Republicans kill global warming committee
Republicans kill House global warming committee.
Republicans kill House global warming committee.
Tag: environment
Republicans kill global warming committee
Tumbleweeds
Naked bodies and a new Messiah
If anyone had any doubt that the global warming movement is undergoing a serious collapse, this so-called news article from Spiegal Online, entitled “Naked bodies and a new Messiah: Green groups are trying to sex up climate change,” probably lays that doubt to rest. Key quote:
Environmentalists and scientists are concerned about the massive drop in public interest in the topic over the last year. Now they are looking for new strategies to turn the tide. They’re searching for so-called “mind bombs” — highly emotional images that reduce a complex problem down to one core message.
Sadly, the article never asks the fundamental question: What do “mind bombs” have to do with facts, data, and proving your theories are correct in the real world?
The answer of course is obvious: Nothing.
» Read more
Dead fish cover 20-miles of Arkansas River
One hundred thousand dead fish cover 20-miles of the Arkansas River in Arkansas and no one knows why.
One hundred thousand dead fish cover 20-miles of the Arkansas River in Arkansas and no one knows why.
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’.
This winter is the Stalingrad in the ‘Climate War’.
EPA takes over Texas pollution permits
Power grab! The EPA has taken from Texas regulators the permitting process for air quality on major industrial facilities.
Power grab! The EPA has taken from Texas regulators the permitting process for air quality on major industrial facilities.
Avoiding the facts in the climate debate
Yesterday the New York Times published a long article by Justin Gillis describing the work of Charles Keeling, the scientist who first measured the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. The article is very much worth reading, as it does a generally reasonable and detailed job of giving the history, background, and importance of Keeling’s research.
Unfortunately, the flaws of Gillis’s article illustrate the difficulty of debating climate change science, or maybe any political issue, in our times. Though Gillis does make an effort to give the skeptical scientists their fair due, he is so convinced they are wrong that his article in the end fails to address the basic areas of disagreement on which the entire climate debate today hinges. In fact, by avoiding some of the debate’s most basic issues, Gillis ends up creating barriers which make an honest analysis of the issues impossible.
That this seems to happen in almost all political debates today is distressing, at the least. How can we honestly face our problems if we refuse to face all the facts on which those problems hang?
Let’s consider the specific areas where Gillis’s demonstrates a large blind spot:
1. One of the fundamental facts that throws a wrench in all global warming theories is the fact, recognized by all climate scientists, that in all past global warming events, the Earth’s climate warmed before the levels of carbon dioxide rose. In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere did not cause global warming. Instead, the warming encouraged the increase in carbon dioxide.
An honest appraisal of the science of climate change would always recognize this puzzling but very significant data point. Gillis, however, fails to mention it. Nor is Gillis alone in this failure. Almost all global warming advocates as well as their willing helpers in the press routinely ignore this important detail. Yet, that climate scientists can’t explain this fact is one of primary reasons many are skeptical of the disaster scenarios put forth by global warming advocates.
As I say, an honest discussion of this subject would always recognize this point.
2. As his primary evidence that the Earth is now warming from the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Gillis has this to say:
In 2007, a body appointed by the United Nations declared that the scientific evidence that the earth was warming had become unequivocal, and it added that humans were almost certainly the main cause. Mr. Gore and the panel jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This “body” is of course the IPCC. That Gillis is strangely reluctant to actually name this organization in his article suggests he knows its reputation is seriously damaged. Rather than face this fact and deal with it, however, he prefers to ignore it, and in the process help his readers avoid this fact as well.
Yet, the IPCC reports have known problems. They contain some fundamental factual errors, as well as citing as evidence numerous press releases from environmental advocacy groups, hardly a reliable source of information. This is not to say that the IPCC reports should be dismissed wholesale, but for Gillis to depend on them as his sole source of proof of global warming without recognizing these problems is not only inappropriate, it discredits everything he writes. It also suggests that he relies more on the prestige of the organization who issued the report, rather than the science behind it. His further reference to Al Gore and the Nobel prize is further evidence of this reliance on authority.
Once again, an honest appraisal of the present state of the global warming debate would gladly face all these facts, and describe them for the reader.
3. Gillis makes the unfortunate decision to call anyone who questions the science of global warming a “contrarian.” The use of this denigrating term, comparable to the use of the term “denier”, suggests that Gillis has a closed mind about the subject, and has no interest in finding out anything about the skeptical view.
An honest appraisal of the debate, however, would avoid these kinds of loaded terms. It is perfectly fine to note the weaknesses of the skeptical position. It is not acceptable to use ad hominem attacks to discredit them.
All in all, the three examples above encompass all of the basic problems we face in almost all our political debates today:
- First, the refusal to face some inconvenient facts.
- Second, the willingness to rely on authority or prestige, rather than the facts themselves.
- And third, the willingness to use ad hominem attacks to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.
Until we stop doing these foolish things, we will find it impossible to discuss or solve our problems reasonably, and with good will.
Eight former park superintendents are pressing the U.S. and Canadian governments to expand government control over lands adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton Lakes National Park.
Power grab! Eight former park superintendents are pressing the U.S. and Canadian governments to expand government control over lands adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton Lakes National Park.
Power grab! Eight former park superintendents are pressing the U.S. and Canadian governments to expand government control over lands adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton Lakes National Park.
Automakers suing EPA over higher ethanol mix gas
Good intentions strikes again! Automakers are suing the EPA over its decision to allow a higher ethanol mixture in gasoline. Key quote:
Automakers say they are worried the EPA decision would eventually lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and hurting their engines. The problem could be exacerbated if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite the potential engine problems.
Good intentions strikes again! Automakers are suing the EPA over its decision to allow a higher ethanol mixture in gasoline. Key quote:
Automakers say they are worried the EPA decision would eventually lead to motorists unknowingly filling up their older cars and trucks with E15 and hurting their engines. The problem could be exacerbated if E15 fuels are cheaper than more conventional blends, prompting owners of older vehicles to use the fuel despite the potential engine problems.
Electricity from wind plant so expensive no one will buy it
The electricity produced from a proposed wind plant will be so expensive the company can’t find customers. They do have one customer, however, but one wonders why:
In its 15-year deal, National Grid agreed to pay 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour for Cape Wind power beginning in 2013, with a 3.5 percent annual increase. The starting price is twice what National Grid pays today for power from fossil fuels, and regulators say the contract will add about 1.7 percent to its residential customers’ bills.
Read the whole article. It explains a lot about the failures of renewable energy, and how the efforts of the government and environmentalists to force it on us is misguided and downright foolish.
The electricity produced from a proposed wind plant will be so expensive the company can’t find customers. They do have one customer, however, but one wonders why:
In its 15-year deal, National Grid agreed to pay 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour for Cape Wind power beginning in 2013, with a 3.5 percent annual increase. The starting price is twice what National Grid pays today for power from fossil fuels, and regulators say the contract will add about 1.7 percent to its residential customers’ bills.
Read the whole article. It explains a lot about the failures of renewable energy, and how the efforts of the government and environmentalists to force it on us is misguided and downright foolish.
EPA Document Shows It Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees
Want to know what’s been killing our honeybees? It appears the EPA has known all along and looked the other way: A leaked EPA document shows that it knowingly allowed use a pesticide, despite warnings from its own scientists that it would kill honeybees.
Want to know what’s been killing our honeybees? It appears the EPA has known all along and looked the other way: A leaked EPA document shows that it knowingly allowed use a pesticide, despite warnings from its own scientists that it would kill honeybees.
EPA regulations to go into effect says court
Two stories on the recent attempts of the EPA under the Obama administrions to create new climate regulations. First, a federal appeals court decided Friday not to block the new EPA climate regulations. Second, the war between Texas and the EPA over the EPA’s effort to regulate Texas industry continues unabated.
Two stories on the recent attempts of the EPA under the Obama administrions to create new climate regulations. First, a federal appeals court decided Friday not to block the new EPA climate regulations. Second, the war between Texas and the EPA over the EPA’s effort to regulate Texas industry continues unabated.
8 Observations From The Cancun Climate Conference
Eight observations from the Cancun climate conference. I like this quote the best:
“The enterprise is pompously and risibly dedicated in equal parts to wealth redistribution and self-perpetuation, as a platform for, and along the way, engaging in visceral anti-Americanism.”
Read the whole thing. Very entertaining, in a depressing sort of way.
Eight observations from the Cancun climate conference. I like this quote the best:
“The enterprise is pompously and risibly dedicated in equal parts to wealth redistribution and self-perpetuation, as a platform for, and along the way, engaging in visceral anti-Americanism.”
Read the whole thing. Very entertaining, in a depressing sort of way.
EPA Delays Job-Killing Emissions Regulations
“Elections have consequences.” EPA suddenly delays new rules governing industry emissions.
“Elections have consequences.” EPA suddenly delays new rules governing industry emissions.
Cancun blog
Want to follow the Cancun climate summit come to an end, for good or ill, on this its final day? Check out this blog.
Want to follow the Cancun climate summit come to an end, for good or ill, on this its final day? Check out this blog.
NASA Satellite Sees An Early Meteorological Winter In US Midwest
NASA satellite sees an early meteorological winter in the American midwest.
I know this is weather, not climate, but according to the repeated claims of global warming scientists for the past decade, cold winters like this should no longer be happening. But they are, which means there must be holes in their science!
NASA satellite sees an early meteorological winter in the American midwest.
I know this is weather, not climate, but according to the repeated claims of global warming scientists for the past decade, cold winters like this should no longer be happening. But they are, which means there must be holes in their science!
Clouding the climate picture
Two seemingly conflicting research papers, both focusing on how the formation of clouds might affect, or be affected by, global temperatures, actually end up combining to show that the world’s climate models can’t be trusted. In other words the basic science of predicting climate change remains seriously flawed.
At issue in both papers is how much and under what circumstances clouds help to warm or cool the planet. Do they reflect solar energy back into space or hold it within the atmosphere like a blanket – and by how much? The answer is crucial to determining where global temperatures will be heading in this century – and what if any policies the world’s governments should be adopting to deal with the situation.
The latest research, appearing this week in the journal Science, is the work of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University. In it he examines the weather-satellite databases covering atmospheric conditions over the past 10 years, looking for discernible patterns where changes in temperature have resulted in changes in cloud cover, or vice versa.
In particular, Dessler chooses El Niño and La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean. El Niño, which occurs every three to seven years, is accompanied by an enormous finger of warm water extending eastward along the tropical Pacific, all the way to South America and first appearing around year end. La Niña, which also erupts periodically, produces the opposite effect – a large zone of colder-than-normal water stretching across the Pacific. Both events tend to attract attention, because they usually generate severe weather affecting large areas of North and South America and elsewhere.
El Niño and La Niña are ideal subjects for climate researchers. They both develop quickly and produce, respectively, recognizable spikes and troughs in temperatures. For example, scientists studying the relationship of clouds to temperature can observe changes in cloud cover over the Pacific that precede, coincide with, and follow El Niño and La Niña and then use those changes to estimate how cloud cover affects or is affected by air temperature.
As Dessler describes in the Science paper, he did find evidence of what he calls a small positive feedback, meaning that clouds may prevent some solar heat from radiating into space, thereby warming the planet. He also doesn’t rule out the possibility of a small negative feedback, but says it probably isn’t large enough to overcome other factors contributing to warming.
But Dessler includes several assertions in his text that completely debunk the idea that climate science is “settled,” as asserted by former Vice President Al Gore and a host of others. For example, early on in the paper, Dessler acknowledges that “the most complex and least understood” of climate-feedback mechanisms is cloud feedback. And later on, he admits that “what we really want to determine is the cloud feedback in response to long-term climate change. Unfortunately, it may be decades before a direct measurement is possible.”
The earlier paper, published in the summer of 2010 in the Journal of Geophysical Research, by Roy Spencer and William Braswell of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, goes much farther in challenging the cloud-temperature link. The global warming community has tried for years to discredit Spencer’s work and to brand him as a “denier,” partly because for more than a decade he has produced findings that call into question the reliability of the host of earthbound instruments used to collect global temperature data.
Such accusations have been entirely unfair, because even Spencer, in his eminently readable and informative blog, has asserted from time to time that he isn’t sure whether the climate is changing and human activity is responsible. What gets him into trouble with the conventional wisdom is his emphasis on what’s wrong with current climate science and what remains unknown – and though it’s a short list, it’s formidable:
- “Everyone agrees that the net effect of clouds is to cool the climate system on average. But the climate models suggest that the cloud feedback response to the addition of [carbon dioxide] to our current climate system will be just the opposite, with cloud changes acting to amplify the warming.” [Ed. To put it more simply, clouds cool the climate, except when they are used in global warming climate models.]
- “While we know that evaporation increases with temperature, we don’t know very much about how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature.”
- “There [is] a variety of processes … which can in turn alter the balance between evaporation and precipitation, which will then cause warming or cooling as a result of the humidity change – rather than the other way around.”
[Ed. Concerning the second and third quotes: Since water vapor in the atmosphere is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas, far more important than carbon dioxide, not understanding its detailed relationship with temperature means no model can do a reliable job of predicting the climate.]
In their paper Spencer and Braswell likewise look at the relationship between clouds and temperature. In an extremely detailed and – even to climate researchers – dense examination of the same satellite database, the two authors present an argument that separates the phenomenon of cloud formation from anything relating to temperature changes. As Spencer comments in his blog, regarding the feedback data, “even the experts in the field apparently did not understand them.”
But even interested lay readers can glean the gist of Spencer and Braswell’s findings simply by looking at the graphs they present, which contain jumbles of data points suggesting a complete disconnect between cloud formation and temperatures. This is a strong indication that we don’t know which is the cause and which is the effect, though most climate researchers assume temperature is the cause and clouds are the effect. At best, the researchers conclude, there’s evidence for a slight negative feedback – clouds causing cooling when temperatures rise – but overall there appears to be no link between the two phenomena over long periods.
“I cannot remember a climate issue of which I have ever been so certain,” as Spencer wrote about this finding on his blog.
The debate over the cloud-temperature link is bound to go on, but these two papers should make one thing clear: Until the connection between cloud formation and temperature is established or debunked once and for all, the models being used to predict future climate cannot be trusted. So perhaps when the new Congress looks at climate-related issues its members might want to consider them in this context.
top NASA scientist says that all global warming models are too gloomy
The uncertainty of science! A top NASA scientist says that the models used by global warming scientists are far too gloomy, leaving out the cooling effects of increased plant production in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Key quote:
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.
The uncertainty of science! A top NASA scientist says that the models used by global warming scientists are far too gloomy, leaving out the cooling effects of increased plant production in a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Key quote:
It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming.
WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Worst Fears of Climate Skeptics
It ain’t about science: WikiLeaks cables confirm worst fears of climate skeptics.
It ain’t about science: WikiLeaks cables confirm worst fears of climate skeptics.
Corn ethanol tax credits on the way out?
Maybe I’ll be able to eat corn again instead of putting it in my car! Corn ethanol tax credits on the way out?
Maybe I’ll be able to eat corn again instead of putting it in my car! Corn ethanol tax credits on the way out?
For the past 15 years, global warming has stopped
They ain’t gonna like this in Cancun: For the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
They ain’t gonna like this in Cancun: For the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
Snowbound England
Images of a snowbound England.
I know it’s weather and not climate, but Europe is experiencing its second cold winter in a row, despite predictions by many in the global warming community that such things would never happen again. My point here is that their claims in the late 1990s that hot streaks and big storms were proof of global warming were patently dishonest, and it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of this fact.
Images of a snowbound England.
I know it’s weather and not climate, but Europe is experiencing its second cold winter in a row, despite predictions by many in the global warming community that such things would never happen again. My point here is that their claims in the late 1990s that hot streaks and big storms were proof of global warming were patently dishonest, and it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of this fact.
Met Office admits global warming has slowed down over the past 10 years
Progress! The Met Office of the UK admitted in a report today that global warming has slowed down over the past 10 years.
Link fixed. Sorry!
Progress! The Met Office of the UK admitted in a report today that global warming has slowed down over the past 10 years.
Link fixed. Sorry!
Gore admits that ethanol was bad policy
Gore admits that he knew that ethanol in cars was bad environmental policy, but voted for it anyway to win votes in the 2000 election. Key quote:
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” the former vice president said.
Gore admits that he knew that ethanol in cars was bad environmental policy, but voted for it anyway to win votes in the 2000 election. Key quote:
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president,” the former vice president said.
Sea Life Flourishes in the Gulf
Despite the howls of panic over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill this past summer, sea life is flourishing in the gulf. Key quote:
A comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better. [emphasis mine]
Despite the howls of panic over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill this past summer, sea life is flourishing in the gulf. Key quote:
A comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better. [emphasis mine]
UN panel calls for more taxes in the name of climate change
Why does this sound fishy? A UN panel on Friday called for new taxes — on carbon emissions, air and sea transport, and international bank transactions — for a UN fund to help poor nations combat climate change.
Why does this sound fishy? A UN panel on Friday called for new taxes — on carbon emissions, air and sea transport, and international bank transactions — for a UN fund to help poor nations combat climate change.
European plans to boost biofuels will hurt environment, say environmentalists
The law of unintended consequences strikes again! Nine environmental groups have found that the European Union’s plan to promote the use of biofuels over fossil fuels will actually damage the environment. Key quote:
The extra biofuels that Europe will use over the next decade will generate between 81 and 167 percent more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, says the report.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again! Nine environmental groups have found that the European Union’s plan to promote the use of biofuels over fossil fuels will actually damage the environment. Key quote:
The extra biofuels that Europe will use over the next decade will generate between 81 and 167 percent more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, says the report.
Gore’s climate exchange flops
The market speaks: The Chicago Climate Exchange, created for the sole purpose of trading carbon credits, ended all carbon trading as of October 21.
The market speaks: The Chicago Climate Exchange, created for the sole purpose of trading carbon credits, ended all carbon trading as of October 21.
EPA policy chief steps down
Enviromental regulation takes another hit! The EPA policy chief most in favor of heavy regulation has stepped down.
Enviromental regulation takes another hit! The EPA policy chief most in favor of heavy regulation has stepped down.
UN treaty language threatens to ban all “climate-related geoengineering”
Treaty language being written at a United Nations conference on biodiversity is so vague it threatens to bar almost all new development. Here is the language, via Science:
8 (w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean
fertilisation and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science-based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geoengineering activities (1) that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment.(1) Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released to the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geoengineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon contact of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere. [emphasis mine]
This language is so broad that, if agreed to by the United States, it could easily put almost any activity that affects the environment, including technology, business, property, recreation, or practically anything at all, under the control of UN regulators.
But wait, there’s more. The goal of this UN conference, to quote their own webpage, is to achieve “a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth.” Obviously, this UN group is not merely interested in protecting the biodiversity of life on Earth, but to also redistribute the wealth so as to help poorer nations.
God help us if our government agrees to this.