Thursday, July 16, 2015

Another stupid prophecy of doom

Now we're running out of carbon! You can't win, can you?  It reminds me of a Greenie scare in the '70s that said we are running out of phosphorus -- and we need phosphorus for our bones.  Then there was a huge phosphate discovery in North Africa!  So that one died.  The lesson:  Greenie estimates of available resources are self-important crap

Researchers have issued a chilling warning that life on Earth is unsustainable for humans unless there are major changes.

Unless we slow the destruction of Earth's declining supply of plant life, civilization like it is now may become completely unsustainable, according to a new paper.

It claims that humans have 'depleted the Earth's battery'.

'You can think of the Earth like a battery that has been charged very slowly over billions of years,' said the study's lead author, John Schramski, an associate professor in UGA's College of Engineering.

'The sun's energy is stored in plants and fossil fuels, but humans are draining energy much faster than it can be replenished.'

Earth was once a barren landscape devoid of life, he explained, and it was only after billions of years that simple organisms evolved the ability to transform the sun's light into energy.

This eventually led to an explosion of plant and animal life that bathed the planet with lush forests and extraordinarily diverse ecosystems.

The study's calculations, published by University of Georgia researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are grounded in the fundamental principles of thermodynamics, a branch of physics concerned with the relationship between heat and mechanical energy.

Chemical energy is stored in plants, or biomass, which is used for food and fuel, but which is also destroyed to make room for agriculture and expanding cities.

Scientists estimate that the Earth contained approximately 1,000 billion tons of carbon in living biomass 2,000 years ago.

Since that time, humans have reduced that amount by almost half. It is estimated that just over 10 percent of that biomass was destroyed in just the last century.

'If we don't reverse this trend, we'll eventually reach a point where the biomass battery discharges to a level at which Earth can no longer sustain us,' Schramski said.

Working with James H. Brown from the University of New Mexico, Schramski and UGA's David Gattie, an associate professor in the College of Engineering, show that the vast majority of losses come from deforestation, hastened by the advent of large-scale mechanized farming and the need to feed a rapidly growing population.

As more biomass is destroyed, the planet has less stored energy, which it needs to maintain Earth's complex food webs and biogeochemical balances.


Alarmist Potsdam Institute Concedes: “Natural Variability Underestimated”…”WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING A COOLING PERIOD”!

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

Few institutes have been as adamant and dogmatic about man-made global warming as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

German climate doomsday professor Hans Schellnhuber forced to postpone climate doomsday scenarios due to natural factors, but insists warming is still happening, and it will be worse – at a later time in the future. Photo: PIK

The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.

So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.

Their press release writes:

So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,” says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact.

However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.”

They had us going there for a minute, but no, it isn’t a real admission they were wrong: global warming has been merely hiding behind natural variability as well as in the oceans, they insist.

The press release continues:

The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought.

However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.
Soon? How long are we to wait? Many are losing patience in their long wait for the promised catastrophe. Suddenly things look as if they are losing their urgency.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth.

The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica.2

How do they know it’s temporary? From their models? Well, they have been wrong since day 1. Obviously there’s much more to the climate system than just trace gas CO2.

‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”

The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought. The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.

This is taking on comical dimensions.


A new war on coal gearing up

The Department of Interior (DOI) is publicly reviewing the fees it charges for coal production on federal land, but representatives of the coal industry see the move as a potential threat to a domestic energy resource that provides billions of dollars to states and the U.S. Treasury.

“These listening sessions are an opportunity to better understand how taxpayers, stakeholders and local communities perceive the federal government’s coal program today and how we can improve and strengthen it for future generations,” DOI Secretary Sally Jewel said in a press release announcing the public forums, which she said would advance “honest and open discussion.”

Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association (NMA), told, that the DOI announcement has “implicit assumptions” that are “concerning.”

“The National Mining Association trusts that the Department will conduct the ‘honest and open discussion’ of this valuable program that the Secretary calls for,” Popovich told via e-mail. “However, the implicit assumptions in the Secretary’s notice are concerning.

“The federal coal leasing program fairly values an important public resource that is sold at auction and generates substantial revenue to American taxpayers,” Popovich said. “Calls by environmental activists to replace the current program with costly new fees and royalties are misguided for many reasons.”

Popovich listed those reasons in the e-mail he sent to

 *  Depressing coal production from federal land will deprive taxpayers of a rare government program that provides net revenue to the U.S. Treasury and to state governments ($4.8 billion over three years). Demands to “keep coal in the ground” in effect will mean keeping approximately $1.6 billion a year away from taxpayers.

 *  Slowing production from Powder River Basin coal fields (in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming) will also reduce supplies of one of the nation’s largest sources of energy for electricity generation. Coal mined on federal land accounts for 42 percent of total U.S. coal production, the largest share of any region. Reducing supplies of an affordable energy source will likely mean further increases in electricity costs for households and businesses across the country.

 *  More importantly, the federal government’s own studies – from the Government Accountability Office and the Department of the Interior’s Inspector General – do not suggest the current coal leasing program needs major reforms. The coal leasing and valuation process already requires compliance with various benchmarks to ensure that taxpayers receive fair market value for coal sold at auction. In fact, the 12.5 percent royalty paid on coal leased from federal land is approximately 40 percent higher than royalty rates paid by coal mined on private land in Appalachia.

The liberal ThinkProgress media outlet, run by the Center for American Progress, reported on Thursday that fees aren’t the only intent of reviewing the federal coal program.

“The listening sessions, while focused on royalty rates, are the next step the administration will take to address concerns about coal mining on public lands, a senior administration official told ThinkProgress,” the article stated.

“The official said that this examination of raising royalty rates, combined with a parallel process focused on closing loopholes on artificially low coal sale prices as well as the upcoming release of the Stream Protection Rule, demonstrate the administration’s commitment,” it added.

“A stream protection rule would not affect revenue, but advocates, especially in Appalachia, have been pushing for a strong rule to limit the damage caused by mountaintop removal mining,” the article stated.

“Increasing royalty rates is not just about increasing revenues,” University of Colorado Law School professor Mark Squillace told ThinkProgress in the article. “It is even more importantly about finding a way to ensure that coal covers more of its external costs to society. And when coal is forced to pay more of these costs, other energy sources look more attractive.”

“It is also conceivable that coal production will continue for the foreseeable future, especially in areas like the PRB where production costs are low,” he continued. “So, the federal government should demand a fair return for whatever future coal it sells.”

The DOI’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is in charge of the coal program, which is explained on its website.

“BLM has responsibility for coal leasing on approximately 570 million acres where the coal mineral estate is owned by the federal government. The surface estate of these lands could be controlled by BLM, the United States Forest Service, private landowners, state landowners, or other federal agencies.

BLM receives revenues on coal leasing at three points:

 *  A bonus paid at the time BLM issues the lease

 *  An annual rental payment of $3.00 per acre or fraction thereof

 *  Royalties paid on the value of the coal after it has been mined

The Department of the Interior and the state where the coal was mined share the revenues.”


States Fight Back Against Obama's Climate Rules

Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Michigan v. EPA, governors in several states have indicated they will reject new EPA regulations on greenhouse gases that will needlessly drive up energy costs and harm power industries.

The new regulations set to take effect next month call for states to devise plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from their energy plants. The EPA believes it has the authority under the Clean Air Act to force compliance for states that don’t write their own plans. Governors of six states are prepared to call the EPA’s bluff, setting the stage for a major legal battle that could unravel Barack Obama’s draconian environmental policy.

Republican governors Mike Pence (Indiana), Mary Fallin (Oklahoma), Scott Walker (Wisconsin), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) and Greg Abbott (Texas), as well as Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin (West Virginia), have all gone on record stating their intention to fight the new law.

“The EPA’s latest attempt at imposing burdensome regulations represents an unprecedented meddling with Texas in order to push the Obama administration’s liberal climate change agenda,” said Gov. Abbott.

Gov. Walker wrote that in considering the “staggering costs it would inflict on Wisconsin’s homes and businesses … it is difficult to envision how Wisconsin can responsibly construct a state plan.”

The Court’s rejection of EPA’s overreach in the Michigan case put the agency on notice that it can’t make up its own laws. The EPA in that case had decided to reject an established statute in the Clean Air Act in determining the cost of emissions rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urged governors in a letter to reject this new EPA regulation in the wake of the Michigan ruling, and his staff has been working with state-level environmental officials and regulators to craft a legal strategy to protect them from the EPA’s latest power grab.

“As governors begin to seriously look at what these plans will look like,” said spokesman Robert Steurer, “we expect more and more governors will follow Senator McConnell’s lead.”

In turn, we’d urge McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner to remember that Congress holds the purse strings. As the EPA continues its lawless regulation under Obama, defund it. Play hardball.

The Obama administration hopes this new emissions rule will be the spearhead of its environmental policy to fundamentally shift electricity generation from fossil fuels to more “environmentally friendly” forms of energy. But there are several problems with this line of thought.

There is little infrastructure in place for a widespread shift to green-energy production nationwide, and the existing technology is so expensive that energy prices for consumers would “necessarily skyrocket,” to borrow Obama’s phrase. Not that the administration cares about that. Additionally, the labeling of a natural gas like carbon dioxide as a pollutant is an arbitrary claim with no scientific basis made by arrogant government bureaucrats, and it has unfortunately gone unchallenged by many in the scientific community. Furthermore, there is solid evidence that global warming has actually stalled in the last 18 years, negating the need for implementing expensive policies that will have virtually no impact on the environment.

It will surely be an embarrassment for Obama and the EPA if states openly reject this latest environmental action in the months leading up to the international climate change meeting in Paris, where governments are expected to fully support hamstringing the world economy to fight global warming.

This latest battle with the EPA could be a litmus test for the Republican presidential nomination, with two announced and at least one potential candidate already leading the resistance. Republican voters will surely be watching to see just who has the chops to stand up for federalism and combat the gross bureaucratic overreach that has been a hallmark of the Obama years.



Australia's recently defeated Leftist government was very "Green"

There were some things [conservative leader] Abbott wasn’t prepared to do to gain Government in 2010... one was to “sell my arse” to [Green Party] Bob Brown, the other was to plaster the beautiful Aussie landscape with wind turbines. [Leftist] Julia Gillard was willing to do both, and anything else that secured her the keys to The Lodge [the Prime Ministership].

In a previous article I said the problem with windmills is that they will all become unserviceable and useless at the one time. These hideous turbines have a life span of between 10 and 15 years and replacement costs will not attract the generous subsidies that allowed them to be built in the first place.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation’s slush fund consisted of a borrowed and unimaginable amount of $10 billion (by 2010 Rudd had already drained the treasury dry unnecessarily).

Applicants who wanted a piece of Bob Brown’s deficit bank had to show that other financing alternatives had been exhausted. In other words, every crazy green scheme had to have already been rejected as uneconomic by investors who can do simple sums when it comes to their own hard-earned.

Gillard had instructed the CEFC to hurriedly hand out as much in subsidies as was legally possible in the lead up to the 2013 election... (A) because she knew the contracts would be irreversible, (B) she knew struggling farmers would agree to have wind turbines installed and (C) it was clear the ALP/Green Government would lose Office even with a change back to Rudd and there would be nothing Abbott could do to reverse it anyway.

With the Greens certain to hold sway in the Senate from their 2007 six-year terms it became impossible to rid Australians of one of the most costly and destructive of the Brown/Gillard land-mine deals.

Of course they are both now in voluntary retirement sucking off the taxpayers’ teat and laughing their cosmetically challenged heads off.

One of these delightful people is intent on saving whales aboard the Green Peace while the other is intent on saving her own neck from upcoming Victorian Major Fraud Squad charges. (Once Blewitt and Wilson are charged, and they will be, Gillard is back in the witness box.)

The best course to take with these carpets of visual- and noise-polluting windmill disasters is to join two D9s with a heavy duty chain and keep motoring until every last one is flattened.

Is it any wonder the world is finally waking up to the UN’s IPCC global warming hoax. The object of publicly-funded green energy financing is to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gasses but since its inception the C02 level hasn’t changed at all yet, through normal climatic variations, North America, Europe and even Australia is experiencing record cold winters with snow extending to the Queensland border for Christ sakes.

If these ridiculous windmills are responsible for this new cold then that’s reason enough to get rid of the hideous things.

When the normal financial checks and balances of democratic free enterprise is replaced with disastrous, no penalty, taxpayer funded programs of the far Left, pull the covers over your head and pray, because that’s exactly what we’ve got with these damned windmills.

The damage wreaked by Rudd/Gillard/Brown/Rudd and a prospective Shorten carries Greek overtones.


Australian Left, maddened by the warming hoax, plans another useless carbon tax

The Labor Party was destroyed when the Gillard Government imposed a carbon tax.  A carbon tax costs money and jobs but makes no measurable difference to global warming.

Global warming seems to have paused, with no real rise in atmospheric temperature for some 18 years.

The catastrophes predicted by global warming scientists have not emerged. We have not seen worse or more cyclones, we have not seen falls in food harvests, we have not seen an increase world wide in droughts.

Most low-lying islands once thought vulnerable to inundation through global warming are in fact stable or growing in size.

Some a few scientists now warn not of global warming but a mini ice age in 15 years.

So a carbon tax is electoral poison and a costly and useless response to a problem that may well not exist anyway.


The Opposition Leader faces a ferocious government assault and his biggest test of political will after the leak of Labor’s plans to resurrect a version of the carbon pricing scheme which contributed to its defeat in 2013.

Labor’s leaked plan looks like a version of an emissions trading scheme linked to other international schemes which at today’s prices would give us a carbon price of around $8-$10…

Leaked internal policy documents reportedly show Labor is planning a carbon pricing scheme with emissions caps that would apply to the electricity sector and a separate scheme which would apply to the rest of the economy.

Labor could also take a higher emissions reduction target to the next election if it considers the post 2020 target that is to be revealed by the Abbott Government next month too low.

Some Labor frontbenchers know this is madness. But global warming makes believers so crazed and intolerant that trying to argue against this within Labor is useless. Besides, see how many journalists won’t hear a word of criticism of the warming faith either.



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: