That "100 months" prophecy

In early January 2006 the BBC held a sort of Old Fashioned Revival Hour in which top BBC people got together with top Greenie fanatics and helped prop up one-another's belief that Global Warming was the One True Faith.  You can read about it here.

One little excerpt from the report of what went on there fascinated me:

"Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who argued there were only 100 months left to save the planet"

100 months is 8 years and 4 months and if we count forward from then we arrive at April 2014.  We're nearly there!  But the planet looks much the same as it did in 2006 so it looks like Simms is yet another Warmist false prophet.

But the planet may have a reprieve.  In August 2008 Simms said we still had 100 months at that time!  I wonder what refined calculations went into that revision?

Warmists are such clowns.  Perhaps we should not berate them too heavily.  Laughing at them is a bit like laughing at the disabled.  Their mental fixations certainly disable their reasoning powers (if any).





United Nations climate boss shows her true colors  -- urges totalitarianism

Just another Latin American Fascist.  Comment below by physicist Lubos Motl from the Czech Republic

Bloomberg published a remarkable story yesterday:

The chairwoman of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Ms Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica has concluded that "the political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is very detrimental to the fight against global warming" while "China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S.".

The totalitarian system rocks while democracy sucks!

Well, I am sure that Adolf Hitler's one-party system would be even better for this "lady" than the Chinese one-party system if it were available. At any rate, democracy is the biggest enemy.

I hope that this story will open the eyes of many people who will be lucky to learn about it and who will realize that the actual goal of the climatism is to liquidate democracy, freedom, and prosperity in the world.

Even if you thought that it is a good idea to reduce the CO2 emissions (it's not), Figueres' totalitarian advertisements are indefensible by the struggle to reduce the CO2 emissions because China's CO2 emissions were actually growing significantly more quickly than America's emissions in recent years – and China overtook the U.S. as the world's #1 producer of CO2 six years ago or so (and I am not even talking about the real polution, a real problem, that remains brutal at many places of China).

It's the very ability of the one-party system to neutralize the opposition of any kind that is so intriguing for Ms Figueres and thousands of champions of the climate alarmism. It's what their talk about the "consensus" and the dissatisfaction with the "contrarians" is all about.

The goal of these people is to stop democracy, freedom, and prosperity regardless of the fate of Nature, the temperatures, or the CO2 concentrations.

According to Czech law, the woman is involved in criminal activity because she is promoting movements aiming to suppress human rights, freedom, and democracy which is illegal here (this bill is perhaps a naive attempt not to repeat Nazism or communism that ruled us for 50% of the 20th century). I guess that she is just fine and safe in the New York City where people apparently believe that the main international organization, the U.N., with its top officials urging America to abandon democracy is not a threat.

Just to be sure, Ms Figueres, the "slow" negotiations in the U.S. Congress – known as democracy – are not detrimental at all. They are what keeps the society decent, what allows it to search and find a better solution among at least two, and what protects the society against power-thirsty and intolerant individuals like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and yourself.

The well-being of America is one of the arguments supporting the view that freedom and democracy are precious values that must be defended even if it goes against frantically worshiped pseudosciences such as eugenics, Lysenkoism, the cultural revolution, and the climate alarmism.

Figueres isn't the first climate alarmist who praises the Chinese political system. She was preceded by Thomas Friedmann of the NYT, Nancy Pelosi 1/2, James Hansen, Al Gore, and others.

SOURCE






Annoying greenies on the defense

After decades of controlling America’s energy narrative, on January 5, CBS’s 60 Minutes fired a shot that has put the green lobby on the defensive. The next day, two very different media outlets lobbed blows that could represent a new trend; a change of tone in Washington.

The 60 Minutes piece, featuring correspondent Lesley Stahl, aired, perhaps intentionally, at a time when it may have had the lowest possible viewership, as it aired opposite the NFL playoff game between the Green Bay Packers and the San Francisco 49ers. You may have missed it. But environmental/renewable-energy believers took the hit—and they are pushing back.

Stahl opened “The cleantech crash” with:

“About a decade ago, the smart people who funded the Internet turned their attention to the energy sector, rallying tech engineers to invent ways to get us off fossil fuels, devise powerful solar panels, clean cars, and futuristic batteries. The idea got a catchy name: ‘Cleantech.’ Silicon Valley got Washington excited about it. President Bush was an early supporter, but the federal purse strings truly loosened under President Obama. Hoping to create innovation and jobs, he committed north of a $100 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks to Cleantech. But instead of breakthroughs, the sector suffered a string of expensive tax-funded flops. Suddenly Cleantech was a dirty word.”

Midway through the segment, Stahl states: “Well, Solyndra went through over half a billion dollars before it failed. Then I’m gonna give you a list of other failures: Abound Energy, Beacon Power, Fisker, V.P.G., Range Fuels, Ener1, A123. ECOtality. I’m exhausted.”

Regarding Stahl’s list, Bruce Barcott, “who writes frequently about the outdoors and the environment,” in a rant for OnEarth Magazine about the 60 Minutes segment, asks: “Where was the evidence of cleantech’s crash in the ‘60 Minutes’ report?” He continues: “It seemed to boil down to the fact that Solyndra, Fisker, LG Chem, and five other clean tech companies went bankrupt. All true.”

Perhaps, to Barcott, eight bankrupt companies do not offer enough “evidence” to write green energy’s obit. How much would he need?

If Stahl had read the entire list of Obama-backed taxpayer-funded green-energy projects that have gone bust—let alone those that are circling the drain, she would have truly been fatigued. Together with researcher Christine Lakatos, I’ve been following the foibles for the past eighteen months. Our bankrupt list (updated May 2013) includes 25—17 more than Stahl cited (and there have been new failures since then).

Calling the “cleantech crash” segment a “hit piece,” Barcott claims: “the evidence of success is overwhelming.”

In the National Journal’s daily energy newsletter, “Energy Edge,” Amy Harder agrees with Barcott: “The story did not give much credence to successful renewable-energy ventures or to a major impetus for clean energy, which is global warming (as opposed to just job creation).” She adds: “Nonetheless, the report reminds green-energy advocates that Solyndra’s shadow is not nearly gone.”

For RenewableEnergyWorld.com, Scott Sklar, a DC lobbyist for clean, distributed-energy users and companies using renewable energy, claims: “In reality, clean energy has never looked better.” He called the 60 Minutes segment a “bash fest” and suggested: it “seemed like it was co-written by the Koch Brothers.”

For the National Journal, Ben Geman wrote: “Green-Energy Battle Flares Over ‘60 Minutes’ Report.” He concludes: “The report and the response are the latest thrust and parry over White House backing for green-energy projects that have faced heavy GOP criticism. The Energy Department—which Stahl said declined to grant her an interview—hit back on Sunday night. The department has for years noted that failed or badly struggling companies represent only a very small portion of the overall green-energy loan portfolio. ‘Simply put, 60 Minutes is flat wrong on the facts. The clean-energy economy in America is real, and we are more competitive than ever in this rapidly expanding global industry. This is a race we can, must, and will win,’ spokesman William Gibbons said in a statement.”

Ironically, while the believers busily “hit back,” the news tells a different story.

One of the projects featured by 60 minutes is KiOR—a Columbus, Mississippi, plant that turns wood products into gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil funded in part by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla—has shut down in a “cost-cutting move.” A January 9 report states: “the debate in Washington in changing alternative fuel standards drove down prices so low that the company couldn’t afford to continue production for now until it can get efficiencies to the point where it is producing at least 80 gallons of fuel for every ton of wood.” Even if Khosla’s KiOR is able to improve efficiencies to “80 gallons of fuel for every ton of wood”—which would be about four times the current production—that is still a terrible return. (Incidentally, Khosla started the bankrupt Range Fuels that was mentioned by Lesley Stahl in her brief list of failed “cleantech” programs.)

Robert Rapier, also featured in the 60 Minutes segment—which focused primarily on biofuels—reported on the Department of Energy’s follow up audit for Financial Assistance for Integrated Biorefinery Projects. Among his “results,” Rapier states: “40 percent of the demonstration-scale and commercial-scale projects selected from the FOAs [Funding Opportunity Announcements] were mutually terminated by the DOE and the recipients after expending more than $75 million in taxpayer dollars.” He cites the audit: “Program officials acknowledged the projects selected were not fully ready for commercial-scale operations and that the projects were high-risk. However, they indicated that the EPAct required them to move forward with commercial-scale projects…” Rapier concludes: “I think the lesson here is that political wishes continue to trump scientific realities, and taxpayers are left to pay the bills. … If only our political leaders understood that you can’t mandate technical breakthroughs, even if you require money to be spent trying to do so.”

Hardly the “overwhelming success” 60 Minutes’ detractors proclaim.

Barcott defends use of taxpayer money to support “emerging technologies” and acknowledges that “asking hard questions about if and when we should cut off that support” is, well, “hard.”

All of this “thrust and parry” is taking place during the time Congress is considering retroactively extending various tax breaks for cleantech projects—such as the Production Tax Credit for wind energy that expired on December 31, 2013. Amid the blows fired upon the renewable energy industry this past week, The Chicago Tribune (hardly a defender of right-wing policies) piled on with a January 5 op-ed encouraging “Congress and the White House to stop manipulating the tax code as America’s de facto energy policy: Thorough federal tax reform should sunset this arbitrary favoritism for wind energy and other politically favored industries.”

The other lobs, from CNBC and Fox News, landed on January 6.

CNBC’s Kudlow Report featured a “what happened to global warming” segment in which Larry Kudlow scoffs at the “all wrong” predictions that have now “come unglued.” His guest, Steve Hayward—a visiting professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder—stated: “Global warming is going away” like so many other scares before it. Hayward claimed that environmental crises follow a pattern: “Find a problem and blow it up into a world-ending crisis and demand endless political solutions.” Yucking it up, they laughed at the “sheer comedy of the ship getting stuck in the ice in Antarctica,” calling it “an eco-tourism stunt that backfired badly.”

On Fox Business, Stuart Varney’s “Stuart Says” feature was: “Annoying greenies influence policy that hurts U.S.” In his 2-minute-18-second monologue, Varney suggests that we “respond to this climate change demagoguery with ridicule. Frankly, the global warming crowd now looks ridiculous. People are laughing at them.”

Yes, the “annoying greenies” are on the defense—and, as the Green Bay players on that cold January 5 in Wisconsin knew, you can’t win on the defense.

SOURCE




2,258 Meaningless Search Results

Rebuttal to "2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles"

James Powell continues to demonstrate his computer illiteracy by doing worthless database searches in an intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign. He updated his previous meaningless analysis in continued blissful ignorance that the 'Web of Science' database does not have a "peer-reviewed" only filter and the existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine it's context. Thus, all that can be claimed is there were 2258 meaningless search results not "peer-reviewed climate articles" for a query of the 'Web of Science' database - with 1 chosen by strawman argument.

1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in all the results was never determined.

2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic".

3. The 2258 results cannot be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed only filter.

4. It is a strawman argument that most skeptics deny or reject that man can have an influence on the climate, but rather if there is any cause for alarm.

1. Context matters

The existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine its context. So making any arguments for or against an implied position relating to the use of a phrase by simply looking at numerical result totals is impossible. Powell never determined the context of how the search phrases were used in all the results.

2. Padding the Results

Powell padded his search results total by using the phrases; "global warming" and/or "global climate change" instead of "anthropogenic global warming" [man-made global warming] or "anthropogenic global climate change" [man-made global climate change], which would have significantly reduced the number of returned results. Without the qualifier "anthropogenic", results are included where no claim of explicit endorsement or rejection of ACC/AGW can be made.

Others alarmists have been challenged to search for the phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" using Oreskes (2004) methods and they only got 108 returned results. These low number of results are not useful to sell the type of propaganda alarmists like Powell are looking for.

3. Peer-Reviewed?

In his methods, Powell filtered his results by the 'articles' document type which includes content that may not be peer-reviewed depending on the specific journal,

Document Type Descriptions (Web of Science)

"Article: Reports of research on original works. Includes research papers, features, brief communications, case reports, technical notes, chronology, and full papers that were presented at a symposium or conference."

Categories like these have been the subject of debate and confusion in relation to their peer-review status:

"...three categories of articles have been published: review articles up to 10 000 words, original articles of 2500–5000 words and brief communications of 1000–2000 words. Only the first two categories were subject to peer review and brief communications were being published without this quality check." - Health Information and Libraries Journal

"Because of trends in submissions, Nature's Brief Communications will bow out at the end of the year. [...] False rumours that the section was not peer reviewed have occasionally circulated." - Nature

4. Strawman argument

Actual skeptic arguments include that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA. Skeptics unanimously reject that there is any cause for alarm.

By fabricating a strawman argument claiming he found only 1 author who "rejected man-made global warming", Powell intentionally ignored actual skeptic arguments and failed to count many papers. Including a 14-paper special edition on climate change in the IPCC cited journal, Energy & Environment (June 2013) which included,

Climate Change and Carbon Dioxide: Geological Perspective
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 361-380, June 2013)
- Harry N. A. Priem

Inconsistency of Modeled and Observed Tropical Temperature Trends
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 405-414, June 2013)
- S. Fred Singer

Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change: 2013
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 415-420, June 2013)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Why Scientists are 'Sceptical' About the AGW Concept
(Energy & Environment, Volume 24, Number 3-4, pp. 551-560, June 2013)
- Arthur Rorsch, Peter A. Ziegler

Conclusion

Powell continues in the trend of propaganda started by Oreskes (2004) which is considered useless by world renowned climate experts:

"Analyses like these by people who don't know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes work." - Tom Wigley, Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

He intentionally ignores actual skeptic arguments, which includes the 993-page NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (2013) - supported entirely by the peer-reviewed literature and 1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm.

Instead he hopes his propaganda will be picked up by the media and used by those who are intellectual dishonest and want to be intentionally misleading.

SOURCE  (See the original for links)





The Church of Global Warming



George Bernard Shaw famously said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself." There couldn't be a better description of our president, who proclaimed in Berlin in July 2008: "This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands."

The vice president was not far behind, just as persuasive but less vivid. "I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting," Joe Biden said, outlining the administration's position on global warming; apparently, "Apocalypse Now" is threatening a host of calamities. Although the vice president sounds terminally confused, if he says "I think it is manmade," then there should be no more debate. It is settled. We should take it as gospel and blow trillions of dollars in an effort to save the planet. And according to those two delusional alarmists, this is it. There will not be another moment. Must act now!!!  
       
I am old enough to remember that not so long ago, in the mid-1970s, the world debated "global cooling" with the same intensity and urgency as we are debating global warming today. It was also very urgent and potentially catastrophic although, back then, we needed to save the planet from freezing. The cover of the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek proclaimed "The Coming Ice Age." In the article "The Cooling World," the magazine suggested that, among other disasters, cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production." In the June 24, 1974 issue of Time magazine, the article "Another Ice Age" painted a bleak picture for the future of our planet. These same publications now advocate global warming.  
     
I recently raised this argument with a renowned defender of global warming. His response was that science is a lot better today than it was forty years ago. "Does that mean science was wrong in predicting a new ice age?" I asked him sarcastically. I got my answer when he did not respond: It really does not matter what science says; we simply must believe in global warming. This and other discussions with the supporters of global warming convinced me of the futility of citing scientific and historical records to initiate an intellectually honest dialogue. I also became aware that these people would never relinquish their convictions and will continue to find arguments to justify them-even if these new arguments are diametrically opposed to those they previously espoused.  
       
Since Galileo's time, ideology has been trying to overtake science; and it often has. It may just be human nature to want to acquire wisdom from prophets rather than bother with facts and scientific analysis. I finally realized that the struggle over global warming had become a religion and the three elephants from the ancient Hindu myths holding the earth are coming back.

It teaches us that Mother Earth may soon crack under the weight of our environmental sins, but the three elephants of Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden will keep the Earth from sinking into the abyss if we just follow them and don't ask questions.  
       
And so, the Church of Global Warming was formed. As with any religion, it has spawned extremists demanding an Inquisition. The Inquisition is headed by former Representative Patrick Kennedy, who once announced that anybody who does not believe in global warming is a traitor and should be treated as such. As we all know, religious fanatics usually demand full and complete obedience from their followers. The followers, in turn, must demonstrate that they are "more Catholic than the Pope." As a result, stupid things are proclaimed true and billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on absurd projects.

The importance of the theology of global warming for the president's strategy of re-engineering America cannot be underestimated. Global warming justifies unlimited expenditure, strangles oil and gas production, practically stops coal mining, and puts power generation under tight government control. It also puts a lot of money into the hands of Obama supporters. People like Al Gore, who are managing exchanges of greenhouse gas emissions, stand to make an enormous amount of money, literally out of thin air, by underwriting the sale of "carbon credits" that industries, utilities, and other entities must purchase for the "right" to operate facilities that produce industrial emissions. In addition, the containment of global warming justifies support for the alternative energy industry that cannot exist without government subsidies.    

Much more HERE



We're going all out for fracking, vows British PM

As MPs complained that plans to incentivise communities with a share of the profits of shale gas ‘do not go far enough’, the Prime Minister yesterday pledged that Britain would go ‘all out’ for shale gas.

But in a stark warning, every MP in Lancashire and council leaders in the North West have written a joint letter to warn Mr Cameron that ‘opposition is hardening’ to fracking.

The MPs, led by Ben Wallace, a ministerial aide to Ken Clarke, say they will not back shale gas exploration unless the Government gives communities more money.

And they warn Mr Cameron he will be throwing away a ‘once-in-a-generation opportunity’ to close the North-South divide unless he acts now.

Crucially, the letter has also been signed by five council leaders, who are in charge of deciding whether to allow fracking in their areas. Plans outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday mean local councils can pocket 100 per cent of the business rates collected from fracking firms – double the previous amount – plus £100,000 for every well drilled.

But local communities will get only 1 per cent of the total profits from shale gas exploration – compared with the 10 per cent demanded by the Local Government Association (LGA), while the Government will pocket 62 per cent in taxes.

Mr Cameron, who yesterday toured a drilling site near Gainsborough, Lancashire, said: ‘We’re going all out for shale. It is important for our country, it could bring 74,000 jobs, over £3billion in investment, give us cheaper energy for the future, and increase our energy security. I want us to get on board.’

But Sir Merrick Cockell, chairman of the LGA, dismissed the proposed community contributions as a  ‘token offer’.  He said: ‘This is not happening in the North Sea. This is happening in and around local people and local communities, and they have got to get  their fair share.’

But Lawrence Carter, of Greenpeace, said: ‘This is a naked attempt by the Government to bribe hard-pressed councils into accepting fracking in their area.’

Meanwhile, protests continued last night at the site of a shale gas well near Manchester.  For nearly two months, campaigners have tried to stop drilling at Barton Moss, where an exploratory well is being sunk beside the M62.

Yesterday six campaigners were arrested for obstruction, bringing the total number of arrests to more than 50. The cost of the policing operation so far is more than £330,000.

SOURCE

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

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

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