IPCC in trouble again over using Greenpeace employee for energy report
The IPCC is in trouble again for using a Greenpeace activist to help write one of its recent energy reports.
Tag: environmentalism
Where’s the warming?
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.
The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.
If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch. [emphasis mine]
UK eliminates all but two climate-change projects to balance books.
The United Kingdom’s British Council is eliminating all but of its two climate-change projects in order to balance its books. Unfortunately, some taxpayer-funded propaganda will still continue:
The council says that two flagship global projects will continue: the ‘Climate Generation’ initiative, which engages young climate activists and the ‘Climate4Classrooms’ project, which provides resources for schoolchildren.
Legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to environmental litigation factories
Two senators propose legislation to stop huge legal fee payments to litigious environmental groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians.
Just as important would be for people to stop giving these organizations donations. They aren’t helping the environment in any way, and are probably doing it harm by creating anger and distrust against environmental groups.
EPA gave $1.29 Million to China
Our tax dollars at work: Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, the EPA has given $1.29 million in grants to various Chinese government agencies.
Why the Endangered Species act doesn’t work
Why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work.
[R]adical green groups . . . [are] engaged in an industry whose waste products are fish and wildlife. You and I are a major source of revenue for that industry. The Interior Department must respond within 90 days to petitions to list species under the Endangered Species Act. Otherwise, petitioners like the Center for Biological Diversity get to sue and collect attorney fees from the Justice Department.
And this:
Amos Eno runs the hugely successful Yarmouth, Maine-based Resources First Foundation, an outfit that, among other things, assists ranchers who want to restore native ecosystems. Earlier, he worked at Interior’s Endangered Species Office, crafting amendments to strengthen the law, then went on to direct the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Eno figures the feds could “recover and delist three dozen species” with the resources they spend responding to the Center for Biological Diversity’s litigation.
“The amount of money [Center for Biological Diversity] makes suing is just obscene,” he told me. “They’re one of the reasons the Endangered Species Act has become so dysfunctional. They deserve the designation of eco-criminals.”
Fossil fuels to the rescue
Fossil fuels to the rescue! A liberal discovers the value of natural gas and fracking.
The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries — or millennia. The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy. And if the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.
No decline in polar bear population
Though the data is sketchy in places, it appears there has been no decline in the polar bear population for the past four years.
Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics?
From JunkScience: Google to censor climate skeptics?
EPA has given millions to environmentalist activist groups
Our tax dollars for partisan politics: EPA has given millions to environmentalist political activist groups.
Former “alarmist” scientist says human-caused global warming is based on false science
Former “alarmist” scientist says human-caused global warming is based on false science.
IPCC announces reforms for next report
The IPCC announced this week it has established new procedures in an effort to avoid the problems that occurred with the last report.
I remain very skeptical of these reforms, as well as anything this UN organization publishes. Consider this quote for example:
On the issue of citing non-peer-reviewed literature, such as reports from nongovernmental organizations and climate activists, the new procedures say that IPCC report authors can include such documents “as long as they are scientifically and technically valid. [emphasis mine]
How convenient. Decide that something written by Greenpeace is “scientifically and technically valid” and you can use it as evidence.