A few laughs about the recent Warmist propaganda film
(Judith Curry has a wide-ranging demolition of the movie)
@RogerPielkeJr tweeted: "Merchants of Doubt in a nutshell: How a 90 yr-old man and a few dead friends fool the stupid American public. End of civilization results."
Jim Lakely adds:
Just in case anyone was wondering, Merchants of Doubt supposedly opened Friday at the Bethesda Row Cinema. You can hardly get a more sympathetic audience than Bethesda, Maryland. The film is no longer in the theater. See here
Merchants of Doubt also premiered March 6 at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema in New York's Upper West Side, the “cultural, intellectual hub” of the city. It, too, is no longer playing there. See here
Who knows? Maybe it will pick up steam when it gets to the video-on-demand market. But right now it’s looking like the “Heaven’s Gate” or “Gigli” of global warming propaganda mockumentaries.
Joe Bast comments:
…but Chicago Tribune gives it four stars (and never mentions its native sons… thanks a lot!) The review is behind a paywall, so it probably won’t do a lot of harm.
Gore says climate-change deniers should pay political price
Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting “accepted science.”
Gore said smart investors are moving away from companies tied to fossil fuels and toward companies investing in alternative energy.
"We need to put a price on carbon to accelerate these market trends,” Gore said, referring to a proposed federal cap-and-trade system that would penalize companies that exceeded their carbon-emission limits. “And in order to do that, we need to put a price on denial in politics."
SXSW Interactive brings together designers, developers, investors, entrepreneurs and politicians for several days of talk about technology, innovation and the future. The massive annual festival also includes film and music portions.
Gore, who has made climate change an overriding theme since he lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election, made no mention of his political future. He took several questions from Twitter after his talk. None asked whether he was considering another run for the White House.
He said he hoped his third SXSW appearance would help promote the fight against climate change and to help put pressure on those who say it’s not a problem.
“We have this denial industry cranked up constantly,” Gore said. “In addition to 99 percent of the scientists and all the professional scientific organizations, now Mother Nature is weighing in.”
He led a presentation on major weather events that he said could be attributed to human activity. He linked troubles in the Middle East at least partially to climate change, saying that drought drove more than a million Syrian refugees into cities already crowded with refugees from the Iraq war.
At one point, Gore’s presentation showed a slide of Pope Francis. “How about this Pope?” Gore said.
Cardinal Peter Turkson, a Vatican official who helped draft the Pope’s anticipated encyclical on the environment, said recently that the planet was getting warmer and that Christians needed to address the problem. Gore said he looks forward to release of the Pope’s document, expected in June or July.
“I’m not a Catholic,” Gore said, “but I could be persuaded to become one.”
Access to Mid-Atlantic Energy Resources Advances Long-term Energy Security
At the end of January, the Obama administration announced the next step in a long process that could result in the exploration and ultimate extraction of oil-and-gas resources of the U.S. mid-Atlantic—something the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Governors Coalition supports. On March 30, the 60-day comment period ends. If everything goes well, we could see new American resources on the market in twenty years.
With the current oil abundance, it may seem like an odd time to be going after more. However, the legal wheels that could allow limited access to the vast, untapped oil resources move very slowly. Today’s market conditions will fluctuate between now and 2035 when the global demand for energy is expected to spike. Not to mention the increasingly volatile situation in the Middle East, where new coalitions are already being formed: Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—just to name two. If one more beheading takes place or a bomb hits the right (or wrong) target, the region could erupt, and the entire energy dynamic would change. Considering the variables, American energy security is always something worth pursuing.
The planning for the 2017-2022 OCS leasing program (5Y OCS) began June 2014, when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a request for information and comments. Then, in January, it published the Draft Proposed Plan; the Final Proposed Plan is anticipated in early 2017. 5Y OCS proposes just one mid-Atlantic lease sale six years from now—and even its future is precarious. The mid-Atlantic currently has no leases in federal waters.
Explaining the process, Offshore magazine writes: “The OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a five-year program that includes a schedule of potential oil and gas lease sales and indicates the size, timing and location of proposed leasing activity as determined to best meet national energy needs, while addressing a range of economic, environmental and social considerations.”
The BOEM estimates that the entire U.S. OCS holds approximately 90 billion barrels of oil and more than 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which are technically recoverable. Based on 30- to 40-year-old data, it estimates that the mid-Atlantic OCS may contain approximately 8-9 billion barrels of oil equivalent—which at current consumption rates would be enough to meet South Carolina’s needs for 67 years. New seismic and other geological and geophysical surveys are needed. Modern practices and technologies will provide a more comprehensive view that will help make informed decisions on using the resources.
While the proposal for possible mid-Atlantic development faces opposition from environmental lobbyists, who call it a gift to oil-and-gas interests and an anchor to the “dirty fossil fuels of the past,” it enjoys a favorable political climate in the affected coastal states, where polls show citizens support offshore drilling.
When the January announcement came out, North Carolina’s Republican Governor Pat McCory, chairman of the OCS Governors Coalition, applauded the proposal: “Responsible exploration and development of oil and gas reserves off our coast would create thousands of good paying jobs, spur activity in a host of associated industries, generate billions of dollars in tax revenue and move America closer to energy independence.” Even Virginia’s Democrat senators say the proposal is a “significant step … that should result in safe, responsible development of energy resources off the Virginia and mid-Atlantic coasts.”
Both the senators and governors want to see legislation passed that would provide for the same type of revenue-sharing system currently applied to the Gulf States to compensate local communities for additional infrastructure, environmental protection, and other coastal management needs generated by the new economic activity. If Congress allows revenue sharing, Brydon Ross, Southeast director of the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), predicts that it “could generate more than $10 billion in revenue combined for critical public budget infusions without taxpayer dollars.”
Unfortunately, even though the draft proposal includes it and lawmakers and citizens in the impacted states support it, future mid-Atlantic resource development is not a sure thing. The Washington Post (WP) calls the plan: “politically fraught.”
“This is a political plan,” Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, stated, “not a plan based on science and resource data”—though he acknowledged it “is a small step in the right direction.” Luthi added: “Our members are encouraged by the decision to further analyze the mid- and south-Atlantic areas, which have not been included in a leasing program for over two generations.”
5Y OCS is still in the early stages. Addressing the ongoing process, Jeremy Kennedy, an attorney who focuses on domestic- and international-energy transactions, explains: “Each of the steps … will winnow the scope of the 2017-2022 leasing program.” The WP reports: BOEM “could decide to narrow—but not expand—the proposed leasing area before it is finalized.”
Kennedy sees that “little is certain at this time.” After all, the Obama administration has killed previous potential lease sales. “Once published,” he states, “planned lease sales can always be cancelled or delayed by the Interior Department, president or Congress.”
Will the U.S. pursue development of our own offshore oil-and-natural gas resources in the Atlantic, as Canada, Cuba, the Bahamas, and South American Atlantic-coast countries do? No one really knows—but it is something we should do.
Supporters of American energy security need to get involved in the “political process” by making our voices heard. Add your public comment before the March 30 deadline.
British Liberal backs Leftist climate change campaign
Leftism wipes out your critical faculties
Pension and insurance funds should consider urgent divestment from “very risky” coal assets and then gradually retreat from oil and gas, Ed Davey, the UK energy and climate change secretary, has warned.
Throwing his weight behind the Guardian’s “Keep it in the ground” campaign, he said a recent analysis which suggested 82% of coal reserves must remain untouched if temperature increases are to be kept below 2C – the widely accepted threshold for dangerous climate change – was “realistic”.
Davey said it was not up to an energy minister to tell fund managers how to run their businesses, but added that it was vital to introduce regulatory transparency that would drive investors from fossil fuels to renewables.
“If you invest in a lot of coal assets you may be over-exposed but it is up to you to make that decision and for government to ensure the information is available. The 82%... is quite a number. It seems to me to be relatively realistic,” he argued.
“We are going to need a lot of oil and gas over the next two or three decades but increasingly over time I think these oil and gas assets will look risky as the world makes climate change treaties, as it will do, as carbon pricing becomes more ubiquitous and companies cut down on fossil fuel use far, far quicker than you expect and therefore this argument is really, really significant.”
On Monday, the Guardian launched a campaign asking the two largest charitable foundations in the world – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust – to move their investments out of fossil fuel companies. More than 72,000 people have signed the petition calling for the foundations to divest.
Introducing the campaign, editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger wrote: “This [campaign] will almost certainly be won in time: the physics is unarguable. But we are launching our campaign today in the firm belief that it will force the issue now into the boardrooms and inboxes of people who have billions of dollars at their disposal.”
Davey wrote in a comment piece, “I’m strongly backing the Guardian’s campaign to raise the profile of the divestment debate ahead of the December climate change negotiations in Paris.”
His support comes amid signs that British pension funds, banks and insurance companies have not changed their behaviour since a major report warned last year they were much more financially exposed than their European counterparts to overvalued or “stranded” fossil fuels.....
A succinct comment from an Oregonian
So we have voted to adopt the politically correct move to reduce the energy content of our fuel.
Suppose we reduce the energy of our fuel by 10 percent, which will increase the price. It will also take approximately 10 percent more gallons to reach our destination, so we have a net gain of about zero, except we have voted to give away more money.
It's a typical governmental solution to a probably non-existent problem.
There is plenty of room for politically incorrect opinion on the global warming issue anyway. Global temperature measurements have remained static for about 17 years. Most experts (?) for global warming work for the government or for colleges with government grants. Those who did not agree are no longer employed.
Hot spots and cold spots migrate around and if you want to prove global warming, you measure the hot spots and ignore ice building up in the Arctic. Some scientists say we are approaching the long leg of our lopsided orbit and cooling can be expected.
Obviously, our treaty maker doesn't think danger is imminent or he wouldn't give China 16 more years to continue building coal-fired plants while we plan to destroy our ability to compete immediately.
IPCC scientists fail again to justify global warming alarm
The beguiling simplicity of the first sentence of an article in last week’s Dominion Post by Wratt, Reisinger & Renwick (WRR) about the IPCC’s view of climate change masks deep ambiguity and confusion about what precisely the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) hypothesis is all about.
In that sentence WRR say that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and human influence on the climate system is clear.”
The statement that warming of the climate system is unequivocal is disingenuous and ambiguous in equal measure, because whether the statement is true or not depends entirely on the time period considered.
For instance, mild global warming occurred between the end of the Little Ice Age (say 1860) and now, and also between 1979 and 1997. However, it is also true that cooling of a degree or two has occurred since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period (say 900 AD), and also since the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8000 years ago.
Planet Earth is therefore clearly on a long-term cooling trend within which the 20th century multi-decadal warmings that so worry the IPCC represent weather variability and oceanographic-atmospheric oscillations more than they do long-term climate change.
It is also the case that no modern warming has occurred since 1997, an 18 year-long period during which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased by 10%. That 10% increase represents fully 30% of all the human-related emissions since the start of the industrial revolution – all for no warming, remember.
Which brings us back to the real hypothesis that we wish to test. It is not, as WRR seem to believe, that “warming of the climate system (is) happening” but specifically that “dangerous global warming will be caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions”.
Science is about testing hypotheses, and the facts related above are a primary test of the DAGW hypothesis as just stated. The hypothesis fails that, and many other, empirical tests.
In addition, there is another primary hypothesis that WRR have failed to address, which is the simplest hypothesis that explains all the facts – called by scientists the null hypothesis. Given the highly variable nature of both weather and climate through time, the simplest hypothesis is that “observed modern changes in the climate system, or in plants and animals affected by it, are due to natural causes unless and until specific evidence indicates otherwise”. Neither WWR nor their favoured IPCC scientific sources describe any evidence whatever that invalidates that hypothesis.
WWR’s innocuous first sentence continues “…. human influence on the climate system is clear”.
Well, of course, for we can’t imagine a single scientist who would dispute that statement.
For example, the building of towns and cities alike replaces natural vegetation and land surfaces with industrial materials, thus providing a heat trap for solar radiation and causing the local warming that is termed the urban heat island effect. Similarly, in the countryside, farmers cut down dark-coloured native vegetation and replace it with light-coloured crops such as wheat. These fields now reflect more incoming solar radiation than did the native forest, which results in local, human-induced cooling.
Adding up the various human warming and cooling influences around the globe must result in a figure that represents the net human effect on global temperature. But the effect is so small that it has yet to be calculated accurately, let alone measured; indeed, we do not even know whether the net human effect worldwide is one of warming or cooling.
The issue then is not one of “is there human influence” on climate, but of “how great is the human influence and what sign does it have”?
As summarised in the reports of both the IPCC and NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), thousands of scientists have expended hundreds of billions of dollars researching this question since 1988 (formation year of the IPCC) without any evidence emerging that the human effect rises above the noise in the global temperature signal, or that any of the manifold changes in the natural world around us today are being caused by human-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Given that it has taken us almost 600 words to dissect and correct just the single opening sentence of the WRR article, readers will appreciate that it would take nearly a book to adequately discuss, and in many instances correct, the remainder of their tendentious article.
For interested readers, we have provided a point by point commentary on the eleven points enumerated by WRR at this web address – http://tinyurl.com/kqwqusk Here, we conclude by offering just a brief summary statement of the remainder of the WRR article - which is this.
WRR (and the IPCC) present many statements of fact with which we, and many other scientists, agree. In interpreting those facts, however, WRR fail to deploy them to test the DAGW hypothesis, fail to negate the null hypothesis, often treat evidence in an anecdotal way, and reveal a partiality for adopting alarmist environmental projections from known-to-be-faulty deterministic computer models.
Bryan Leyland is an engineer who specializes in and writes about renewable energy matters. Bob Carter is a geologist and environmental scientist, and Chief Scientific Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition. Both are also authors of the recent book “Taxing Air”, which discusses all sides of the global warming issue.
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