Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Why The Met Office Has Hung Its Chief Scientist Out To Dry

But nobody seems to be asking the old fool how climate change could be causing Britain's wild weather when there has been no climate change for many years -- JR

Last week the Met Office and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology issued an admirable joint report on the floods and their possible connection to climate change, concluding that it is not possible to make such a link. ‘As yet’, it said, ‘there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding’.

In many ways this was not much of a surprise, since only the wild activist fringe among the climate science community have tended to try to make the link in the past.

Taking such a level-headed view, the Met Office report represented a valuable opportunity to bring some calm to an increasingly frenzied debate over the flooding. However, unfortunately for everyone, the good work was all undone by the Met Office’s own chief scientist, Professor Dame Julia Slingo. Newly ennobled in the New Year’s honours list, Slingo seems to have found the temptation to put a global warming spin on everything that crosses her desk too much, and she blurted out to journalists the extraordinary claim that ‘all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change’.

Her position was undoubtedly a big problem for the Met Office, directly contradicting her own organisation’s report and the views of the scientific mainstream. It was therefore perhaps inevitable that these differences would be picked up in the media. Over the weekend, the Mail on Sunday reported a senior climatologist, Professor Mat Collins of Exeter University, as saying that:-

‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

As the newspaper pointed out, there was an obvious discrepancy with what Slingo was telling the press.

On the grapevine I hear that climate scientists are privately furious with Slingo; their profession has had a rough ride in recent years and efforts to restore its battered reputation are not to be cheaply squandered. The signs are that climatologists have hung Slingo out to dry. Last night, Collins and the Met Office issued a much-anticipated response to the Mail on Sunday article. This made a great deal of global warming having increased the water content of the atmosphere, leading to increased rainfall, a surprising point given that as recently as 2012 Slingo had told Parliament that global warming was ‘loading the dice’ in favour of cold, dry winters. It also made a strong sales pitch about the potential of climate models to predict increases in storminess in future.

But it was what it did not say that was most significant. For while it artfully implied that the Mail on Sunday had got things wrong, in fact it went on to show only that the original report was consistent with Collins’ mainstream views. Regarding Slingo’s outlandish claims about ‘all the evidence’ supporting a link between the floods and global warming, there was only an ominous silence.


5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 23 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.

Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?


Are energy efficient homes making us ILL? Toxic mould caused by poor air circulation could trigger 'sick building syndrome'
Energy efficient buildings are an important part of tackling the world’s energy crisis.  But while these structures can keep draughts out, they also have a hidden threat lurking within.

Deep within their crevices and corners, green buildings are susceptible to trapping humid air in which toxic mould can spread

The problem, according to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), affects between 30 and 50 per cent of new or refurbished buildings.  A number of these homes have become ghost buildings after the damp seeped in and destroyed furniture and belongings.

The Alberta Court of Appeal in Canada, for instance, has been abandoned since 2001, after renovations to 87-year-old building went wrong.

When the renovated building reopened, according to Umair Irfan at ClimateWire, judges and attorneys complained of fatigue, irritated lungs, and watery eyes.

Mould is a type of fungus - thousands of types are released at different times of the year, though autumn is the peak time for the release of the spores.

Up to four per cent of the population is thought to react to mould spores - with as many as one in ten people with allergies such as hay fever and eczema affected.

‘They couldn't figure out what was wrong,’ Tang Lee, a professor of architecture in the Faculty of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary told Climate Wire.

Air quality samples revealed that the problem came from mould growing inside the walls.  The new airtight building trapped moisture breeding toxic mould.

Professor Lee said that the situation is a stark reminder that even in pursuit of saving energy, human health should be a major concern in designing and retrofitting the enclosed spaces where people spend most of their lives.

‘It's not just making it look pretty, and it's not just making it more efficient,’ she said.

The World Health Organisation has termed what has happened in Canada and elsewhere as sick building syndrome (SBS).

According to the HSE, the most common symptoms of SBS are headaches, lethargy and poor concentration, skin irritation, dry itchy eyes and a congested nose.

Mould spores can also be dangerous for some asthmatics. Around two-thirds of the more serious life-threatening asthma attacks are believed to be triggered by mould.

Mould may also be linked to Parkinson's disease. A recent U.S. study found a compound given off by mould reduced levels of the brain chemical dopamine, a process which causes Parkinson's symptoms, although more research is needed.


Obama’s War on Coal: What possibly could go wrong?

The Washington Free Beacon headline read, “Report: Coal Power Plant Shutdowns to Accelerate, Industry, workers blame Obama EPA for layoffs as companies retire larger coal-fired plants.”

The article by Lachlan Markay reported on federal energy regulators who predict: “Projected retirements of coal-fired generating capacity in [EIA’s annual Energy Outlook report] include retirements above and beyond those reported to EIA as planned by power plant owners and operators.”

Markay notes that, “A key factor in those retirements is a new Environmental Protection Agency regulation on emissions of toxins from coal-fired power plants. Known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, it is expected to dramatically increase financial pressure on the coal sector.”

Isn’t this good news?  After all, we have been inundated with reports on how bad coal is, to the point that supposedly well-educated Seattle, Wash. residents fear coal trains running through their town due to environmentalist stoked worries about the previously unknown second-hand black lung disease.

What could possibly go wrong with administration policies that pander to this anti-coal barrage?

After all, we are investing billions of dollars in renewable energy sources.  Why would anyone be concerned that more coal fired electricity generation plants are going to be shut down than even the government anticipated?

Here’s why.

In 2012, 37 percent of all electricity in the nation was generated by coal fired plants according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA).  By comparison, solar power made up 0.1 percent, and all renewable energy not including hydro-electric made up around 5 percent of our total electricity production.

Consider that in 2008, coal accounted 49 percent of all electricity. The rapid reduction in coal fired electricity generation is only partially being replaced by an increase in natural gas fired plants ensuring that less electricity will be available for U.S. consumers in 2016 than today.

Add to this equation news reports from earlier in the winter that many utilities were struggling to meet the demand for electricity due to the cold weather.   The natural emphasis of the stories focused upon the increased cost of electricity due to the high demand for power, and this is a guaranteed outgrowth of the EPA’s continuing war on coal fired utilities.

As the nation’s ability to generate electricity diminishes, the demand for power continues to increase taxing the electrical grid in ways our nation has not seen in generations.

The EIA itself reports the in 2012, more than 3 percent of coal fired capacity was lost due to closures and it anticipates another 20 percent of this electric generation capacity will cease to exist by 2020 largely due to EPA regulations.

To put this into perspective, in a time of rising electrical demand, our nation will be losing 6 percent of its total electric generation capabilities.  Of course a portion of this will be made up through conversion to burning natural gas, but the loss of coal fired electricity will create a shortage, much higher prices and blackouts during critical, high use times.

A nation that prides itself on being the most modern in the world, won’t be able to flip a switch and turn on the lights due to the Obama Administration’s war on coal, and those in more economically depressed areas will be forced to choose between expensive heat or air conditioning and putting food on their table.

That is the reality of the war on coal and cheap energy as a whole.  A war guaranteed to create brownouts, blackouts and families shivering under blankets in the dark.

But the most damaging impacts won’t be until a few years after Obama has left office and voters will blame the President who has to clean up his mess, rather than acknowledging just who turned off the lights.

A war on coal, what possibly could go wrong?


Bill Nye (Not a Science Guy) Blows it on the Global Warming Lie


RUSH:  Sometimes it gets so depressing.  I'm reading my tech blogs.  It's my hobby.  Folks, I'd love to call these out by name, but believe me it wouldn't be worth it.  It doesn't matter.  I know you're not going to go read them anyway.  But there is this one blog comprised of people who think they are engineers and scientists. They're 24, 25 years old -- maybe in their early 30s -- and it's just classic reading them.

They are nothing more than the product of the propaganda they've been taught at every level of education.  For example: Global warming.  "It is undeniable.  It is as real -- man-made global warming is as real -- as the sun coming up," and apparently, I guess, one of the Sunday shows had a debate between Marsha Blackburn and Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," who is not a science guy.  Bill Nye, apparently when talking about the North Pole, held up a picture of the South Pole.

But anyway, he believes in all this gobbledygook, and it's a hoax.  Democrats are reviving it, by the way. Kerry, Obama, they're reviving it just like they revive minimum wage and it gets their base going.  It expands the role of government.  But there's absolutely no evidence. It's a total hoax.  They're now focusing on the drought in California as part of global warming.  It's ridiculous.  The reason there's a drought in the Central Valley is because of water policy.

They have simply diverted water from human beings to animals, endangered species! They've been doing this in California since I don't know when, the '70s and '80s. That's how long they've been doing it, and that's why there's a drought.  That's why there's an agricultural crisis in the Central Valley.  It's not because of global warming. It's because of water policy.  California doesn't have enough water naturally.

They've got to take the runoff from the snowmelt, Hetch Hetchy in San Francisco. Southern California doesn't get enough rain; it's got to be diverted down there.  Southern California, ditto.  They're diverting water to save snail darters and things like that.  They've been doing it for years.  But none of that is given the time of day among these young, hip, know-it-alls.  I read this and I want to howl. If I had a chance to talk to these guys, how in the world would I get through to them?

It's a challenge.

It's something I ponder, 'cause I think one of these days it's probably going to happen somewhere.


RUSH: So, anyway, I didn't watch this, I guess it was Meet the Depressed.  Bill Nye, the Science Guy, was debating Marsha Blackburn, a congresswoman from Tennessee, about global warming.  Look, those of you who listen here regularly know that the whole hoax has been exposed thanks to the treasure trove of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia in the UK.  All of the data faked.  All of the charts rigged, from ancient times to the current.  Any data that showed there was no warming when there should have been was suppressed.  Any data that did not show sufficient warming when they wanted it to was also suppressed and rearranged.  I mean, they just made it up.

Now, it's long since been forgotten, but at the time everybody paying attention realized that some of the key players in the man-made global warming argument are involved in this.  I mean, it's just ridiculous.  You go back, I remember watching in 1985 This Week with David Brinkley, and there's this scientist on named Oppenheimer.  And he's warning everybody (paraphrasing), "We got 20 years.  Actually not 1985.  It was 1980.  We got 20 years.  Now, we can't conclusively say that the earth is warming, and we can't conclusively say that man is causing it.  But we've only got 20 years, and we must err on the side of assuming we are causing it and it is getting warmer.  Because if we miss it, we're going to totally blow our effort to fix it in 20 years."

Well, I'm watching that and I'm totally incredulous, just on the basis of my common sense.  A, you're telling me that you can't prove it, we don't know it, but we better act as though it's happening because if we don't, in 20 years it's going to be what, disaster?  It's going to get so bad we can't fix it.  Well, if you can't prove in 1980 that we're causing it, then what the hell are we going to do to stop it?  That was only one year after Newsweek had run a cover on the coming global cooling, a new ice age.  One year later it becomes global warming.

And, of course, the guy is calling for massive tax increases, the United Nations to be involved, the creation of a worldwide agency to police developed countries to make sure they didn't pollute more than their share.  It's classic what was happening.  An absolute total hoax that they couldn't prove.  And even now, look it, I've taken you through this.  I'm not going to waste your time going through it anymore.  My point is, so I'm reading my little tech blog, and Bill Nye apparently in this debate with Marsha Blackburn said something innocuous as everybody knows that the earth is warming and that man is causing it.  They just took that quote and the little blog post:  Thank you.  Thank you, Bill Nye.  No, everybody doesn't agree with it.

Anyway, that constituted debate victory for these guys.  And I think about this in the terms of we're going to have to find a way to permeate the minds of these young people who have been propagandized and who want to believe that there's disaster and imminent danger at every turn.  People get caught up in that.  It excites them.  But then there's also vanity, this silly notion that we're causing it.  And then the doubly silly notion that we can stop it.  It's so absurd.  When you just stop to think about it, it's absurd to believe what they are teaching, which is that progress, human progress is destroying a planet created by God and placing us on it for the express purpose of having dominion over it.  They don't believe in creation or God, many of them, is one of the things.



Australia reviewing  renewable-energy mandates

Comment from the USA
It was out with the Labor Party and in with the Liberal Party in the Australian elections last September (translation: the government switched over from six years of progressive dominance to their version of conservatism).

Part of Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s campaign platform was cutting government spending and taking a more reality-based stance on the country’s green commitments (including a deeply unpopular carbon tax), and he immediately started to make good on both of those promises by getting rid of the country’s Climate Commission and freezing renewables funding (not to mention his new government’s suggestion as to where the United Nations could stick their latest attempt to rope developed countries into a mutual impoverishment pact “global climate treaty”).

Now, the government is moving forward on reevaluating the economic wisdom of their mandatory renewable energy target (RET), much to the chagrin of both Australian and global greens. Via Reuters:

The target to ensure Australia generates 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources in 2020 has been a boon to the nation’s wind and solar producers, but has been blamed by the conservative Coalition government for increasing power prices.

“In particular, the review will consider the contribution of the RET in reducing emissions, its impact on electricity prices and energy markets, as well as its costs and benefits for the renewable energy sector, the manufacturing sector and Australian households,” Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said in a statement. …

Macfarlane said the outcome of the review was not set, though Environment Minister Greg Hunt last month proposed to delay the implementation of the target by five years. …

Green groups in Australia saw the appointment of Dick Warburton, a former Reserve Bank board member who has expressed doubt that carbon emissions cause climate change, as a clear sign that the government’s intention is to weaken or remove the target.

Which is probably a pretty good idea. The greens doth protest that weakening the target will ease investment in renewables and result in the country using more coal for electricity generation — but funnily enough, Germany’s very similar mandated energy targets of the past few years have in fact directly resulted in the country turning to coal for power generation, and a colossal waste of taxpayer money and loss of business competitiveness besides.



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: