Friday, June 19, 2015

Senate Environment Committee Chairman: God, Not Man, Drives Earth's Climate Patterns

This will give Warmists orgasms.  They hate any religion that is a rival to their own.  It will give them great comfort to think that two of their enemies -- Christians and skeptics --  can be compacted into one.  They are great lovers of simplifications.  They will henceforth tend to believe that all skeptics are Christians.  That skepticism is rather inimical to all sorts of religion will pass them by

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that man-made global warming is not scientifically proven and that God, not man, ultimately drives cyclical climate patterns.

Referring to the observed 18-year hiatus in global warming, Inhofe noted that “we’ve had this levelling for a long period of time...If you look, you’ll see that God’s still up there, and we’re gonna have these cycles that have always been there.”

“We are winning,” Inhofe said in a keynote address at the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change held in Washington, D.C. last week. Arguments for man-made global warming and predictions of its disastrous consequences “have been refuted over and over again” by the “truth” and “logic” that is on the side of climate realists, he said.

Inhofe, who was given the Political Leadership on Climate Change Award at the conference, said he has been combating the global warming political agenda in the Senate since the 1990’s.

“I have to confess that way back in the ’90’s…[when] everyone said the world’s coming to an end, it’s global warming -- I thought it’s probably true, until MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] and the Charles River Associates...suggested down at Rio de Janeiro with Al Gore the cost for the American people would be...between $300 and $400 billion a year,” Inhofe said.

The United States joined 171 governments at the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to discuss stresses to the environment, including poverty, excessive consumption by the wealthy, CO2 emissions, and toxic materials. Climate change scholars from MIT, Charles River Associates, and other institutions predicted large expenditures were needed to meet the UN’s standards for environmental sustainability.

“I did my calculation in my state of Oklahoma as I always do, and that would mean that each family of four in my state of Oklahoma who filed a federal income tax return would have to pay $3,000,” Inhofe said. “And I thought, let me make sure the science is there.

“So I started checking, and I started questioning it. Then the phone calls started coming in from scientists all over and we started publishing this [science] to show that it [man-made global warming] in fact was not a reality,” he continued.

Inhofe mentioned the 1895 “ice age,” followed by a warming trend and another cooling period after 1945, and said the warmer weather at present is just another example of cyclical global temperature variations.  He pointed out that the cooler weather which occurred  after “the largest surge of CO2 emissions” right after World War II directly contradicts “warmist” claims that CO2 emissions cause global warming.

Inhofe accused the United Nations of having a financial incentive for pushing the world’s industrialized nations into spending billions of dollars to combat what it claims is man-made global warming.

“The United Nations is the reason that all of this has come along,” he said. “They want independence. They don’t want to be accountable to anybody -- the United States, or any other country. So how do you do that? You have your own funding source. What’s the best way to do that? Global warming.”

While the UN was able to advance its global warming agenda, warmists in Congress “lost the battle in terms of getting legislation passed,” Inhofe said, citing the 2003 defeat of the McCain-Lieberman bill to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as well as the “Climategate” scandal, when leaked emails from climate scientists at East Anglia University revealed data manipulation and fraud behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

However, Inhofe expressed his concerns that climate change alarmists have money and the bureaucracy on their side, quoting MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen who said: “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream...If you control carbon, you control life.”

Inhofe informed his audience that Republican entrepreneur Jay Faison has donated $175 million to a campaign to get the GOP to acknowledge the supposed dangers of global warming. Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer previoulsy donated $100 million to make climate change a priority in the 2014 elections.

“It’s all about money,” Inhofe said. “This is why you have this last guy [Faison] with $175 million claiming to be a Republican, and he’s gonna be using that to try to influence. And all it takes is one or two or three of the senators to say, you know, maybe I should appease him.”

“An appeaser is someone who feeds his friends to the alligators hoping that they’ll eat him last,” Inhofe added.


Pope Ponders Paganism

Not since the rule of Emperor Constantine, during the Roman Warm Era, have pagan gods been tolerated in Rome.

Before Constantine, Romans worshipped 12 main gods including Apollo (the Sun), Diana (the Moon), Flora (the plants), Uranus (the sky), Ceres (the crops), Gaia (the Earth) and of course Bacchus (wine), Venus (love) and Mars (war). Some of these gods demanded tribute and sacrifice.

Christianity, the worship of one forgiving God, slowly absorbed or eliminated its pagan rivals. The Popes in Rome came to lead a Catholic empire of Christians.

In modern times, the old Greek/Roman goddess, Gaia, has been resurrected by the world green movement.

Pope Francis seems to seek an alliance with these nature worshippers.

Unfortunately the Green wolf will never lie down with the Christian lambs.

Christians promote care for humanity especially the weak and the poor. The Gaia worshippers have subordinated humans to “nature” and their attitude to other humans ranges from contempt to deep hatred. Under their extremist Agenda 21, the priests of Gaia would sacrifice humans by restricting their access to land, oceans, food, minerals and energy, and then concentrate the survivors in soul-destroying dormitory cities and food factories. Greens want all descendants of Adam and Eve expelled from our Gardens of Eden.

Christians generally value individual freedom and private property. The Green priesthood will not rest until there is a world government in which there is no private property and all humans are numbered, controlled and planned. They are using climate alarmism to achieve these goals.

Priests and Pontiffs have no place in dictating questions of science and engineering. Climate forecasts and energy policy should be determined by scientific enquiry and sound engineering, not by high-priests dabbling in politics.


UK: Residents to be given onshore wind farm veto: Tories vow to 'halt the spread' of turbines by preventing them being 'imposed on communities without consultation'

Residents are to be handed powers to stop onshore wind farms being built, ministers will announce today.

The Tories have vowed to ‘halt the spread’ of unsightly turbines by preventing wind farms from being ‘imposed on communities without consultation or public support’.

Changes to the planning laws will ensure that councils in England and Wales – in consultation with residents – have the final say over whether windmills get the green light.

It follows opposition by local campaigners and Tory MPs to the spread of new turbines up to 400-feet high, which they say blight the landscape and cause noise to nearby households.

There are more than 5,000 onshore turbines across the UK, of which around half are in Scotland. About 3,500 more have planning permission.

But just under 3,000 are awaiting consent, and could be affected by the new rules if the operators cannot prove they have the support of residents who are affected.

Greg Clark, the Local Government Secretary, said: ‘Communities should be free to decide whether they want wind turbines in their local area and, if so, where they should go.’

Currently, at least half of wind farm applications are rejected by local planners due to local opposition or because their location is considered inappropriate.

But many of these decisions are then overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, on the grounds that Britain needs renewable energy to meet climate change targets.

The changes mean that wind farms will only get the go-ahead if they are included in the council’s local plan for the area, which is drawn up every few years in consultation with residents.

Even if turbines meet the criteria set out in the plan, if there is considerable concern from residents about noise or the local environment, the application will need to be amended.

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said the new rules would ‘reassure a local community that… any concerns they have about its impact will be addressed.’

Generous subsidies paid to landowners who allow wind farms to be built will also be cut, under proposals announced in the Tory manifesto. This is expected to be announced soon.

In 2014, 57 per cent of all onshore wind applications were rejected, according to figures published in January. This compares with only 37 per cent rejected in 2013, and 24 per cent back in 2009.

The rate of wind farms being rejected more than doubled in the last Parliament, amid concerns from more than 100 Tory backbenchers that they blight the landscape and upset residents.

Wind farms will continue to be built offshore, where they are more expensive but they attract far less opposition from voters. Small turbines on farm land will not be affected by the rules.

Britain has a legally-binding target to produce 15 per cent of energy from low-carbon sources – such as wind, solar and nuclear plants – by 2020.

But ministers say there are enough wind farms which have already been approved or applications put in, to meet this target.

Exceeding it would pile more costs onto household electricity bills.

Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, said: ‘Onshore wind is an important part of our energy mix but we now have enough projects in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments.

‘We have a long-term plan to keep our homes warm, power the economy with cleaner energy, and keep bills as low as possible for hard-working families.’

The wind industry trade body Renewable UK expressed concerns about the new planning rules.

Deputy chief executive Maf Smith said introducing tough new rules for wind farms would ‘tilt the playing field’ towards fracking which deeply concerns residents.

He said: ‘We support local councils taking decisions about local projects.

'Onshore wind is the most cost effective way to generate clean electricity, consistently enjoying two-thirds public support in all the opinion polls, so councils will want to take this into consideration.

‘The Government will wants to keep the lights on at the lowest possible cost – that has to include supporting onshore wind.’

But Councillor Gary Porter, vice chairman of the Local Government Association, said: ‘Local people should have a say on development that affects them.

‘The local planning system provides a democratically accountable and effective means for councils to consult local people and take decisions based on local planning policies.’


Greenpeace: global warriors against development

Who can blame India for wanting to get rid of these eco-meddlers?

Greenpeace is back in the news. Not because its members have once again dressed up as orangutans or scaled skyscrapers in protest of some impending environmental disaster. This time it’s Greenpeace’s allegedly unfair treatment at the hands of the Indian government that has hit headlines.

Last week, Greenpeace activist and Australian national Aaron Gray-Block was denied entry into India by immigration officials in New Delhi, who were acting on a directive issued by the Indian government. This wasn’t the first time that the government has attempted to scupper Greenpeace’s activities. Last year, British Greenpeace activist Ben Hargreaves was also denied entry. Meanwhile, Greenpeace India staffer Priya Pillai was prevented from travelling to the UK earlier this year, where she was set to talk to British MPs about the environmental harm presented by coal mines in India.

Greenpeace is expressing outrage at the clampdown, crying that the Indian government’s actions are an affront to freedom and democracy. But, while it is fair to suggest that the Indian government is suppressing Greenpeace’s activities in India, it is hard not to sympathise with its attitude towards Greenpeace and its ilk. Besides, cries of censorship and undemocratic behaviour are rather rich coming from an organisation that rejects democratic debate, is not representative of any electorate and would rather appeal to the British state to help curb India’s coal-mining activities than attempt to win support from the Indian masses for its cause.

India’s National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, headed by prime minister Narendra Modi, has frozen the bank accounts of Greenpeace India and stopped the inflow of foreign funds. It is also contemplating revoking Greenpeace’s charity status. The government, which won an overwhelming parliamentary majority in last year’s election, on a manifesto committed to economic growth and development, is accusing Greenpeace of undermining India’s economic progress by stalling mining, GM and energy projects.

This is not an unfair accusation, and India is not alone in its distaste for Greenpeace and its high-profile antics. Russia arrested and imprisoned 30 Greenpeace activists for preventing oil drilling in Arctic waters. New Zealand decided to revoke the charity status of Greenpeace because its activists routinely trespassed on private property. In the past few years, Indonesia has also detained, deported or simply refused entry to numerous Greenpeace activists who were campaigning against its palm-oil industry, including Greenpeace UK’s executive director John Sauven.

According to Samit Aich, Greenpeace India’s executive director, there is a direct parallel between the attack on Greenpeace and India’s recent banning of India’s Daughter, a documentary about the 2012 Delhi gang rape. Both events, he claims, reflect the Indian government’s refusal to face up to the country’s problems. Maybe. But a far more likely explanation is that the Indian government does not want Western agendas and prejudices to determine its affairs.

When justifying the decision to deny Sauven entry to Indonesia, Maryoto Sumadi, the spokesman for Indonesia’s immigration department, summed it up well: ‘It is the right of our country, just like any country, to deny entry to people in accordance with our national interests.’ He’s got a point. Picture a staunchly republican group of Indian activists, generously funded by thousands of Indians, coming to Britain to disrupt the royal wedding and hector the British government for maintaining such a backward institution. I can’t imagine it would go down well.

The Indian government has alleged that international NGOs like Greenpeace are pushing an anti-development agenda drawn up in Western nations. A leaked report from the Indian Intelligence Bureau said that ‘a significant number of Indian NGOs, funded by donors based in the US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands, have been noticed to be using people-centric issues to create an environment which lends itself to stalling development projects’. This is all, of course, true. Groups like Greenpeace enjoy the support of the Western political elite, and their campaigns echo elite views and prejudices. As a result, Greenpeace oversimplifies complex issues in foreign countries, ignoring the political and material desires of the people.

While renewable energy might be all the rage in the West, 35 to 40 per cent of the population of India still live without electricity. Coal meets 54.5 per cent of India’s energy needs, and 61.5 per cent of the installed power-generation capacity. It also plays a key role in industries like steel and cement. India has the fourth-largest coal reserve in the world, and yet this potential is untapped because of delays and disruption, necessitating the import of coal from Indonesia and Australia. It is ludicrous for groups like Greenpeace to talk about India switching to expensive renewable energy when the country needs cheap coal-fired power in the here and now.

As in most developing countries, big development projects in India are fraught with problems thrown up by displacement, land acquisition, conflicts with locals and tribes, compensation, permits and bureaucracy. Greenpeace often exploits and exacerbates these difficulties. Rather than trying to open up the debate, win the argument and rally the Indian masses to its cause, Greenpeace merely pretends to act on behalf of blighted locals. Greenpeace India may brag that 77,768 Indian citizens donate to its cause, but this is still a minuscule constituency in a country of over 1.2 billion.

Unfortunately, in resorting to using state machinery to restrict the activities of Greenpeace, the Indian government is also guilty of bypassing the demos in order to tackle challenges to its political programme. In the process, Modi’s government is also allowing Greenpeace to play martyr. The issues that are stalling development projects in India often centre on the concerns of local populations. These are people that need to be engaged with. It is the vacuum left by the mainstream parties’ withdrawal from public discussion of these issues that Greenpeace seeks to fill.


WH Science Adviser: ‘Cars, Trucks and Planes Are Going to Have to Run on Electricity, Biofuels or Hydrogen'

John Holdren is not so much Obama’s science and technology advisor as Obama's science and technology ignoramus.  Making prophecies is no part of science

John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s top science and technology advisor, said at a White House summit on clean energy on Tuesday that a “global low-carbon economy” by the year 2050 means that “cars, trucks and planes” will be powered by “electricity, biofuels or hydrogen.”

“As we all know, a global low-carbon economy in 2050 is going to have to meet the energy needs of 9 or 10 billion people using technologies that will have to be more advanced than the technologies that are in place today,” he said. “Buildings, agriculture, machines must be dramatically more energy-efficient.”

“Cars, trucks and planes are going to have to run on electricity, biofuels or hydrogen,” Holdren said. "Electricity generation is going to need to come primarily from renewables and nuclear energy.

“The emissions from most of the remaining fossil fuel combustion are going to need to be diverted permanently from the atmosphere,” Holdren said.

At the summit, staged to announce $4-billion in private sector investment in clean energy research and development and announce executive actions taken by Obama to increase the federal government’s role in investing and developing clean energy, Holdren said money is needed to get new technologies through the “valley of death.”

“Even bigger than the challenge of funding for research, development and demonstration is the challenge of the valley of death – finding the capital to move innovations through that valley across to commercial success on the other side,” Holdren said. “And this, of course, is where the role of financing and the focus of this summit.”

According to the Institute for Energy Research, using data from the federal U.S. Energy Information Administration, 95 percent of the U.S. transportation sector consumption is fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – with only five percent coming from alternative energy sources.

Fossil fuels also meet around 82 percent of U.S. energy demand, according to the federal government.

The IER website also states: “Despite the rapid growth of global demand for petroleum products, the EIA estimates that less than half the world’s total conventional oil reserves will have been exhausted by 2030. These estimates include existing oil reserves and anticipated reserves resulting from new technologies and discoveries. World oil reserves at the end of 2014 totaled 1655.56 billion barrels, over 3.1 times their level in 1971. The world’s oil reserves have steadily increased even in the face of rising consumption.”


French minister blames climate change on NUTELLA… prompting anger in its home country of Italy where politician vows to eat it for dinner in response

The French environment minister has slammed Nutella chocolate spread saying it is contributing to 'massive deforestation' - sparking a feud her Italian counterpart.

Ségolène Royal was being interviewed by French broadcaster Canal+ on Monday when she took aim at the much-loved dip-come-spread for relying on palm oil as a key ingredient.

She said that the manufacture of the hazelnut product was helping drive global warming as it meant the downing of trees, urging foodies to boycott it.

The Guardian reported that - in a conversation about saving the environment - Royal said: 'We should stop eating Nutella, for example, because it's made with palm oil.'

She is then alleged to have said that the product should be made with 'other ingredients'.

Made by Italian company Ferrero, Nutella contains the edible oil derived from palm fruit, grown in Africa, Asia, North America, and South America.

However, 85 per cent of all of the world's palm oil is made in Indonesia and Malaysia, where acres of forest have been destroyed to make way for manufacturing plantations.

After hearing of Royal's comments, Italian environment minister Luca Galletti responded, asking that Royal 'leave Italian products alone'.  He then posted on Twitter: 'Ségolène Royal is worrying. Leave Italian products alone. For dinner tonight … it's bread with Nutella.'

His retort was supported by fellow Italian politician Michele Anzaldi, who himself accused her of insulting 'Italian excellence'.

Ferrero also responded, stressing how committed it was as a company to sourcing the palm oil it uses in a responsible manner.

After appreciating the chocolate bomb she'd exploded, Royal took to her Twitter to give 'a thousand apologies' for her comments, vowing to make public the 'progress' the firm had made in recent years.

The fall-out couldn't have come at a worse time for the neighbouring countries, with the ever-worsening migrant situation in the border city of Ventimiglia, where hundreds of Africans are trapped after being banned from entering France.

As well as featuring in Nutella, palm oil is also an ingredient in shampoo, ice cream, toothpaste and shaving foam.



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


No comments: