Thursday, May 11, 2017

Do some conservatives agree with global warming?/b>

By Charles Tips, Former Science Editor at the University of Texas Press

Yes. This conservative is hoping they are right.

Having followed this since my days as a science editor beginning in the early 70s, I know what the pronouncements have been and I know the science behind it. I’ve seen all the twists and turns depicted in the McKee cartoon shown in Jon Davis' answer.

Here are some indisputable climate facts. They were settled science in the 70s and remain so today.

We are in the Quaternary ice age, 2.6 million years into it
As you can see here, we get an ice age every 155 million years

The first couple of ice ages were of “snowball earth” proportions. Since then, they have lasted at least 30 million years.

We are in the Holocene epoch, an interglacial—11.7 millennia into it

As you can see here, we are the latest in a series of interglacials. Some have lasted a bit shorter than the Holocene, some a bit longer. All start and stop with great rapidity (in climate terms). Most have been warmer than the Holocene despite the lack of heavy industry by our ancestors in the genus Homo.

The periodicity of the above events owes to the Milankovitch cycles, though they have not been worked out to the point we can accurately back-model glaciations

Glacial maxes have featured ice at the latitude of Chicago and Paris a mile thick, three miles thick at the latitude of Montreal or Stockholm

Here are some facts with regard to carbon dioxide and its role in climate.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide, readily absorbed by ice and cold water, during glacial maxes falls to 200 ppm, a level highly stressful to plant life

During interglacials, its release from melting ice and warming oceans raises atmospheric CO2 to the 360 ppm range, still stressful for plant life (plants like it much higher)

The radiative-convective model that says that all things else being equal carbon dioxide and some other gases trap radiative heat in the lower troposphere (our atmosphere) warming our climate to a quantifiable amount had by the 1970s been not settled science but reliable science for almost a century

We are at ~400 ppm now with the portion above 360 ppm thought to largely reflect man’s industrial contribution. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration varies all over the place naturally as you can see in this model.

Note that the Andean-Saharan ice age at the Ordovician-Silurian boundary proceeded despite high (estimated) atmospheric carbon dioxide. Note also that the last cooling at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary did not reach ice-age proportions.

Significant amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide were being produced at the time as the South Asia and the Australian plates repositioned across the Tethys Ocean, volatilizing massive quantities of calcareous rock.

Answer: Given that glaciations are not healthy for plants and other living things, let’s hope the “scientific consensus” is correct and that we will create enough warming to offset the coming glaciation.

Some scientists are saying we need to jack atmospheric carbon dioxide up to 700 ppm in order to forestall the next glaciation. Others say it is fait accompli. Speaking on behalf of the future of our species, I’d like a little better assurance. Given that the R-C model states that each doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (all things else being equal, which they seldom are in climate) will produce a degree C rise in mean earth temperature.

I’m guessing it’s going to take at least a couple of doublings or more to minimize the effects of the glacial period likely to arrive anywhere from a couple of decades to a couple of millennia now.

Big However

A couple of big corrections are in order here.

First, science does not proceed by consensus and indeed has not. The overblown notion that a vast majority of climate scientists agree on AGW theory is worse than an overblown notion; it is a fabricated talking point that has been debunked time and time again: '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong.

Second, AGW theory came and went already, the reason we now talk about “climate change” instead. AGW was a radiative-convective theory but one that claimed that the venerable R-C models were wrong in significant respect.

AGW posited a previously overlooked forcing that would heat the air in the upper troposphere over the tropical latitudes, becoming unstable and tipping over into our atmosphere causing a jump of a degree Centigrade that would then trigger a feedback loop causing a runaway heat spike, all of this by 2004. There was a mechanism, observable effects and a timetable. There were also more than forty predictive models.

The effects were never observed (no heating was detected) and the event did not occur and has shown no sign of occurring since. Only two of the models contained the observed results, and those only at the margins. In short, AGW had no predictive ability and fell flat as a hypothesis.

Recently, this article came out in our most prestigious scientific magazine: "Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time". Significantly, it’s not written by a climate scientist, but it is not having to weather any attacks from them either. This is your basic PR climbdown saying in effect “we were wrong, and we are back to the old radiative-convective understanding.

I can’t speak for all conservatives, indeed, many buy into the idea of catastrophic warming. But this conservative has been predicting that AGW theory would come to naught since first hearing about it in the late 70s. But the coming return of glaciation that first prompted me to start looking for climate books to publish… still a concern.


Bill Nye, the Population Control Guy Unmasks Anti-Human Bias at Base of Modern Liberal Thought

Apparently, Bill Nye is attempting to “save the world” by controlling its population.

According to Conservative Review, on the season finale of his Netflix series, “Bill Nye Saves the World,” the former children’s show star discussed overpopulation, asking a panel whether or not “we should have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world.”

Bill Nye’s exchange with his panel on population control unmasks and illustrates the anti-human bias at the base of much of modern liberal progressivism. This goes all the way back to people like Paul Ehrlich, who in the 1970s was predicting worldwide population explosion resulting in widespread famine or pestilence and all-around catastrophe, none of which came true.

When you listen to people like Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich, Bill Nye and others, you get the idea that human beings are considered to be a liability to them, a threat to the Earth, and that we would be just fine if we could eliminate most human beings. Christianity, on the other hand, correctly understands that human beings are a resource, not a liability, and that while each human being has one mouth to feed, he or she has two hands, a brain, two feet, two eyes. And each human being brings more to the world than they take from it and additionally every human being is the special creation of God, and God never created a nobody.

The American Family Association weighed in on the topic in the AFA Journal: “Nye isn’t actually a scientist. He has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. He left that field to do stand-up comedy for a while before breaking into showbiz. And apparently, over the years, his basic ideas about science have evolved into something that has nothing to do with science at all, and everything to do with leftist ideology.”

AFA went onto report that Nye and panelist Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University, “clearly identified children as ‘problems.’ In his concern for the amount of carbon dioxide children emit into the atmosphere, he pushed the idea that those in developed countries should be penalized for having ‘extra kids’ (more than two). Nye also suggests that the U.S. develop policies like those in China that have led to abusive treatment of its citizens, including exorbitant fines, loss of livelihood and forced abortion.”

The maliciousness of an anti-human, anti-baby worldview had been seen for many years in China, home of the compulsory one-child policy—a policy that is, at last, being abandoned.

Every developed country in the world has a declining birth rate, and it is portending a grim future where there are fewer and fewer children and fewer and fewer resources being developed, and it is a result of an anti-Christian, anti-baby, anti-human worldview.


Trump moving slowly on Paris agreement

The changes the Trump administration is expected to make on environmental issues are ambiguous, to say the least. And that’s worrisome. In one sense, we’re seeing welcome results. According to The Washington Post, “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is ‘reviewing the charter and charge’ of more than 200 advisory boards, committees and other entities both within and outside his department.”

Contrary to what’s being reported, these moves are neither nefarious nor unforeseen. At the EPA, specifically, “All of the people being dismissed were at the end of serving at least one three-year term, although these terms are often renewed instead of terminated,” the Post explains, later adding, “Members of EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors had been informed twice — in January, before President Barack Obama left office, and then more recently by EPA career staff members — that they would be kept on for another term, adding to their confusion.” Talk about having unrealistic expectations!

Pruitt is shaking things up at the EPA — and that’s good. Moreover, the administration’s revisiting statist mandates like the Clean Power Plan is another promising sign that more needed relief is on the way. That being said, there are serious questions being raised about Barack Obama’s Paris climate accord.

For the record, last year Trump vowed, “We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement.” He also stated: “President Obama entered the United States into the Paris climate accords [sic] unilaterally and without the permission of Congress. This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much our energy and how much we use right here in America. So foreign bureaucrats are going to be controlling what we’re using and what we’re doing on our land in our country. No way.”

He’s right. But whether a formal dismissal actually happens remains speculative. ABC News reports, “The White House has postponed a Tuesday meeting to discuss whether the United States should withdraw from the landmark international climate deal struck in Paris under the Obama administration. The White House said late Monday that the meeting would be rescheduled. This is the second time a meeting of top aides on the issue has been delayed.” Previous reports have indicated that a climate change rift exists between Trump officials, which helps explain the delays. Ivanka Trump, anyone?

Numerous groups are imploring Trump to take the U.S. out of participation. They understand that the Paris accord isn’t just an economic bludgeon; it’s also a gross infringement on the Constitution. If the U.S. were to properly enter such an accord, it’s the Senate’s, not the president’s, duty to make it happen. If Trump backtracks on this issue, not only will the economy and Constitution suffer, but his voters won’t be very accepting of it, either.


Trump's agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, declares that 'ethanol is here to stay'

Big corn has a win

For a few moments, President Trump seemed like he might back away from the country's costly ethanol mandate. First, Trump tapped an ethanol opponent to head up the Environmental Protection Agency. Then in February the president plugged market deregulation for the renewable fuel industry instead of government subsidization.

But those hopes officially came crashing down this weekend when U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue fastened a little pin to his jacket lapel that read "Don't mess with the RFS."

Flanked by Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Steve King of Iowa, Perdue doubled down, telling a herd of reporters at a local cattle lot that "ethanol is here to stay, and we're going to work for new technologies to be more efficient."

Despite the negative economic and environmental effects, the federal government will continue the Renewable Fuel Standard, forcing consumers to guzzle gasoline with the blended biofuel. Of course, this is nothing new.

The EPA has long mandated that the corn-based fuel get blended into the country's fuel supply. And right before Thanksgiving last year, the agency announced a new 200 million-gallon increase, requiring 19.28 billion gallons of the renewable fuel be blended with the country's conventional fuel supply.

For anyone who's not a farmer, there's something in that new standard for everyone to hate.

Ethanol production regularly gobbles up as much as 40 percent of the nation's corn crop, making animal feed and human food more expensive as a result. It has boosted fuel costs by as much as $3.4 billion since 2014, according to the EPA's own analysis. And it may actually increase emissions, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Earlier this year some hoped that Trump would end the reign of the so-called ethanol barons, that cartel that's collected tens of billions of dollars in subsidies over the decades. If any Republican could rescue consumers and relieve aggrieved environmentalists, it would've been Trump.

But with a little dime-store pin and a short stump speech, the agriculture secretary has made clear that the costly ethanol mandate is here to stay.


Australians want company tax spent on environment, survey finds

A most amusing "survey" below.  It calls to mind the way "elections" in totalitarian countries usually find 99% support for the dictator.

Some obviously leading questions were asked.  To what ordinary voter would it occur that company tax in particular should be diverted to fund environmental programs?  It is just a Greenie wet dream.

And the suggestions were put to an undefinable group of people via an automated telephone poll on behalf of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).  And they got the resounding result the ACF undoubtedly wanted. If I had designed the questions, the result would show very little support for the environment.

Not to put to fine a point on it, the findings are garbage.  And nobody actually talked to any of the people surveyed!

Australians have given the thumbs down to Australia's environmental protection in a new survey, which shows a high level of scepticism about the Federal Government's commitment to protecting nature.

The poll has revealed more than two thirds of Australians want a share of company tax spent directly on protecting the environment and more than 76 per cent want a levy imposed on polluting companies to protect reefs, rivers, forests, and wildlife.

Nearly 3,000 people were interviewed for the pre-budget sounding, conducted by market research company ReachTel for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF).

Six out of 10 said protecting the environment should receive a bigger share of the federal budget, while nearly three quarters said they would support a political party with a policy for "a national plan where nature thrives".

Just 11 per cent thought that nature protection should receive less funding.

Yet spending on environmental programs is in decline and set for further cuts, with conservation groups arguing that protecting the environment is shouldering a disproportionate share of "budget repair".

The environment budget has declined by 20 per cent since the Coalition first came to office in 2013, according to analysis by the ACF, and is projected to decline by 38 per cent on 2013 levels through to 2019.

Over the same period, overall spending is projected to increase by 22 per cent.

The political leanings of those polled in its survey were broadly consistent with the findings of most voting intention surveys.

They translate to a two-party preferred result of 47 per cent Liberal, 53 per cent Labor.

The survey also showed four in 10 Australians thought the Government has "a plan to protect the reefs, rivers, forests, and wildlife for current and future generations".

This was outnumbered by 45 per cent of respondents who disagreed with that statement.

ACF chief executive Kelly O'Shannassy said the poll showed the Federal Government is "completely out of touch with what Australians expect their elected representatives to do".

"The only way for the Prime Minister to restore his credibility on environment and climate change is to reverse cuts and develop a comprehensive national plan to protect nature and move to clean energy," she said.

"The polling shows that Australians support long-term measures that would provide increased funding to protect and restore Australia's reefs, rivers, forests, and wildlife."

The survey results come in the wake of the independent State of the Environment report, released by the Turnbull Government in March.

It found that despite significant improvements on key benchmarks, resources for environmental management and protection were "insufficient".

The State of the Environment Report also said the nation lacks "an overarching national policy that establishes a clear vision for the protection and sustainable management of Australia's environment to the year 2050".

The office of Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has been contacted for comment.



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   main.html 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: