Sunday, February 02, 2014

Who Cares What Prince Charles Says?

He talks to plants and supports quack medicine so he may not be the sort of guy you want on your side
Recently it was reported that Prince Charles took a shot at 'climate deniers', claiming it's "baffling ... that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything - until, that is, it comes to climate science." He went on to call these presumably "powerful groups of deniers" of mounting "a barrage of sheer intimidation" against opponents, calling them a 'headless chicken brigade'.

First of all, I would like to know exactly what "climate science" he's referring to - the fraudlent claims and speculations by warmers - or the real world climate being reported on by the "headless chicken brigade?

Second, there is no one who knows anything about science who has a 'blind trust in science and technology'.  Only the ignorant and foolish accept that premise.

Third, if we accept his basic premise it would mean an abandonment of all that makes science possible, a large successful industrial society.  Does anyone besides me detect a bit of cognitive dissonance in the Prince?  Well, actually no.

The green movement, a secular religion, will use any argument to promote its goals, including name calling, intimidation, irrational logic, emotional appeals and then blames the other side for doing it.  The Prince is the perfect greenie.  Arrogant, self righteous, detached from reality and the consequences of green policies, presents arguments full of logical fallacies, corrupt in his thinking, and living a life style he claims is destroying the world.

Finally, the "sheer intimidation" in all this Anthropogenic Global Warming nonsense came from the warmers, with the support of powerful government entities, who allotted 'acceptable climate scientists' grants to the tune of billions of dollars and were behind efforts to take grants away from those who didn't go along with “acceptable warming science”.  In effect, the actions amongst warmists in science and government became a practice of modern  ‘Lysenkoism'!

I was once told by an Australian correspondent not to beat up on the Prince because he’s a good guy being misled by advisers.  Well, that may be true, but since he embraces all sorts of greenie idiocy it would appear to me he is doing the leading and hand picking advisors that agree with him.  It further seems to me the Prince lives in an echo chamber of self congratulatory head nodders.

Let’s face it, would anyone really care what this man thinks or says if he wasn’t to be the next King of England?   Would he be allowed to get away with the comments he makes if he wasn’t to be the next King of England?  Do we really believe he wouldn’t be challenged to a public debate on what he calls ‘climate science’, if he wasn’t to be the next King of England?  Why does a man, that will be the next King of England, continue of defend ‘climate science’ that has made all sorts of predictions which are proving wrong?

Charles has access to the best information available in the world, and yet he ignores what is going on in reality and accepts greenie speculations and claims that are not only proving false, but shown to be deliberately fraudulent.

My question to the Prince would be – presuming anyone would be allowed to ask him any questions that requires him to think on his feet – why he accepts predictions that are failing versus predictions from a climatologist [Donn Easterbrook] who’s predictions from 1999 are proving to be spot on saying, “the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural cycle that fluctuates between warm and cold phases] said we're due for a climate change,”.

He claimed, “It looks as though we're going to be entering a period of about three decades or so of global cooling.”  Was his prediction right?  Yes, he went on to say,  “We have now had 17 years with no global warming and my original prediction was right so far,” and “for the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit.”

Here is the most telling thing Easterbrook said, “cold is way worse for humanity than warm is,” he correctly adds.  The article went on to say, "alarmists continue with ostentatious rants about nonexistent warming, just remember that what we're actually seeing was foreseen long ago by someone with facts on their side.”

There is a number of things we can take away from all of this.  The Prince is clueless, and likes it that way.  He’s deliberately ignoring real science in favor of models that amount to nothing more than “Game Boy Science”!  Like Game Boys, models spit out what they’re designed to spit out.  He must be historically illiterate regarding climate since all the previous warming periods were periods highly beneficial to humanity, and historically these cyclical warming and cooling periods occurred regularly throughout Earth’s history, and mankind had as little to do with those cycles then as mankind has now.

Finally, we need to ask, during all or any of the previous warming periods did any of the terrible consequences they’re predictiing for today occur?  There is nothing in the historical record to show it did.  If that’s the case why would we believe it would occur now?  We shouldn’t!  So why does the Prince?

The green movement is irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.  The moderates within the movement want to eliminate 4 to 5 billion people, and they’re the moderates.  The radicals, which are a large minority, believe mankind is a virus that must be eliminated.  There is even an environmental movement that calls itself the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement that wants people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind, in order to prevent environmental degradation.

And these are the kinds of people to which Charles has emotionally and intellectually attached himself.

So now we're left with deniers as a "headless chicken brigade", and warmers - including a Prince - who are among the "chicken little scaremongers", and one of them is wrong, and those the Prince has embraced are looking like fools and frauds and - wrong!  And he’s to be the next King of England!  Isn’t it fortunate the monarchs of England are for the most part powerless?  Which makes me wonder what’s wrong with the rest of the Brits for keeping them?  Who knows, at this rate Charles' real legacy may be the end of the monarchy in England.  For that he may be remarkably qualified.


Arctic outbreaks defy predictions

This winter's multiple extreme cold outbreaks are a stark reminder that global warming activists have routinely and brazenly exaggerated the effects of global warming. Each new, historic cold snap provides yet another scientific reason to doubt dire predictions about human-caused warming.

Low temperature records are falling by the hundreds this winter. This is occurring despite the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicting that extreme cold outbreaks will become less frequent and less severe. When a theory's predictions are contradicted by real-world events, sound science requires us to re-examine the theory.

Increasing the atmosphere's carbon dioxide content from three parts per 10,000 (0.03%) to four parts per 10,000 (0.04%) should cause some modest global warming. However, the extremely cold winter reminds us this modest warming is not creating the worldwide climate catastrophe predicted by global warming activists. It also provides appropriate context for the next time we experience a heat wave and activists tell us global warming is to blame.

To the extent global warming may eventually lessen the frequency and severity of extreme cold outbreaks, it will benefit, rather than harm, human health and welfare. Mortality statistics show far more people die as a result of low temperatures and cold-associated ailments such as pneumonia and the flu than from hot temperatures and heat-associated ailments.

Many additional benefits are becoming evident as the Earth continues its gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age, which afflicted humanity from approximately 1300 to 1900. Hurricane activity is at historic lows, tornadoes are weakening, and droughts are becoming less frequent and severe.

Cold spells, heat waves and extreme weather events will continue to occur as our planet modestly warms. This winter's extreme cold outbreaks illustrate that global warming is not changing our planet's climate severely, as activists claim. To the extent changes are occurring, these are benefiting rather than harming human health and welfare.


Michael Mann's Global Warming Argument Fuels 'Denier' Skepticism

James Taylor below goes to the trouble of rebutting Michael Mann's tired old assertions

Warmist point man Michael Mann recently authored a New York Times editorial presenting global warming activists’ best arguments in favor of a global warming crisis. A quick look at his weak arguments and false claims shows why the American public is increasingly siding with skeptics in the global warming debate.

In his editorial titled “If You See Something, Say Something,” Mann draws an analogy between global warming skeptics and terrorists, and urges people to “speak up.” OK, Mike, I accept your invitation to speak up in the name of truth.

Mann launches into charlatanism from the very beginning of his editorial: “The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science.”

Mann’s introduction of the issue is a classic bait-and-switch. He attempts to debate fictitious opponents regarding a fictitious issue for which there is little debate. Virtually all skeptics agree the Earth is (thankfully) no longer suffering the pains of the extended Little Ice Age. Most skeptics, myself included, believe humans have played a role in this beneficial warming. And it’s a good thing too; the Little Ice Age, lasting from approximately 1300-1900 A.D., was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years and brought human misery that was unprecedented since the dawn of civilization. Afraid to debate the true issues dividing alarmists and skeptics – such as the pace of recent warming, the context of recent warming, the likely pace of future warming, and the likely results of future warming – Mann waves his magic wand and conjures up an imaginary skeptic straw man who argues no warming has occurred and we are still in the Little Ice Age.

Not missing a beat, Mann strengthens his charlatanism with a healthy dose of pixie dust in paragraph two: “In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.”

Really, Mike? Show us a single survey where 97 percent of climate scientists say “we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.” There are a few dodgy, agenda-driven surveys in which it is claimed 97 percent of scientists claim the planet is warming (I agree with this assertion, by the way) and that humans have played a role (I agree with this assertion, also). But like so many of fellow global warming activists, Mann either deliberately or through appalling ignorance misrepresents these dodgy surveys to say something that is not even addressed in the surveys. None of these surveys show a 97-percent consensus for the assertion that “we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.”

If Mann really wanted to spread truth rather than propaganda, he would have noted that a recent survey of American Meteorological Society (AMS) atmospheric scientists found only 38 percent of AMS scientists believe future warming will be very harmful, and an even smaller 30 percent are very worried about global warming. This is a far cry from Mann’s unsupported assertion that “97 percent agree … we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.”

Mann then links global warming to “Midwestern farmers struggling with drought, more damaging wildfires out West, and withering record summer heat across the country.” For good measure, he throws in “possible linkages between rapid Arctic warming and strange weather patterns, like the recent outbreak of Arctic air across much of the United States.”

Sound science contradicts each and every one of Mann’s self-serving assertions. Drought has become less frequent and less severe as our planet modestly warms. Wildfires are at historic lows. Record heat is becoming less frequent. And even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says global warming will cause fewer extreme cold outbreaks, not more.

Mann writes fondly of his former colleague Stephen Schneider being a scientist-activist and concludes his column by urging more scientists to follow Schneider’s lead. Here is what Schneider said about being a scientist-activist:

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

It is pretty clear from Mann’s weak, dishonest arguments that he sides with being “effective” rather than honest.


Keystone report raises pressure on Obama to approve pipeline

Pressure for President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline increased after a State Department report played down the impact it would have on climate change, irking environmentalists and delighting the project's proponents.

But the White House signaled late on Friday that a decision on an application by TransCanada Corp to build the $5.4 billion project would be made "only after careful consideration" of the report, along with comments from the public and other government agencies.

"The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement includes a range of estimates of the project's climate impacts, and that information will now need to be closely evaluated by Secretary (of State John) Kerry and other relevant agency heads in the weeks ahead," White House spokesman Matt Lehrich said.

The White House comment came after proponents of the pipeline, which would transport crude from Alberta's oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, crowed about how the State Department report cleared the way for Obama to greenlight the project.

The agency made no explicit recommendation. But the State Department said blocking Keystone XL - or any pipeline - would do little to slow the expansion of Canada's vast oil sands, maintaining the central finding of a preliminary study issued last year.

The 11-volume report's publication opened a new and potentially final stage of an approval process that has dragged for more than five years, taking on enormous political significance.

With another three-month review process ahead and no firm deadline for a decision on the 1,179-mile (1,898-km) line, the issue threatens to drag into the 2014 congressional elections in November.

Obama is under pressure from several vulnerable Democratic senators who favor the pipeline and face re-election at a time when Democrats are scrambling to hang on to control of the U.S. Senate. The project looms over the president's economic and environmental legacy.

Canada's oil sands are the world's third-largest crude oil reserve, behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and the largest open to private investment. The oil sands contain more than 170 billion barrels of bitumen, a tar-like form of crude that requires more energy to extract than conventional oil.

Obama said in June that he was closely watching the review and said he believed the pipeline should go ahead "only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

The report offered some solace to climate activists who want to stem the rise of oil sands output. It reaffirmed that Canada's heavy crude reserves require more energy to produce and process - and therefore result in higher greenhouse gas emissions - than conventional oil fields.

But after extensive economic modeling, it found that the line itself would not slow or accelerate the development of the oil sands. That finding is largely in line with what oil industry executives have long argued.

"This final review puts to rest any credible concerns about the pipeline's potential negative impact on the environment," said Jack Gerard, head of the oil industry's top lobby group, the American Petroleum Institute.

The optimism was echoed by the chief executive of TransCanada, and Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who said he hoped Obama would approve the project in the first half of 2014.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will consult with eight government agencies over the next three months about the broader national security, economic and environmental impacts of the project before deciding whether he thinks it should go ahead.

The public will have 30 days to comment, beginning next week. A previous comment period in March yielded more than 1.5 million comments.

Kerry has no set deadline. The open-ended review made some pipeline supporters nervous.

"The administration's strategy is to defeat the project with continuing delays," said Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, where the oil boom has boosted truck and rail traffic.

Some North Dakota oil would move on the pipeline, designed to take as much as 830,000 barrels of crude per day from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would meet the project's already complete southern leg to take the crude to the refining hub on the Texas Gulf coast.

The State Department's study found that oil from the Canadian oil sands is about 17 percent more "greenhouse gas intensive" than average oil used in the United States because of the energy required to extract and process it. It is 2 percent to 10 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than the heavy grades of oil it replaces.

The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, said the report shows the pipeline would create as much pollution each year as the exhaust from almost 6 million cars - evidence that it said will be hard for Obama to ignore.

"Reports of an industry victory on the Keystone XL pipeline are vastly over-stated," said Michael Brune, the group's executive director.


Schism between Obama, enviromentalists over energy policy

 President Barack Obama is sticking to a fossil-fuel dependent energy policy, delivering a blow to a monthslong, behind-the-scenes effort by nearly every major environmental group to convince the White House that the policy is at odds with his goals on global warming.

The division between Obama and some of his staunchest supporters has been simmering for months, a surprising schism that shows the fine line the environmental community has walked with a Democratic president who has taken significant steps on climate change, and the recalcitrance of Obama’s White House when it is criticized, even by its allies.

Days before Obama’s State of the Union speech, the heads of 18 environmental groups sent a letter to the president that had long been in the works saying his policy doesn’t make sense. They see a contradiction in increased American production of energy from oil and natural gas at the same time the government is attempting to reduce the pollution blamed for global warming.

"We believe that continued reliance on an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution," they wrote.

But in his Tuesday night speech, Obama proclaimed that embracing all forms of energy, even carbon-pollution fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, is working.

"Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet," said Obama.

White House officials knew last spring that a letter objecting to their energy policy was in the works. They urged the environmental groups to wait until after Obama delivered a speech on climate change in June, hoping his aggressive steps on global warming would change their minds.

"There is a cognitive dissonance inside the administration. We believe their commitment to fight climate change is genuine, and yet the energy policy goals of the administration make achieving climate change much more difficult," Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in an interview with the Associated Press.

The environmental groups’ stance could be dismissed as advocacy groups just doing what they do — pushing the president to go further on an issue important to their members. Already, they have protested a pipeline project carrying Canadian tar sands oil into the U.S., fought to shutter coal-fired power plants and opposed hydraulic fracturing.

But for the major groups, the letter marked new territory, the first time the lobby has been both united and sharply critical of Obama’s central environmental issue and one they support in principle: curbing climate change.


About-turn underway in Europe?

The EU’s energy commissioner, G√ľnther Oettinger, has spoken out against a planned 40% cut in CO2 emissions across the EU by 2030, just a week after he helped to launch the policy.

Speaking at an ‘Industry Matters’ conference in Brussels, Oettinger said those who expected the cut to “save the world” were “arrogant or stupid”, and publicly questioned whether the reduction was even achievable.

“It’s an ambitious compromise and I am a little bit sceptical,” he told delegates at the conference, organised by the pan-European employers' confederation BusinessEurope.

“I have to be constructive as I’m a member of the team but I’m sceptical.”

The energy commissioner, who argued for a lesser 35% goal behind the scenes, said the EU was only on track to cut emissions 20% by the decades's end because of economic crisis and the closure of soviet-era plants in Eastern Europe.

“These were low-hanging fruits but there are no more now, so every percentage going down gets more difficult and cost-intensive,” he said. The EU was just responsible for 10.6% of global emissions today, a sum that would fall to 4.5% by 2030, he noted.

“To think that with this 4.5% of global emissions you can save the world is not realistic,” Oettinger said. “It is arrogant or stupid. We need a global commitment.”

The EU’s proposed 2030 package will now be discussed at a European summit of EU heads of state in March, before a new proposal is revealed in September, the same month that an international climate summit meets in Lima, Peru.

A final package should then be agreed before July 2015, ahead of a climate summit in Paris that is supposed to forge a binding global agreement.

As well as addressing climate issues, Oettinger, a Christian Democrat from Germany, said that in the long-term Europe might import gas from Iraq, Nigeria, Libya and Qatar.

Shale gas 'pioneers'

He hailed the UK and Poland as cheap energy “pioneers” for their efforts to exploit shale gas and said that perhaps the US could export some of its shale here.

“Europe is on the way to deindustrialise and the US has a different strategy,” he said.

Oettinger’s speech did not chime with the Commission’s own recent ‘Trends to 2050’ analysis which forecast a 32% CO2 cut by 2030 under a business-as-usual scenario.

Environmentalists say that including surplus carbon allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System would take this figure to 40% without additional efforts. Friends of the Earth spokesman Brook Riley dubbed Oettinger’s remarks “utter nonsense”.

As a whole, the EU sees a strong commitment to cutting greenhouse gases as key to persuading other countries to make similar pledges.



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: