Thursday, March 10, 2016
Another coverup: NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years
In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included a graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.
Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.
I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s
(Bigger graph here)
The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.
Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data
More HERE. (See the original for links and more graphics)
The Charade of Industrial Wind
Maine abounds in natural beauty. Historically there have always been practical and impractical uses of the Maine geography and waters. In recent years we have been brow beaten by a corrupt government philosophy into allowing an ever increasing degree of impractical destruction of Maine by the industrial wind industry, related power companies and businesses.
The majority of Mainers have no idea how it has been happening, and they are being told over and over that this is all needed to “combat climate change,” and therefore it is all a “virtuous argument.” You don’t agree? You’ll be demonized as a “denier” or worse. Never mind that the record through emails shows that the proponents have colluded beyond public purview for years to achieve their aims.
Big Wind — how did it happen here? May 8, 2007 our then-Gov. John Baldacci foisted on Maine both a “Task Force on Wind Power Development in Maine,” and eventually what became known as the (never debated by the legislature!) “Expedited wind legislation,” LD 2283 in 2008, making possible a flood of practically unstoppable industrial wind projects planned for Maine. The industry began to ally with environmental groups to push this mantra of “renewables & green energy,” and showered some organizations and communities with funds to cement their allegiances.
According to Greenwashing, money does a great job at quieting potential critics when they see their agendas being funded by all this “green,” and they have their virtuous argument — it is to save the planet from “climate change.” Just ignore the thousands of dead eagles, and other birds and bats … and as long as the tax breaks and DOE grants keep rolling in to the developers.
Since 2000, we’ve been treated to the separation of electric power generation from the transmission line side of the business because it was said to be unfair and monopolistic to control both and it looked good politically at the time.
After the expedited wind law (LD 2283) in Maine was passed, it needed to be massaged into shape by the very industry it would benefit even more with the help of their lawyers and cronies in the legislature. A depressing 171 pages of this record is available to read online.
Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting did an excellent investigative work on this back in 2010, which demonstrates the pervasive corruption of these special interests in Maine.
In the 171 pages of documents, one sees how then-Senate President Justin Alfond worked with the wind industry lawyers to concoct, and then try to pass additional legislation that they wanted through LD 1750. Amazingly, they failed to get the votes to pass it. A rare victory for citizens and common sense.
Gov. Baldacci’s Public Utilities Commission chairman, Kurt Adams, receives over a million dollars of stock options from First Wind while still at the PUC. This gets little to no consideration the Maine media.
While still at the PUC, Adams is reported by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting to have been interviewing at First Wind for employment. Shockingly, he then transitions to First Wind as their new Director of Transmission.
Attorney General Janet Mills investigates Kurt Adams apparent conflict of interest stock options, and decided — surprise — nothing to see here either.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the PUC begins to consider the $1.4 billion transmission facilities upgrade at CMP. This request was the largest the PUC had ever handled to date, which they grant CMP. The transmission upgrade is needed, according to CMP, to provide transmission capacity and reliability to get power from Northern Maine wind projects (extant and proposed) to out-of-state markets. A kiss for the wind industry, financed by the ratepayers.
In the legislature, the Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology, known as EUT, helps out the industry and delays consideration of virtually any citizen initiated bills opposing Industrial Wind, calls for a study of wind energy issues, and then ignores it. The co-chair at the time, John Hinck, squelches citizen wind bills while his wife, Juliet Browne is the wind industry’s top attorney in Maine. One supposes that could be just coincidence.
In 2009, Gov. Baldacci attends a trip to Europe, hosted by energy giant Iberdrola (who now owns CMP), to gain a better understanding of the useful intersection of government policy and the wind industry there. He appears to very impressed and enthusiastic upon his return to Maine, commenting then that current Maine laws prevent entities such as Iberdrola that own transmission grids, which they do, from also owning generation projects — wind — which they want to now. This is a problem that he plans to work on getting resolved. No matter that in 2000 it was dogma that this combination led to a monopoly.
Currently, the EUT is discussing this exact issue: LD 1513 An Act to Clarify Laws Relating to Affiliate Ownership of Electric Generation (Rep. Dion of Portland), with the proponents pushing for legitimizing generation and transmission under one owner yet again.
Fast forward to 2016, with the quite unforeseen (and unjustifiable) Congressional extension of tax breaks and production tax credits to economically unsound wind and solar industries (see SunEdison and Solyndra as paltry examples), the rush is on to nail those permits, get the projects unstoppably blessed, and get government funds flowing from the 1603 grant program.
Now more industrial wind projects are proposed for Maine to supply the “green energy” demands of states south of us that don’t want — or allow — wind turbines. Who in Maine really needs eagles or those pesky “visual impact statements?”
Finally, congratulations to former Gov. Baldacci. In December, it was announced that he is now the Vice Chairman of Iberdrola’s Wind Division, Avangrid. What a surprise.
Nature Unbound Uproots Environmental Policy Myths
What if what we think we know about ecology and environmental policy is wrong? What if U.S. environmental laws often make things far worse? What if there were a better way to improve our natural (and human) environment? Answering these questions and drawing out the implications is the achievement of the new Independent Institute book, Nature Unbound: Bureaucracy vs. the Environment, by Randy T Simmons, Ryan M. Yonk, and Kenneth J. Sim—a detailed and hard-hitting critique of hallowed, major U.S. environmental policies enacted since the 1960s.
The most celebrated environmental laws of the past fifty years, Nature Unbound argues, have blocked a much better approach to conservation and environmental quality. The Clean Water Act has slowed down progress at state and local levels. The Endangered Species Act has undermined the protection of threatened species. Policies to shield wilderness areas from all human activities (even conservation management) undermine biodiversity. And renewable energy legislation has mostly wasted resources rather than conserved them.
These deeply flawed environmental laws, the authors argue, rest on two faulty pillars: an outdated theory about ecosystems (the “balance of nature” doctrine) and a mistaken view of the political process (a childlike naiveté about electoral politics and government bureaucracy). But Nature Unbound offers more than a critique of false assumptions and flawed policies. It also offers a pathway toward sensible policies: six bold principles to help us rethink environmental objectives, align incentives with goals, and affirm the notion that human beings are an integral part of the natural order and merit no less consideration than earth’s other treasures.
Democrat folly in Virginia
As a governor, if your state was given the chance to defer millions, possibly billions, of dollars in burdensome and unnecessary energy mandates, would you accept it? Even some liberal governors would likely answer in the affirmative, and happily at that. Unfortunately, in states like Virginia, the opposite is true. Last month the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the EPA’s power-grabbing Clean Power Plan (CPP). But while the ruling was applauded by more than two dozen states, Democrat Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe decided to ignore the warning signals and overhaul his state’s energy sector anyway.
Writing in the Washington Examiner, attorney Terry M. Jarrett says, “Virginia, for some reason, has chosen to move forward with the task of rebuilding its entire power generation sector. This means the state will still undertake the construction of new grid infrastructure, including the many new transmission lines and towers needed to carry electricity from planned wind and solar assemblies.” It’s a curious decision — one, because CPP’s legal requirements were nullified (albeit temporarily but hopefully permanently at a later date), and two, renewable technology is nowhere near prime time. And keep in mind, nearly 30% of the state’s electricity comes from coal. “The question,” Jarrett posits, “is why Virginia would bear this cost when it is currently under no legal obligation to do so.” Is it ostensibly to address “climate change”? If so, consider that by the EPA’s own estimates the regulations would slow global warming by just 0.02 degrees Celsius.
A court will eventually decide whether or not to strike down the Clean Power Plan, but Gov. McAuliffe is looking beyond that. And he’s willing to extract a hefty amount of tax dollars from Virginians to enact a flawed energy policy. Since Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, voters have ousted 11 Democrat governors. If McAuliffe isn’t careful, he could become the 12th.
Fuel Standards Belong in the Junkyard
Far too often, government regulations are proven to be costly, ineffective and of no benefit to economic growth — worse, they hamper it. Yet bureaucrats in Washington wield their power to influence markets and industries and for the most part, they get away with it because either too many Americans don’t care or they just don’t know how much these regulations cost.
Take fuel standards for instance. Government regulations on the auto industry and on those who supply the fuel to run those cars have not helped but hurt our nation’s economy. Furthermore, many in Washington have used the agenda of combatting climate change as cause for continuing or implementing more regulations — without any concern for the economic ramifications of doing so.
Of the many regulations foisted upon our economy, one of the most costly is the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. In a detailed report, The Heritage Foundation offers some keen insight into the government’s involvement with regulating the fuel standards by which auto manufacturers must abide or pay hefty fines.
For starters, the intent of the federal government regulating fuel standards was to decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil. Good intentions, but the consequences have been staggering. The cost-to-benefit ratio is unreasonable and even if the sole purpose of the CAFE standards were to fight climate change there are miniscule results.
(And it’s worth noting we’ve reduced our dependence on foreign oils by something leftists hate — drilling for our own oil.)
In 2009, the Obama administration implemented regulations required by Congress and as a result raised the CAFE standards by approximately nine miles per gallon through model year 2016. Many economists warned of the costs of regulating fuel standards. Yet despite their warnings, the government opted for regulations. The pervasive argument seems to be if you can’t tax it, regulate it. But regulation is just another form of taxation. The fact that it’s harder for consumers to see is precisely why government likes it so much.
With the increase in CAFE standards, there is a higher cost for consumers. According to several economic scholars, the standards will cost consumers an estimated $3,800 more per new vehicle. On top of that, the average price of a vehicle in the U.S. is about $6,200 above trends in new vehicle purchases in other parts of the world. The rise in costs alone should arguably be enough to scrap the CAFE standards, but the Environmental Protection Agency has stepped in and is now using the fuel standards as a tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to fight climate change.
Obama recently boasted that the change in fuel standards, which mandates that the average fleet of new vehicles meets the 49.6 miles per gallon mark by model year 2025, will reduce global temperatures by a whopping .007 degrees Celsius by the end of 2016. By the year 2100, our great grandchildren should see a decrease in temperature of .018 degrees Celsius. In other words, like nearly every other climate change regulation, the fuel standards won’t make a dent in the overall temperature of our planet. Just ignore the mounting costs and move right along.
There are several unintended consequences of the CAFE standards as well, which essentially counters any reason for making them permanent to fight climate change.
First, there is what is called the “rebound effect.” According to The Heritage Foundation, “When consumers are forced to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, the cost per mile falls (since their cars use less gas) and they drive more. This offsets part of the fuel economy gain and adds congestion and road repair costs. Similarly, the rising price of new vehicles causes consumers to delay upgrades, leaving older vehicles on the road longer.”
Second, there is a high probability that millions of consumers will be forced out of the new car market altogether simply because people will not be able to afford the higher priced cars due to the fuel standards.
Finally, there is also the probability that the American Big Three automakers — Ford, GM and Chrysler, the latter two of which taxpayers bailed out a few years back — will see their corporate profits decline, while foreign auto manufacturers' corporate profits increase.
Keep in mind that these CAFE standards are not the only hindrance to American consumers. Requiring consumers to pump more ethanol into their fuel tanks is another federal regulation on our transportation that is both hurting consumers and harming the environment.
It’s past time that the government scrapped the fuel standard mandates (among a host of other damaging regulations), but until we have a new administration that values constitutionally limited government, little will be done to change anything for the better. So consider this issue when casting your vote.
The War on GMOs: Coming Soon to a Kitchen Near You?
Leave it to Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont to demonstrate another case of government ineptitude. Beginning July 1, the state will “require labels on all genetically modified foods produced or sold within the state,” notes a Wall Street Journal editorial. And for what? Despite there being thousands of positive studies on GMOs, “consumers who see a ‘No GMO’ label near a ‘No TransFat’ mark might think there is reason to avoid GMOs, though no evidence supports that conclusion,” adds the Journal. Here’s something else to chew on:
“The Vermont scheme is more expensive than pasting a sticker on a box of crackers. Ingredients would need to be segregated from the grain elevator to the grocery store. No brand could label only what sells in Vermont, lest an illicit bag of Cheetos cross the New Hampshire border and incur the $1,000 a day fine.”
Like every regulation, the cost is actually passed down to consumers. Companies may decide to ditch GMOs completely, which means resorting to pricier ingredients. That in turn results in higher costs at the grocery store. The Journal wryly notes, “Among the law’s defenders is Democratic presidential unhopeful and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and it’s rich to see the guy who rails against the 1% defending Vermont’s 0.2% of the U.S. population dictating food prices for the other 99.8%. Another irony is Sen. Sanders’s supposed loathing for special interests: The Vermont law exempts milk and cheese, which is great news for the state’s large dairy industry.”
The fear is this scheme will go mainstream: “Enter Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, who is moving a bill to establish a voluntary federal program for labeling GMOs. His proposal would pre-empt Vermont and direct USDA to create a standard label that companies could choose to put on products. This is unnecessary: USDA already runs a voluntary GMO-labeling program, and it’s called the organic seal. But some 20 state legislatures are considering labeling bills, and the Roberts plan would thwart a patchwork of state regulation — and might win 60 votes in the Senate.” What’s worse — that lawmakers can’t find more important things to fix, or that they believe Americans are too stupid to make their own choices? If they are truly worried about hunger and poverty in America, they would stop waging a war on a harmless process that makes food cheaper and more readily available.
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
Posted by JR at 1:36 AM