The Warmist fraud gets ever more bald-faced -- "Hottest year" bulldust is totally unscientific

See the report below from -- where else? -- The Guardian.  I remember The Guardian from the days when it was The Manchester Guardian -- and it hasn't improved.  It is still a purveyor of Leftist deception.

The Japan Meteorological Organization was, I think, the first off the blocks with the claim that 2014 was the world's hottest year -- and skeptics were quick and vociferous in pointing out the holes in that claim.  But NOAA and NASA have learnt nothing. They can't afford to.  If they acknowledged the points skeptics make they would be acknowledging the fragility of their whole Warmist edifice.

A lot of skeptics have been fired up by this latest example of malfeasance and some may already have rebuttals up and running online.  But basically, you need to know only one thing:  That the differences the Warmists are prattling about are so minute as to be statistically non-significant.  Statistical significance is the MINIMUM condition for a difference to have any significance in a larger sense.  When a difference is not statistically significant, it is the sort of difference that arises by chance alone. So there is no basis to say that the difference concerned is anything but random.

And all scientists know that.  It is a basic axiom of science. And the temperature differences recorded for the last 18 years or more have been so minute -- measured in hundredths of one degree Celsius -- that they are crashingly non-significant statistically.  So anybody who parades the temperature differences observed as showing anything is simply not a scientist  He is a crook.  It is rather sad that big organizations heavily remunerated by taxpayer funds are run by crooks but that is the plain truth of the matter. The only scientifically defensible conclusion from the given data is that the temperature has remained unchanged for 18 years.

You can read the actual NASA/GISS press release here.  Nobody is misquoting them. They have nailed their pirate colors to the mast


The numbers are in. The year 2014 – after shattering temperature records that had stood for hundreds of years across virtually all of Europe, and roasting parts of South America, China and Russia – was the hottest on record, with global temperatures 1.24F (0.69C) higher than the 20th-century average, US government scientists said on Friday.

A day after international researchers warned that human activities had pushed the planet to the brink, new evidence of climate change arrived. The world was the hottest it has been since systematic records began in 1880, especially on the oceans, which the agency confirmed were the driver of 2014’s temperature rise.

The global average temperatures over land and sea surface for the year were 1.24F (0.69C) above the 20th-century average, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) reported. Nasa, which calculates temperatures slightly differently, put 2014’s average temperature at 14.67C – 0.68C above the average – for the period 1951-80.

The scientists said 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than the previous records set in 2005 and 2010, and the 38th consecutive year of above-average temperatures.  [NOTE:  0.04C is four HUNDREDTHS of one degree.  We are debating here how many angels can dance on the head of a pin]

That means nobody born since 1976 has experienced a colder-than-average year.

More crap HERE





"There is less than a 1-in-27 million chance that Earth's record hot streak is natural"

The above heading and the excerpt below is another response to the latest NOAA and NASA/GISS announcements.  As such it is false.  There is no hot streak, only a temperature plateau. Statistician Briggs, however, goes to great lengths  to probe the logic behind the claim -- and finds it wanting. He shows that the figure is derived only from the faulty models used by Warmists, not from the actual temperature data.  That two wildly different odds are mentioned below should alert us to the fact that we are dealing with fantasy, not fact

Nine of the ten warmest years have occurred since the year 2000, with 13 of the 15 hottest years on record globally all occurring during just the past 15 years, based on NOAA data.

The odds of this happening by chance — that is, rather than due to a combination of manmade pollution and natural climate variability — are less than 1-in-27 million, according to the climate research and journalism group Climate Central. Without global warming, one would expect warm and cold years to occur randomly over that period.

A separate analysis from the University of South Carolina and cited by the Associated Press found that the odds that nine out of the 10 warmest years would occur in the past decade by chance alone are about 650 million to 1.

SOURCE





NASA Keeps Telling "Warmest" Lies

By Alan Caruba

On January 16 The New York Times reported the lies NASA keeps telling about global warming with an article titled “2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics.”  We have reached the point where neither a famed government agency nor a famed daily newspaper can be believed simply because both are lying to advance the greatest hoax of the modern era.

Remember that 2014 started off with something called a “polar vortex” to describe the incredibly cold weather being experienced and remember, too, that we were being told that it was evidence of global warming! That’s how stupid the “Warmists” who keep saying such things think we are.

The Earth is in the 19th year of a natural cooling cycle based on the reduced radiation of the Sun which is in its own natural cycle. It hasn’t been getting warmer and most people who give it any thought at all know the truth of that.

Enough people have concluded this that, according to a recent CNN poll, more than half, 57%, say that global warming is not a global threat. In addition, the poll revealed that only 50% of Americans believe the alleged global warming is not caused by man-made emissions, while 23% believe it is the result of natural changes, and 26% believe global warming is not a proven fact.

That’s progress. No youngster under the age of 19 has ever experienced a single day of global warming. No computer model that ever predicted it has been accurate. Neither the Pope nor the President, nor any other world leader who repeats the global warming claim is correct.

The latest claim came from NASA and, as I continue to remind readers, it is a government agency whose budget depends on parroting the lies the President keeps telling about global warming.

Astrophysicist, Dr. David Whitehouse, said “The NASA press release is highly misleading…talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.”  He was joined by climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer who said “We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree.”

Do you believe that a hundredth of a degree makes a difference? Well, it does if you are a government agency desperately trying to keep the global warming hoax alive. Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels asked “Is 58.46 degrees distinguishable from 58.45 degrees? In a word, NO.”

Marc Morano, the editor of CFACT’s ClimateDepot.com, said, “There are dueling global datasets—surface temperature records and satellite records—and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year-plus global warming standstill and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records.” As for the NASA claim, Morano dismissed it as “simply a political statement not based on temperature gauges.” Morano, a former member of the staff of the U.S. Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee, is working on an upcoming documentary “Climate Hustle.”

How does this affect you? The lie that carbon dioxide and methane emissions, dubbed “greenhouse gases”, are causing global warming is the basis for the Obama administration’s attack on the nation’s energy sector and, in particular, the provision of electricity by coal-fired plants. In the past six years many of these plants have been shut down or will be. The result is less electricity and higher prices for electricity. The other result is an attack on the oil and natural gas industry that drill to access these resources.  There is not a scintilla of truth to justify what is being done to Americans in the name of global warming.

There is yet another result and that is the loss of jobs in the energy sector and the reduction in revenue to the nation and states it represents. The nation’s economy overall has been in sluggish state which the word “growth” doesn’t even begin to describe. That hurts everyone.

Most of us don’t have a lot of time to get up to speed and stay there regarding the facts surrounding global warming or climate change. An excellent source of information is the Environment & Climate News, a monthly publication by The Heartland Institute, a thirty year old non-profit free market think tank that will sponsor its tenth annual International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. in June.

NASA has been allowed to degrade to the point where the agency that sent men to the Moon no longer has the capacity to even transport them to Mir, the space station built by the Russians. We have gone from the world’s leader in space exploration to an agency that has been turned into a propaganda machine asserting that a hundredth of a degree “proves” that global warming is happening.

The U.S. and the rest of the world are setting records, but they are records for how cold it has become everywhere. There was snow recently in Saudi Arabia from a storm that swept across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan. Does that sound like global warming to you? For an excellent source of information on the cooling of the planet, visit http://iceagenow.info.

You have an obligation to yourself, your family, friends and co-workers to not just know the truth but to denounce entities like NASA, the EPA, and The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, and others that keep repeating the lies about global warming.

SOURCE




Wind energy’s bluster peters out

By Marita Noon

windmill shredding moneyTouted as “America’s first offshore wind project,” Cape Wind became one of America’s most high-profile and most controversial wind-energy projects. Fourteen years in the making, estimated at $2.6 billion for 130 turbines, covering 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project has yet to install one turbine—let alone produce any electricity. Now, it may be “dead in the water.”

On January 6, the two power companies, National Grid and Northeast Utilities, that had agreed to purchase most of the electricity Cape Wind was to generate, terminated their contracts with the developers due to missed milestones. Under the terms of the contracts, Cape Wind had to secure financing and give notices to proceed to its suppliers to start work by December 31, 2014. Neither happened and both companies filed to cancel power purchase agreements. “The project is in cardiac arrest,” according to Amy Grace, a wind-industry analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Cape Wind has faced stiff opposition since it was first proposed in 2001. Senator Edward Kennedy’s efforts, and those of his wealthy friends, to fight Cape Wind have been the most publicized, but Native Americans, fishermen, and local communities have also battled the industrialization of Nantucket Sound. The town of Barnstable has been particularly active in the fight. The Cape Cod Times reports that Charles McLaughlin, Barnstable’s assistant town attorney, said: “The town’s concerns include the possibility that a collision between a boat and the large electric service platform the project requires could spill thousands of gallons of oil into the sound.”

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) positioned Cape Wind as the centerpiece of his renewable energy goals and invested significant political capital backing the proposal—including tying the NStar power purchase agreement to approval of the NStar and Northeast Utilities merger (given the unfavorable terms of the agreements, the companies may have been looking for any exit ramp). Yet, Ian Bowles, Patrick’s first energy and environment chief who, according to the Boston Globe, “helped shepherd the offshore project,” acknowledges that the loss of the power purchase agreements “may have spelled the end for Cape Wind.”

The announcement came two days before Patrick left office. While he claims: “We’ve done everything as a state government to get them over the regulatory lines,” Patrick concedes it is now “up to the market.” According to the Cape Cod Times, the former governor doesn’t know “if the project could survive without the contracts in place.”

Even the Department of Energy (DOE), which seems to indiscriminately throw money at any politically favored green-energy project, was tepid in its support for Cape Wind. DOE’s loan guarantees generally average about 60 percent of the project’s costs, but the $150 million offered to Cape Wind made up a mere 6 percent—and that, only after the project received commitments for about half of its financing. In most cases, the government guarantee comes before the private financing and signals a go-ahead for investors.

While both supporters and detractors believe the project is in jeopardy, environmentalists and Cape Wind Associates LLC have not yet waved the white flag. According to Kit Kennedy, director of the energy and transportation program at the Natural Resources Defense Council: “Cape Wind may be down, but it is not out.” The Boston Globe reports that Cape Wind’s president, James Gordon, believes the perpetual litigation “triggered a clause in the contracts that allows for more latitude in Cape Wind’s ability to meet the deadlines.” However, after the company already spent $50 to $70 million on the project, the fact that Gordon opted not to pay the utilities the mere $2 million needed for a six-month extension signals that he doesn’t have confidence that they can continue.

Additionally, the political winds have shifted. While Governor Patrick championed Cape Wind, Massachusetts’ new governor, Charlie Baker (R) is on record as being staunchly opposed to it—even calling it Patrick’s “personal pet project.” While campaigning, Baker “dropped his opposition to Cape Wind” because he believed it was a “done deal.” Now that the deal may well be undone, Baker says he “will not try to influence the outcome of the legal process surrounding the Cape Wind project.”

The cancellation of the contracts is “a near fatal blow” to Cape Wind according to Audra Parker, president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a Cape Cod based group which has led the fight against cape wind.

Wind energy’s future faces problems beyond Massachusetts.

While Massachusetts’ utility companies filed to cancel power purchase agreements, two Minnesota wind farms, operating as Minwind Companies, were filed for bankruptcy because the eleven turbines needed extensive repairs and the 360 farmers and landowners who invested in the projects can’t afford the maintenance. Minwind CEO Mark Willers explained: “Minwind Companies have enjoyed relative prosperity in recent years, but the April ice storm last year took a toll on equipment—and on the budget.” At a December 17 meeting, he told shareholders: “We were 200 to 300 percent over budget to make those repairs.”

Minwind’s nine separate limited-liability companies allowed investors to take advantage of federal wind-energy credits, USDA grants, and the now-discontinued state assistance program for small wind projects. The Star Tribune reports: “The owners stand to lose their investment, and the wind farms eventually may have to shut down.”

On the national level, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has continued to lobby for a retroactive extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy that expired at the end of 2013. Disappointing AWEA, the lame-duck Congress did approve a ninth extension—but just through the end of 2014. AWEA’s CEO Tim Kiernan groused: “Unfortunately, the extension to the end of 2014 will only allow minimal new wind development and it will have expired again by the time the new Congress convenes.” In response to the “bare-minimum extension,” Luke Lewandowsi, Make Consulting research manager, said it “casts doubt on the willingness or ability of Congress to revisit the PTC in 2015.”

Adding insult to industrial wind’s injury, wind turbine installation placed number three in the list of 10 dying U.S. industries—following only computer and recordable media manufacturing.

All of this news doesn’t bode well for the wind energy business, but for ratepayers and those who believe in the free market and who believe that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers, current wind conditions are a breath of fresh air. Governments, both state and federal, have given wind energy every advantage, to quote Governor Patrick: “It’s now up to the market”—and even Warren Buffet admits the tax credits are the only reason to build wind farms.

SOURCE




   
A Bolt of Enlightening

One might think that with the phenomenal “success” of the Chevrolet Volt gas-electric car – for the record, that’s sarcasm – we wouldn’t see another General Motors (GM) foray into the quicksand of failed eco-car ventures for quite some time. Unfortunately, in the Kafka-esque world wrought by Barack Obama, one would be wrong.

The perverse system of incentives and penalties set up by the economic rubes within the current regime is simply too strong for automakers to ignore. Witness GM’s buffoonerific redux of its electric Edsel, the Volt, recast with a new, totally-thinking-out-of-the-box name, the … … “Bolt.” Yeah. That’s what we thought, too.

To be sure, the Bolt promises to deliver a 200-mile-per-charge range, considerably better than the anemic 38-mile range of its impotent older brother. But at a time when gas prices have plummeted, putting another government-subsidized (to the tune of $7,500 per vehicle) eco-pipedream on the road doesn’t seem to make sense – or does it? We’ve lamented on numerous occasions this administration’s willful disregard of economic reality in lieu of Pollyanna visions of zero-fuel-emission tomorrows and social-engineering agendas. This mindset is what brought GM to its knees before Obama’s $10 billion auto industry bailout, resulting in its cynical renaming by the public as “Government Motors.” But it gets worse: This delusion is also the reason domestic auto companies like GM produce things like the Volt and its progeny in the first place.

Let’s review: The reason GM created the Volt was to help reach absurd federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles sold in the U.S. Team Audacity, leveraging its recycled “save-the-planet” politics, then upped the ante, mandating a thermodynamic-law-defying 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) fleet average. (That number is based on zero scientific or engineering support, according to an in-depth congressional investigation on the subject.) The full force and effect of that mandate is conveniently set to trigger in 2017, after the man inflicting that damage has conveniently jumped ship from the smoldering remains of the executive branch. He and his cronies can then point fingers at follow-on administration officials for having abandoned such “worthy” – and utterly unreachable – goals.

Meanwhile, automakers earn “credits” to offset this other-worldly mpg target to the extent they produce electric vehicles (EVs) that lower overall mpg values per manufacturer. Hence, the Dolt – er, Bolt EV. Markets will respond to incentives, no matter how skewed the outcomes or how loaded the dice. In this case, those dice have been loaded by central planners promising a “better tomorrow” – the same ones who somehow always manage to escape accountability for yesterday’s abject failures or today’s stark realities.

Setting aside the abysmal failure of the Volt and its ilk, the more fundamental, chronic, systemic failure is that of this administration to acknowledge the reality of Economics 101. Witness, for example, that while Obama postured and preened even as he bad-mouthed Republicans' “drill, baby, drill” game plan, gas prices roughly halved overnight thanks to drilling. His response? Why, taking credit for the incredible drop, of course!

“America is the number one producer of oil, the number one producer of gas,” Obama boasted. “That’s helping to save drivers about $1.10 a gallon at the pump over this time last year.”

Never mind that oil production on government-controlled land dropped 16% since 2009, or that private production increased 61% over the same period – facts are irrelevant when you have a great smile, after all. No, the “important” takeaway was that the Obama administration brought cheaper gas prices to the pump through its standard acts of miracle-working and hand-waving.

Notwithstanding these charlatans, in a better world, the free market itself would establish how many SUVs, sport cars, EVs and the like would compose the U.S. auto market, and what the value of each auto would be. Unfortunately, we do not yet live in such a world, and will not until at least 2017. In any case, as long as the American public can be snowed by such thinly cloaked, self-serving political posers as Obama, we will continue to get what we deserve: Talking heads instead of true leaders.

SOURCE





Australia: The no-compromise Greenies

Wilderness areas must not be made accessible to visitors

THE Tasmanian government is on course to "trash" the state's wilderness world heritage area if proposed tourist development goes ahead in the region, former Greens leader Bob Brown says.

"TASMANIA'S unique status in having the only world heritage area on Earth actually labelled 'wilderness' should be thrown out if this selfish land-grab goes ahead," Dr Brown said in a statement on Sunday.  "This will trash decades of community commitment to Tasmania's wilderness pre-eminence.  "The brigade backing the government ... has dollar signs in its eyes."

The comments come as the Hodgman government is said to be pushing ahead with moves to allow tourist development in the previously off-limits World Heritage wilderness.

Large swathes of the 1.58 million hectare Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area will reportedly be opened to development under a new draft management plan released last week.

The tourism industry is backing the changes, but conservationists say the plan has the potential to allow damaging large projects.

Dr Brown said the area would have to change its name if the plan went ahead.

"Wilderness fame, more than anything, is the factor raising Tasmania's visitor numbers and tourism jobs by 10 per cent per annum," Dr Brown said.  "Let our beautiful island at least retain its integrity. It could be renamed the Tasmanian Once-Was-Wilderness World Heritage Area."

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

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