on new showers for ministers seems shockingly steep,’ the MP for Barnsley East said.  ‘What were they, gold-plated taps? Perhaps I can recommend a plumber from Barnsley who could do the job cheaper than that next time.’

Climate change minister said the refurbishment was needed to address 'wear and tear'

Tory climate change minister Greg Barker said: 'DECC have not undertaken any large scale building refurbishment work in the last 24 months but has carried out smaller refurbishment projects, primarily to redecorate after wear and tear or to increase the capacity and efficiency of the estate.'

A DECC spokesperson said: ‘A number of shower rooms have been created in the Department to respond to the increased number of staff cycling to work.  ‘The costs of creating the shower rooms include flooring, tiling and plumbing of the shower cubicles and each of their adjoining changing areas.’


Britain's  25-year 'green deal' loans that could prevent you selling your house

A flagship policy to help families cut their energy bills is struggling due to fears it could hamper houseowners selling their homes, it was claimed yesterday.

Ministers want millions of people to take out ‘Green Deal’ loans in order to pay for loft insulation, double glazing, boilers and other measures with the aim of cutting a typical family’s energy costs by as much as £50 a month.

The loans would be repaid over a period of up to 25 years, but the debt is attached to the home rather than the family who take it out, which means it is supposed to be passed on to any new buyer.

Experts fear that many people will refuse to buy a property saddled with a long-term loan. As a result, sellers could face demands to clear any outstanding debt, which could also land them with an early repayment penalty charge of up to £6,000.

The Green Deal was launched in January with ministers predicting that 10,000 homes would have energy-saving improvements carried out by the end of the year.

In fact, while 58,124 households have had assessments to see what energy-efficiency measures could be installed, only 132 have signed up.

Steve Playle, who has led consultation on the Green Deal for the nation’s trading standards officers, said: ‘The take-up has been appalling low. I don’t think consumers are prepared to sign a contract for ten or 15 years to pay for a bit of central heating or insulation work.

‘The difficulty that people will have in selling their home is one of my main concerns. If a buyer goes along to someone’s house and there is an eight-year Green Deal plan on it, which means you have to pay £50 a month on it for the next eight years, he is going to want that paid off before he considers going ahead.

‘The idea that this loan is going to be transportable between buyer and seller is perhaps a bit naive.  ‘Would I buy a Green Deal plan? I don’t think I would, no.’

Mr Playle said there are also problems with the initial home assessments, with concerns over charges and the expertise of the assessors.

Some firms have set themselves up as Green Deal brokers, where they take a fee of up to £300 to arrange a home assessment. They then pass the job on to a reputable firm which would normally charge £120 to £150 and then pocket the difference.

Mr Playle said: ‘I have also have a worry about the calibre of the people doing the assessments. I have seen a case in Surrey where four assessors have come up with different results on the same property.’

The Government has allowed firms who want to offer Green Deal assessments and home improvements to ‘cold call’ people at home in order to try and boost take-up.

This has triggered a surge in unwanted nuisance calls. Complaints about these related to energy efficiency now rank only second to PPI, according to the Information Commissioners Office.

Two companies have been fined a total of £170,000 in relation to cold calls about energy efficiency.

These include one run by ‘Big Nev’ Wilshire, who features in the BBC reality programme, the Call Centre.

Energy minister Greg Barker said: ‘This is a 20-year programme we are rolling out here. It is not one of these flash-in-the-pan schemes.’  The Government is putting in more than £200million to fund cash-back incentives to the first families who sign up to the scheme.


Green market pressure takes toll on consumer choice

When environmentalists don’t have the political power to regulate away consumer choice, they sometimes can get industry to do the job for them. Most recently, Proctor and Gamble (P&G) has decided to phase out the chemical triclosan, which has been used in a wide range of soap products to reduce risks from bacteria. P&G’s announcement follows other dumb triclosan phase outs that Colgate Palmolive (2011) and Johnson and Johnson (2012) have already begun.

Interestingly, Colgate is removing triclosan from some products, such as face washes, but keeps it in toothpaste because of its valuable public health properties! They claim to be eliminating other uses because they are not as proven effective.

It may be true that tricolsan isn’t perfect for every product in every application, but the irrational fears generated by the hype lead industry to go overboard and fail to defend their products. They don’t understand that you can’t appease environmentalists, who take an “all-or-nothing” approach, with heavy emphasis on the nothing. The activists will push for complete elimination, without much consideration of the consequences.

There is no good scientific justification for the complete elimination of this valuable product other than hype about risks and alleged impact on antibacterial resistance advanced by environmental activists. As it phases out the product, P&G admits that the chemical isn’t a safety problem. Rather the company’s website notes: “Triclosan slows or stops the growth of bacteria that can cause harm, such as salmonella or E.coli.” But it then continues:

    "Although triclosan is known to be safe, there are ongoing discussions about how effective it is for reducing bacteria compared to regular soap. Due to our limited use of the ingredient, we have decided to eliminate triclosan from our products by 2014."

First they say triclosan is effective, and then “there is a discussion” about its effectiveness, so they will eliminate it in the name of “feeling safe.” Where does the stupidity end?

Triclosan is just one of many products that greens have dubbed “chemicals of concern” with the help of their friends at the Environmental Protection Agency and various state-government bureaucracies. Relying on questionable science and promoting chemophobia, these activists are also attacking bisphenol A, phthalates, flame retardants, formaldehyde, various pesticides, and more. In reality, it is unlikely that such trace chemical exposures cause cancer or disrupt our hormonal systems as the anti-chemical groups suggest.

If consumers have anything to fear, it’s the agenda behind these activist campaigns, which basically promotes a regressive economic philosophy. At risk is consumer choice and freedom, health and safety, and our economic well being as our society dispenses with the life-enhancing fruits of technological innovation.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  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 or here


No comments: