People for the West -Tucson
PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868 firstname.lastname@example.org
Newsletter, February, 2015
2014, the warmest year since 2013
by Jonathan DuHamel
A joint press release by NOAA and NASA on January 16 claimed that “The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880…” The mainstream press ran with the story as if it portended doom. Now, we find that the NOAA/NASA press release left out several vital pieces of information.
The press release failed to mention that the calculated global temperature for 2014 was only 0.02 deg C (two-hundredths of a degree) higher than the formerly hottest 2010; not anything to get excited about. The press release failed to mention that the error range in the measurements was at least ±0.1 deg C, an order of magnitude greater than the difference touted. And they failed to mention that NOAA/NASA did not include data from satellites which show that 2014 was no where near the warmest. The touted temperature high was based only on surface measurements which are subject to a great many biases and do not cover the whole globe as satellites do.
Former Harvard physicist Luboš Motl says they did it on purpose and the press release provides “A direct proof that the professional alarmists are intentionally lying.” (Source)
Reporter David Rose of the Daily Mail in England interviewed Gavin Schmidt head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). During that interview Schmidt conceded that because of the uncertainties in temperature data, NASA is only 38% confident that 2014 was the warmest since 1880. The press release failed to mention that fact also. (Source)
Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot wrote, “The Feds are conning the public on 2014 being the ‘hottest year.’ We now know that both NASA and NOAA knew their ‘hottest year’ claims would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. But both agencies chose instead to loudly push the global warming narrative to a willing and compliant news media. The ‘hottest year’ claims had already been exposed as statistically meaningless…”
Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH (one of the two keepers of NASA satellite data) comments:
“In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement.
“We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.
“What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.
“What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS
[American Meteorological Society] or AGU [American Geophysical Union] scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.
“Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.
“In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?”
If one were to plot NOAA data, which you can do here:
NOAA also says that for the US, 2014 was only the 34th warmest year (source).
It has recently been uncovered, that a NOAA scientist, Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used “cherry-picked” data in testimony before Congress in 2010. (Source)
For more perspective, see my post: 2014 was the third or sixth or 34th or 8000th warmest year. That post also links to an article by Dr. Tim Ball: 2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 years?
Fun With Predictions
I have recently become aware of a new website:
This site catalogues published global warming predictions. For your amusement, here are a few of their entries:
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
“[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990
On July 5, 1989, Noel Brown, then the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming — “entire nations could be wiped off the face of Earth by rising sea levels if the global-warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
as reported in The Washington Times, 21 Apr 2014
Srgjan Kerim, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. UN Press release, 8 Jul 2008.
Global warming causes decline in trade winds
The vast looping system of air currents that fuels Pacific trade winds and climate from South America to South-East Asia may be another victim of climate change, according to scientists. The system has weakened by 3.5 per cent over the past 140 years and the culprit is probably human-induced climate change, scientists report in today’s issue of the journal Nature.
ABC (Australia) News 5 May 2006 “Global warming weakens air currents”
Trade winds cause decline in global warming
Stronger than normal trade winds in the central Pacific are the main cause of a 13-year halt in global surface temperatures increases, an Australian study reveals. The authors reject that the study gives impetus to climate change deniers and instead suggest that when the winds ease, global warming will accelerate rapidly.
ABC Science (Australia) 10 Feb 2014 “Warming slowdown caused by Pacific winds”
Oceans less salty
The salt content of the ocean is on the decline, a sign of potentially worrisome consequences that scientists can’t accurately predict. Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.
http://www.livescience.com, 29 Jun 2005
Oceans more salty
Global warming is making the sea more salty, according to new research that demonstrates the massive shifts in natural systems triggered by climate change.
Experts at the UK Met Office and Reading University say warmer temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean have significantly increased evaporation and reduced rainfall across a giant stretch of water from Africa to the Carribean in recent years. The change concentrates salt in the water left behind. The Guardian, 27 Oct 2008
Unintended Consequences of Climate Change Policy
New paper by Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill)
A new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the unintended consequences of climate change policy around the world.
We are constantly told about the risks of what climate change might bring in the distant future. In response, governments have adopted a series of policy measures that have been largely ineffective but have brought with them a bewildering array of unintended consequences.
From the destruction of the landscape wrought by windfarms, to the graft and corruption that has been introduced by the carbon markets, to the disastrous promotion of biofuels, carbon mitigation policies have brought chaos in their wake.
The new paper surveys some of the key policy measures, reviewing the unintended consequences for both the UK and the rest of the world.
“The most shameful aspect of the developed world’s rush to implement climate change mitigation policies is that they have often been justified by reference to ethics. Yet the results have been the very opposite of ethical.” said Mr Montford.
“Andrew Montford has reviewed the sad truth about various schemes to ‘save the planet’ from the demonized but life-giving gas CO2: from bird-killing windmills, native peoples expelled from their ancestral lands, to fraud in the trading of carbon credits. Every thinking citizen of the planet should read this,” said William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University. Read full paper (pdf)
Obama Administration Against US Energy
One more prediction:
The oil boom blind sided Barack Obama. In his 2012 re-election campaign, the president said the adage “Drill, baby, drill” would never bring about $2 gas.
From a rogue EPA to proposing wilderness designation of the Alaska north slope, the Obama administration seems to be trying everything it can to stem our nascent energy boom. Some examples:
Obama Administration Moves to Block Drilling in Parts of Alaska
By Amy Harder, Wall Street Journal
The Obama administration is moving this week to designate areas of Alaska off limits to oil and natural gas drilling in its latest effort to bolster its environmental legacy.
The Interior Department announced that it was proposing to preserve as wilderness nearly 13 million acres of land in the 19.8 million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including 1.5 million acres of coastal plains that is believed to have rich oil and natural gas resources.
While setting aside lands as wilderness requires congressional approval—something this administration is unlikely to get with both chambers controlled by Republicans—the proposed move puts the area into a state of de facto designation as wilderness and would prevent drilling, an Interior Department spokeswoman said. Read more
President Unveils Plan to Eviscerate Energy Boom With Methane Mandates
Written by Bob Adelman
President Obama announced plans to move ahead with mandating methane emission reductions primarily directed at the renaissance in the energy industry.
This unleashes his Environmental Protection Agency to create new rules to limit methane emissions from cows, landfills, coal mines and, most particularly, the oil and gas industry. Unless derailed or challenged successfully by Congress, the new rules would become effective in late 2016.
Dan Utech, special assistant to the president for climate change, promised that the EPA’s new rules, which will be intended to cut methane emissions nearly in half over the next decade, will “have benefits for the climate, the economy, and public health.”
What they will do is support the green lobby’s long campaign for federal action to reduce emissions that allegedly contribute mightily to “global warming” while also retarding the energy boom now on the verge of serious shrinkage due to the very success of that boom.
The new rules will address primarily methane emissions emanating from the energy’s infrastructure — pipelines, drilling operations, and transportation — that amount to less than nine percent of those worrisome gases allegedly polluting the atmosphere and threatening increased global temperatures. The mandates will be issued despite the fact that those emissions have actually declined between 11 and 15 percent since 1990, depending on the data source used. Even Utech admits that those emissions have lessened without federal regulations, but that doesn’t matter to him. He asserts,
Since 1990, methane pollution in the United States has decreased by 11 percent, even as activities that can produce methane have increased. However, methane pollution is projected to increase … absent additional action to reduce emissions.
In other words, the new rules aren’t designed to solve an existing problem, one that is already apparently solving itself without federal intervention. They are designed to head off a supposed problem in the future. Read more
In a separate article Dr. S. Fred Singer notes:
Contrary to persistent claims by environmentalists, Methane is not an important greenhouse gas (GHG); it has a totally negligible impact on climate. Attempts to control methane emissions make little sense…
Methane (chemical formula CH4) is the main component of natural gas. It may technically be defined as a greenhouse gas since it absorbs strongly in some portions of the infrared spectrum; but its impact on climate is insignificant. Its atmospheric level has been increasing because about half of the methane is produced by processes related to human activities, such as cattle raising, rice agriculture, landfills, and the production of oil and natural gas; it is also released in coal mining and from leaky natural gas pipelines. The major non-human sources include swamps and bogs.
The basis for proposed control of methane is the usual shoddy climate science, as propagated in various UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. These claim that the “global warming potential” of a methane molecule is about 50 times that of CO2 — and that climate forcing from growth of atmospheric methane is about 20% of CO2’s. IPCC estimates are too high by as much as a factor of 100. They made two basic scientific errors, as can be readily shown. They overlooked the fact that the infrared absorption bands of atmospheric water vapor cover those of methane (as pointed out by my physicist colleague Dr. Tom Sheahen); one simply cannot absorb the same radiation twice. Further, the methane bands are located far from the peak of the surface heat emission spectrum, where there is little energy available to be absorbed. I don’t know how IPCC got their wrong numbers. In truth, getting the right numbers involves a lot of detailed work. Read more
The Clean Power Plan is Unconstitutional
by Laurence H. Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University
The Clean Power Plan would set a carbon dioxide emission target for every state, and the EPA would command each state, within roughly a year, to come up with a package of laws to meet that target. If the agency approves the package, the state would then have to impose those laws on electric utilities and the public.
The agency would effectively dictate the energy mix used in each state and leave the state with essentially no choice in implementing its plan. But Supreme Court precedent settled over two decades ago in New York v. United States (1992) and reaffirmed by a 7-2 vote as recently as 2012 in NFIB v. Sebelius, the ObamaCare decision, holds that such federal commandeering of state governments defeats political accountability and violates principles of federalism that are basic to our constitutional order.
Even more fundamentally, the EPA, like every administrative agency, is constitutionally forbidden to exercise powers Congress never delegated to it in the first place. The brute fact is that the Obama administration failed to get climate legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not. Read more
NERC Report: Wind and Solar Hurt Grid Reliability
By Donn Dears, Power For USA
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is an international regulatory authority (for the United Sates and Canada) established to evaluate and improve the reliability of the Bulk Power System (BPS) in North America. “[It is] subject to oversight by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and governmental authorities in Canada.”
In its 2014 Long-Term Reliability Assessment report, NERC said: “Reserve margins in several assessment areas are trending downward.”
And NERC also said: “North America’s resource mix is undergoing a significant transformation at an accelerated pace with ongoing retirements of fossil-fired and nuclear capacity and growth in natural gas, wind, and solar resources. This shift is caused by several drivers, primarily existing and proposed federal, state, and provincial environmental regulations.”
This means, grid reliability is decreasing.
White House’s Mindless Energy Rules Could Trip Up Economy
By Stephen Moore
The Obama administration has just announced it will issue at least six new major rules directed at the oil and gas industry — an energy strategy that only the member nations of OPEC and Vladimir Putin could love.
The rules would, among other things, curtail methane emissions from natural gas and oil, place new restrictions on fracking, impose further limits on Arctic drilling and impose new safety standards on rail tanker cars.
The oil and gas industry has carried the rest of the economy on its shoulders for the last six years. But with prices falling, drillers are struggling to keep operations running. Thanks to the boom in shale oil and gas, oil prices have dropped by nearly 50% since the summer. New drilling permits are falling and some marginal wells are already shutting down.
The decline in energy prices is a windfall benefit for the U.S. economy of an estimated $150 billion a year. But drillers must try to tough it out, and somehow earn what are now razor-thin profits.
Could there be a worse time for new EPA regulations to raise the cost of producing our domestic energy? Obviously, the answer is no, but this isn’t collateral damage; it’s the very point of the regulatory onslaught.
Over the past six years, nearly all the net new jobs in the U.S. economy have come from oil and gas producers. Our reliance on foreign oil has dropped from 60% as recently as 2007 to less than half that in 2013. If the federal government simply stays out of the way, the U.S. by 2020 can be an energy-exporting nation, no longer reliant on dangerous, expensive and unstable foreign sources.
The Case for Fossil Fuels:
In his new book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Alex Epstein makes one of the most compelling arguments for the moral value of fossil fuels and the need to increase their use that we have ever read. Although virtually everyone battling the anthropogenic global warming delusion takes a defensive position with regard to the world’s use of coal, natural gas, and oil, our so-called fossil fuels, Epstein recognizes that, as in sports, the best defense is a good offense.
For Epstein, human life, well-being, and flourishing are the standard of value public policy should maximize. He calls this position ethical humanism, a theory that goes back to the ancient Greeks, if not before, and was virtually unchallenged as a basis for judging right and wrong until recently. He examines fossil fuels strictly in relation to their ability to enhance or constrain human well-being. Read more
From the Department of Wackos:
Al Gore Wants No Cars in Major Cities
The Patriot Post: Al Gore and Felipe Calderon, former president of Mexico, have hit upon a grand plan to save the world from global warming: a massive social engineering scheme that will make cities denser. For $90 trillion, the climate-fighting duo proposed at the World Economic Forum ripping up neighborhoods and squeezing together millions of people so tightly that cars won’t be used in major cities. The Daily Caller reports, “Calderon and Gore argued that $90 trillion is going to be spent anyways in the coming decades upgrading cities around the world. They argue that it should be spent on making cities more climate friendly. ‘The mistake we made in Mexico was to let cities develop however they want, and it’s a mess,’ Calderon told Business Insider.” The duo can pontificate, but while they’re proposing restricting the mobility of millions of people worldwide, Gore for one isn’t about to give up his mansion in Tennessee, nor his private jet. How else would he travel the world blowing smoke about global warming? Read more
In 2014, the federal government produced 79,066 pages of regulations and legal notices as recorded in the Federal Register. These include Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest.
Obama administration imposed $181 billion in regulations in 2014, report finds
The Obama administration pushed through $181.5 billion in regulations last year, according to a new report from a conservative think tank that claimed the rules will lead to higher energy bills, more expensive consumer goods and fewer jobs.
The new rules mostly focus on clean energy and vehicle regulations, said the American Action Forum, which issued the report Monday. The state that was hit the hardest by new regulations was California, which was slapped with $7.9 billion in new rules, followed by Texas ($6.5 billion) and Ohio ($3.4 billion). Read more
And your tax dollars at work:
Secretary Jewell announces wildlife and climate studies at Southwest Climate Science Center
from The Westerner
Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced the Interior’s Southwest Climate Science Center is awarding nearly a million dollars to universities and other partners for research to guide managers of parks, refuges and other cultural and natural resources in planning how to help species and ecosystems adapt to climate change.
“These climate studies are designed to help address regional concerns associated with climate change, providing a pathway to enhancing resilience and supporting local community needs,” Jewell said. “The impacts of climate change are vast and complex, so studies like these are critical to help ensure that our nation’s responses are rooted in sound science.”
The six funded studies will focus on how climate change will affect natural resources and management actions that can be taken to help offset such change. They include:
• Studying the link between drought and tree death following fires in the Southwest to better estimate the effect of fires on Southwestern forests in the future.
• Understanding the joint impacts of cool-season precipitation and increasing spring temperatures on snowpack declines and runoff to help address future water management challenges.
• Examining the impact of increased storms and sea-level rise on connected coastal habitats to support future planning and conservation of near shore natural resources.
• Identifying a chronology of extreme storms, especially atmospheric rivers, over the past 30 years and their effect on the Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin ecosystems.
• Providing customized climate data from across the Southwest region to inform decision-making by private landowners, public agencies and natural resources managers.
• Assessing climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Great Basin
CBO: Obamacare to cost $2 trillion over the next decade
BY Philip Klein
President Obama’s healthcare law will spend about $2 trillion over the next decade on expanding insurance coverage but still leave 31 million Americans uninsured, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.
When Obama pitched the healthcare law to Congress, he said it would cost “around $900 billion” over 10 years. But his statement was misleading because the way the law was designed, the major spending provisions didn’t kick in until 2014. This meant that 10-year estimates at the time the law was passed in 2010 were artificially low, because they included four years (2010 through 2013) in which spending was negligible.
The new CBO analysis finds that between fiscal years 2016 and 2025, spending on the law’s expansion of Medicaid will cost $920 billion and insurance exchange subsidies will cost nearly $1.1 trillion. The major spending provisions, taken together, will total $1.993 trillion. Read more
Revealed: EPA conducted illegal and potentially lethal experiments on children
by Jonathan DuHamel
Back in December I reported on EPA experiments that exposed senior citizens to potentially lethal doses of ozone and particulate matter from diesel exhaust, see EPA’s own human experiments debunk health claims.
JunkScience.com has been investigating these EPA experiments and found in late December, from documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that the EPA was also experimenting on children 10 to 15 years old. These children were exposed to up to 300 micrograms of diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM2.5) which is 60 times the amount EPA claims is dangerous.
JunkScience says “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency paid the University of Southern California (USC) and the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to conduct experiments testing whether exposure to diesel exhaust harms children. These experiments are illegal under the Nuremberg Code, California state law and federal regulations concerning the protection of human subjects in medical research.” The tests were conducted without adequate informed consent.
“EPA’s characterization of the PM2.5 [particulate matter] component renders diesel exhaust essentially one of the most deadly substances known to man in that any exposure can kill within hours. While JunkScience.com disagrees with this characterization, EPA and CARB [California Air Resources Board] nonetheless regulate diesel exhaust and PM2.5 on this basis.”
“Given this context, the conduct of the EPA, USC, UCLA and researchers in intentionally exposing children as young as 10 years old without informed consent to a deadly substance is quite clearly illegal, not to mention heinous and barbaric.”
“That the EPA and USC apparently attempted to conceal these facts from the public once they were discovered underscores the criminality of the conduct.”
“The only defense the EPA has to these charges would be admissions that its and the CARB’s pronouncements on the lethality and toxicity of diesel exhaust and PM2.5 are not true.”
Do you think anybody will be prosecuted?
From Thomas Sowell: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802
“In America, ‘diversity’ has still not yet lost its magical ability to stop thought in its tracks and banish facts into the outer darkness.” – Thomas Sowell See an excellent editorial here
97% of climate scientists agree that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.
“A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired.” –Alexander Hamilton (1775)
“Persecution is the first law of society because it is always easier to suppress criticism than to meet it.”– Harvard Professor Howard Mumford Jones (1892-1980)
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”– H. L. Mencken.
* * *
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.