2014-12 December

People for the West -Tucson

PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868 pfw-tucson@cox.net

Newsletter, December, 2014

Physical evidence shows that CO2 emissions do not significantly effect global temperature

by Jonathan DuHamel

The U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment report and the UN IPCC both claim that human carbon dioxide emissions are “intensifying” the greenhouse effect and causing global warming. Let’s review claims relative to observed data.

We begin with a very simplified review of what the greenhouse effect is. Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface (this is called down-welling infrared radiation), and some of the radiation is radiated into space (this is called out-going long-wave radiation).

The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing due in part to emissions from burning fossil fuels. This increased amount of CO2 should “intensify” the greenhouse effect and cause global warming according to the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC. So, what phenomena should we observe from an “intensified” greenhouse effect?

With an “intensified” greenhouse effect, we should see a decrease in out-going long-wave infrared radiation into space because more of it is “trapped” by greenhouse gases. We should see warming of the atmosphere (the troposphere), a “hot spot” especially over the tropics. We should see more down-welling infrared radiation that further warms the surface. That’s the essence of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. But, real-world measurements show we are seeing none of those effects.

Contrary to alarmist claims:

According to satellite data compiled by NOAA, out-going long-wave radiation into space has not been decreasing but, in fact, slightly increasing (source).

Balloon-borne radiosondes and two separate satellite systems measure the temperature of the troposphere. None of these systems detect the model-predicted warming spot in the troposphere.

[Source: Douglass, D.H. et al. 2007, A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal of Climatology DOI:10.1002/joc.1651].

Finally, an independent study, published in the Journal of Climate, based on 800,000 observations, find there has been a significant decrease in down-welling, long-wave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased about 7% over this period and according to AGW theory, down-welling long-wave infra-red radiation should have increased over this period with buildup of carbon dioxide.

Empirical data show that the AGW hypothesis fails on its three major predictions. This indicates that our carbon dioxide emissions have little to no effect on global temperature nor the intensity of the “greenhouse effect” possibly because the AGW hypothesis ignores convective heat loss (weather) and other natural cycles that control the complex climate system.

See this information, together with graphs, on my WryHeat blog here.

Whenever climate alarmists insist we must curtail our carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global warming, ask them to cite some physical evidence to support the position that our emissions play a significant role. There is no such evidence to my knowledge. The links in the first paragraph show that both the IPCC and the Assessment report fail to cite such evidence.

NASA paints pretty, but illusionary picture of CO2 flux

NASA is touting their latest computer simulation of the way carbon dioxide moves in the atmosphere. “An ultra-high-resolution NASA computer model has given scientists a stunning new look at how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere travels around the globe.”

They claim resolution that examines every 7 km “pixel” on the planet. The computer run is based on “real data on atmospheric conditions and the emission of greenhouse gases and both natural and man-made particulates” for the period May 2005 to June 2007. Since that was before they launched their satellite monitors, the data comes from surface data.

Here is the problem:

Earth’s surface area is 510 million km2. With a claimed resolution of 7 km, the NASA computer simulation has 73 million data points. The actual number of surface stations measuring carbon dioxide (and weather) is somewhat less than 73 million. There are just 12 NOAA approved stations in the Northern Hemisphere. CO2 data is also collected by aircraft and at fossil-fuel power electrical plants, but the latter is not calibrated to the extent of official stations.

What all that means is that NASA had to calculate (make up) values for almost all of the 73 million data points used in the simulation. While they paint a pretty picture, it is all illusionary. Trouble is, they treat it as if it where reality.

They tout: “We’re very excited to share this revolutionary dataset with the modeling and data assimilation community and we hope the comprehensiveness of this product and its ground-breaking resolution will provide a platform for research and discovery throughout the Earth science community.”

See their pretty animation here. And realize that the full range of colors represents only 20 ppmv of CO2 and most of the pretty swirls represents only 5 ppmv CO2. Notice also how much CO2 the model puts in the Arctic and how little in the Southern Hemisphere.

Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’

Google, part owner of the infamous Ivanpah solar station, west of Las Vegas, that fries birds and needs to use natural gas to produce electricity (see here, here and here), was “striving to power our company with 100% renewable energy. In addition to the environmental benefits, we see renewable energy as a business opportunity and continue to invest in accelerating its development. We believe that by helping power more of the world with renewable energy, we’re creating a better future for everyone.”

But now after 4 years of effort they conclude the research effort by Google corporation has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the program. Their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

“The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.” Read more

Climate Research needs Re-direction

Anthony Watts /Guest essay by Viv Forbes

Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.

“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”

Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focused on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.

The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.

Read more.

Renewable Fuel Standard: EPA Retreats from Cutbacks

by Marlo Lewis, (source)

By law, EPA was supposed to finalize the 2014 targets in November 2013. EPA only proposed the 2014 targets last November, and things have been on hold since then.

Because the statutory blending target for 2014 exceeded the amount of ethanol that could actually be sold as E10 (motor fuel containing 10% ethanol, the maximum blend millions of vehicles can use without risk of engine damage and voided warranties), the agency had proposed to trim the 18.15 billion gallon statutory target to 15.21 billion gallons, a 16% cutback. That ignited a firestorm of protest from the biofuel lobby, and EPA has been dithering ever since.

What’s the policy significance of today’s news?

It’s common knowledge that the RFS is a textbook study in the law of unintended consequences. The program inflates food and fuel costs, exacerbates world hunger, contributes to political instability and violence in developing countries, expands aquatic dead zones, accelerates wetlands conversion and habitat loss, and likely increases net greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA’s more-than-year-long delay in finalizing the 2014 targets reveals what may be the most damning unintended consequence yet: market unpredictability.

Congress’s purpose in establishing the 15-year production quota scheme for biofuel in 2007 was not just to prove that U.S. central planners are smarter than the commissars of old, who imposed only 5-year plans. Nor was it simply to provide corn growers with corporate welfare for life.

Part of the thinking was that a 15-year plan would facilitate long-term business planning and investment. All the players — corn farmers, biofuel producers, refiners, service stations — would know long in advance what was expected of them, so all could plan accordingly and the biofuel market would grow in a predictable, orderly fashion.

Here, too, the RFS backfired. The program now demands that refiners sell more ethanol than can be blended into each gallon of motor fuel sold (the blend wall problem noted above), and the gap between statutory targets and market conditions grows from year to year.

So EPA now has to make up the targets one year at a time. Worse, EPA’s decision is heavily influenced by interest-group lobbying. Each year’s target is a political football. Instead of creating a predictable market, the RFS has ushered in a reign of regulatory uncertainty.

Corn Ethanol Increases CO2 Emissions

One of the links in the story above is to a report by the Environmental Working Group, a group usually aligned with radical environmentalists. Now, however, in a new report, EWG says that biofuels produce more CO2 emissions than gasoline.

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s pending proposal to cut the amount of corn ethanol that must be blended into gasoline in 2014 by 1.39 billion gallons would lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 3 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2e) – as much as taking 580,000 cars off the road for a year. It is now clear that the federal corn ethanol mandate has driven up food prices, strained agricultural markets, increased competition for arable land and promoted conversion of uncultivated land to grow crops. In addition, previous estimates have dramatically underestimated corn ethanol’s greenhouse gas emissions by failing to account for changes in land use. In 2012, an Environmental Working Group study found that from 2008 to 2011, more than 8 million acres of grassland and wetlands were converted for corn alone. EWG’s new analysis shows that these land use changes resulted in annual emissions of 85 million to 236 million metric tons (CO2) of greenhouse gases. In light of these emissions, many scientists now question the environmental benefit of so-called biofuels produced by converting food crops. A few recent studies still claim that corn ethanol produces fewer emissions than gasoline, but a careful look reveals that their methods don’t properly account for land use change. Studies that do factor in land use change show

that using food crops to produce biofuels – once considered a promising climate change mitigation strategy – is worse for the climate than gasoline.”

(See full report)

More about regulations from a rogue EPA:

EPA Air Regulations: 15% Real-Dollar (35% Nominal-Dollar) Increase in Utility Bills by 2020, Study Finds

by Marlo Lewis (Source)

A new study by Energy Ventures Analysis for Peabody Energy examines the cumulative impacts on electricity and natural gas costs from 2012 to 2020 due to recent and proposed EPA regulations.

Regulations examined include: new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter; the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of air pollution; Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule; regional haze regulations; and the Clean Power Plan (CCP), proposed in June 2014, to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from state electric power sectors.

The study, Energy Market Impacts of Recent Federal Regulations on the Electric Power Sector, forecasts the following real-dollar (inflation-adjusted) impacts in 2020 compared to 2012:

Annual power and gas costs for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers will be $173 billion higher—a 37% increase. Average annual household gas and power bills will increase by $293 or 15%.

Residential power bills increase the most in Texas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Rhode Island. Families in those states will pay $566 more annually for electricity in 2020 than in 2012.

Because “income growth is being outpaced by inflation for many Americans (the lower earning half of U.S. households experienced a 25% decline in real income from 2001-2014),” the report’s authors believe “it is more appropriate to focus on the results in nominal terms.”

Here are the results presented above in actual (non-inflation-adjusted) dollars:

Residential, commercial, and industrial consumers will spend $284 billion or 60% more for power and gas.

Average annual household gas and power bills will increase by $680 or 35%.

Families in Texas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Rhode Island will pay $660 more annually for electricity in 2020 than in 2012.

The report also finds that gas and power costs would “continue to escalate” after 2020 as CPP and other regulatory requirements take effect.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” -Aldous Huxley

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits” -Albert Einstein

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” -Groucho Marx

Contact State Legislators: Repeal AZ Renewable Energy Mandate

by Jonathan DuHamel

Now is the time to contact State Legislators about bills they will propose in the next session. Let’s see if we can get them to pass legislation to take control of the Renewable Energy Standard away from the Arizona Corporation Commission and repeal existing regulations.

Here is some background:

Reasons why Arizona should eliminate the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff:

1. Electricity generated from renewable sources is much more expensive than conventional generation. That expense is reflected in higher electricity bills. For instance, my bill from Tucson Electric Power itemizes an expense for “Renewable Energy Standard Tariff” and another charge for “DSM Surcharge.” (DSM is demand side management, more on that later). In 2011, TEP raised about $35 million from these charges. The ACC estimates that from 2010 to 2025, the surcharges for electricity from REST will cost consumers $1.2 billion more than they would have paid for conventional energy sources.

Another estimate of the economic impact of REST upon Arizona comes from a recent study by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, MA. (See full study here.) They calculate low, medium, and high estimated impacts. Among their findings are:

The current REST rule will raise the cost of electricity by $389 million for Arizona’s electricity consumers in 2025, within a range of $239 million and $626 million.

The REST mandate will cost Arizona’s electricity consumers $1.383 billion from 2013 to 2025, within a range of $857 million and $2.221 billion.

Arizona’s electricity prices will rise by 6 percent by 2025, within a range of 3.7 percent and 9.7 percent.

These increased energy prices will hurt Arizona’s households and businesses and, in turn, inflict harm on the state economy.

In 2025, the REST would:

Lower employment by 2,500 jobs, within a range of 1,500 jobs and 4,100 jobs.

Reduce real disposable income by $334 million, within a range of $202 million and $543 million.

Decrease investment in the state by $38 million, within a range of $23 million and $61 million.

Increase the average household electricity bill by $128 per year; commercial businesses by an average of $686 per year; and industrial businesses by an average of $28,600 per year.

The cost of being politically correct is essentially a regressive tax that will cause low income households to shoulder a greater burden than higher income households because the energy costs make up a larger portion of their budget.

2. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, unpredictable, and unreliable. Increased generation from unreliable sources will make our electric grid more susceptible to blackouts and brownouts. Solar and wind generation typically produces at only about 20 percent of rated generation capacity. Tucson Electric Power operates one of the largest solar PV arrays in the United States, a 5-MW system. But during five years of operation it has produced at only 19 percent of it rated capacity. Even in Arizona, clouds cause rapid fluctuation in the array’s power output.

3. Because generation from renewable energy sources is intermittent and unpredictable, these sources require backup generation which is usually by burning fossil fuels. Because the time and duration for backup generation need is unpredictable, the fossil-fuel fired backup generators cannot be run efficiently. Experience in Europe shows that backup generators actually use more fuel and produce more carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants such as sulfur dioxide than they normally would if they were run efficiently for primary generation.

A new report from the European Nuclear Energy Agency analyzed the effects erratic intermittent source generation on the electric grid: The report considers “six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies – coal, gas and nuclear – have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar. The costs for renewables vary depending on the country, technology and penetration levels, with higher system costs for greater penetration of renewables.”

4. Use of renewable energy will not impact climate. By using data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, NOAA, and the IPCC, it is possible to estimate the temperature impact of carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, if we stopped all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.08 C by 2050. If Arizona stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.0015 C by 2050. Will you notice? (Data from Science & Public Policy Institute report “Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions & Potential ‘Savings’ in Future Global Temperature & Global Sea Level Rise

Besides, the increasing emissions from other countries such as China will completely wipe out any imagined savings from REST.

Above, I mentioned DSM – demand side management. The REST program requires electric utilities reduce the amount they produce, i.e., ration electricity. “Arizona’s public utilities will be required to achieve annual energy savings of at least 22%, measured in kWh, by 2020, with the savings to increase incrementally as a percent of retail energy sales in each prior calendar year to reach that goal.” ( ACC Source).

One of the ways to achieve DSM is through use of the so-called “smart grid” and “smart meters.” Smart meters placed on your house or business will allow the electric company to monitor and control your electricity use via radio or internet-controlled commands to your meter. If you use too much air-conditioning, for instance, the electric company will be able to turn it off.

Because these systems are radio/internet controlled they are vulnerable to mischief by hackers who may decide to turn off the A/C in a shopping mall or neighborhood.

5. Finally, renewable energy is not as green as advertized.

For example, many PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats.

A Cato report found that the materials required for thermal-solar projects were 1,000 times greater than for a similarly sized fossil-fuel facility, creating substantial incremental energy consumption and industrial pollution.

The Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff should be eliminated because the mandates are bad for ratepayers, bad for the environment, and even bad for the state’s economy because of the increased electrical costs on business and the expense of government subsidies required by the mandate. The mandate fails to accomplish the stated rationales and is essentially just a politically correct eco-fad (with a little crony capitalism thrown in) that increases our electricity costs but provides no real benefit.

Proposed Water Rule Could Put ‘Property Rights of Every American Entirely at the Mercy’ of EPA

by Ron Arnold

It seems incredible, but a single missing word could turn a water law into a government land grab so horrendous even a U.S. Supreme Court justice warned it would “put the property rights of every American entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency employees.”

The missing word is “navigable.” The Obama administration is proposing a rule titled “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,” which would strike “navigable” from American water law and redefine any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year, no matter how remote or isolated it may be from truly navigable waters, as “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS.

The proposed rule would provide EPA and the Corps of Engineers (as well as litigious environmental groups) with the power to dictate the land-use decisions of homeowners, small businesses and local communities throughout the United States. There would be virtually no limit to the federal government’s authority over private property. Read more

Common Core Seizes Control of Future Internet Education

By Jack Curtis

As education follows retail out of brick-and-mortar buildings onto the internet, consumers widening choices clearly threaten government’s control of what the public’s kids are taught and what they are not taught. Hence the current “Common Core” mandate, by which the federal government has enlisted the states to federalize the U.S. school curriculum, cutting off traditional local control. Once you control what is taught, you needn’t care where, by whom, or how that is done, you have eliminated all competitors.

While the Common Core program is overtly directed at public, private and home elementary and secondary education, it quietly captures higher education as well, since control of the high school exits provides control of the college entrances. Additionally, a bill now in Congress carries the Obama administration proposal to regulate private colleges that provide career training; that plus Common Core represents a fair start toward total federal control of U.S. education. It seems telling that so comprehensive and far-reaching a shift in a democracy is not seen as newsworthy. Read more

APUSH in the Wrong Direction

By Dean Kalahar

The new Advanced Placement United States History curriculum (APUSH) is currently under debate. The College Board has assured the public that the changes only enhance the course. Let’s take a look at the course outline for APUSH to see if public concerns are legitimate. After all, people may have different opinions, but we all have the same facts.

APUSH now focuses on “themes” and not specific content. This opens the door to an official infusion of what can be called a new American history in the mold of Howard Zinn, Thomas Bender, and the La Pietra Commission. Not surprisingly, the changes come under the guidance of David Coleman, new head of AP and chief architect of Common Core.

When you read the course outline, red flags emerge. It projects a distorted history from a globalist social justice perspective that undermines the values and traditions that made America a beacon of freedom and liberty.

APUSH utilizes “new knowledge,” a revisionist view that says the United States is the cause for the world’s ills. There is no longer a specific set of principles, values, traditions, concepts, and timeframes that create a unified historical story. APUSH is a loose set of “themes” that can be manipulated to allow nonsense to act as a substitute for context. Read more

Carl Sagan’s baloney detection rules:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result. (See more from Sagan here)

Civil Asset Forfeiture

How Police Officers Are Trained to Know Which of Your Belongings Are Most Worth Seizing

by Jason Snead, Daily Caller

Police officers are trained to know what property of yours makes the most sense to seize.

Let us explain. The Heritage Foundation has written much about a law enforcement tool known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows police departments to generate revenue from the seizure of money, cars, homes or anything else of value which they allege is connected to criminal activity.

Just looking at the numbers and reading the anecdotes, it is clear that law enforcement authorities are often tempted to prioritize their enforcement efforts where it is most profitable—but thanks to the Institute for Justice and The New York Times, we now know that this is not the result of a few rogue officers.

Instead, targeting expensive, easily liquidated property is how departments are trained.

At continuing education seminars around the country, civil forfeiture experts are on record not only encouraging law enforcement officers to use the practice, but offering advice on the most lucrative property to seize.

The jackpot items are televisions, cash and cars—jewelry just doesn’t pay, and neither do drugs (which perhaps is why some operations focus on the money coming out of a drug deal rather than the illicit substances going in). Officers were also advised on how to deal with judges who may not simply rubber stamp a forfeiture, and how to ensure that forfeiture money stays in the law enforcement family. Read more

Obama’s Border Policy Fueled Epidemic, Evidence Shows

by Neil Munro, Daily Caller

The deadly EV-D68 enterovirus epidemic, which struck thousands of kids this fall, was likely propelled through America by President Barack Obama’s decision to allow tens of thousands of Central Americans across the Texas border, according to a growing body of genetic and statistical evidence.

The evidence includes admissions from top health officials that the epidemic included multiple strains of the virus, and that it appeared simultaneously in multiple independent locations. Read more

 Additional reading:

The Climate Scam’s Meltdown

by Marine Biologist Walter Starck

The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they’re trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn’t cooperating.

Link to article.

The CO2 Climate Change Cult, an 8-part series by Shawn Alli, a philosophical researcher educated at York University in Toronto

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change

Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science

Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier

Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists – Suzanne Goldenberg

Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists – Damian Carrington

Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists – George Monbiot

Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine

Part 8 of 8: Solutions

2014 Sees Record Harvests Worldwide…Demolishing Gloomy Myth Global Warming Would Lead To Acute Crop Failures

By P Gosselin

It’s early November and now is a good time to look at some of this year’s global crop harvest results. Let’s recall that global warming models projected poor harvests and hunger in the future due to droughts (and floods).

But that is hardly the case…at least certainly for this year. And recall how Joe Bastardi last spring projected a “Garden of Eden” harvest for the US Great Plains. Looks like he was right. The story is similar many places worldwide, and not just the US. Read more

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s