People for the West -Tucson
Newsletter, November, 2018
PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868
Real environmentalism can go hand in hand with natural resource production, private property rights, and access to public lands
In the mid-term elections, your vote could determine the fate of our republic. Please consider which of these choices would be better for America and its citizens:
Jobs or mobs; secure borders or open borders; cooperation or obstruction; fewer federal regulations or more regulations; lower taxes or higher taxes; capitalism or socialism; the ideals of equality or the left’s increasing racism and sexism; civil society or increasing violence.
Remember: “It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable.” -Sandra Day O’Connor
“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 (1802)
IPCC Cries “Wolf” Again to Gain Political Power and Suck Money Out of Your Pockets
by Jonathan DuHamel
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced a new 1200-page report on climate change, but all that has been released as of this writing is a 34-page “Summary for Policymakers” written by politicians and bureaucrats. The IPCC is withholding the body of the report so that they can revise the “science” part to conform to the summary. That’s how the IPCC works.
The IPCC report says we have to eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels or all hell will break loose. The IPCC estimates that we will have to spend between $1.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion in “energy system supply-side investments” every year through 2050 to have any chance of keeping future global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius compared “pre-industrial times” to avoid a climate catastrophe. The 2°C limit of the Paris Climate Accord is now obsolete. Good thing Trump got us out of that.
Oh, but wait, during the past 8,000 years of our current interglacial period (the Holocene) global temperatures have several times been more than 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than now. During the 1820’s (pre-industrial times) global temperature was more than 2 degrees Celsius cooler. In the previous interglacial period (129-116 thousand years ago) surface air temperatures are estimated to have been at 3-11°C above pre-industrial levels all without the help of humans.
It looks like we’ve already blown the IPCC limit, so we might as well ignore them and save our money.
And there is another problem with IPCC projections: A recent audit of the British HadCRUT4 dataset, the primary global temperature database used by the IPCC has found more than 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy. For instance, the audit found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors, large gaps where there is no data, location errors, and Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius. [The improper transposition of Fahrenheit temperatures to Celsius is serious. Fahrenheit 40 is a cool temperature but Celsius 40 is equivalent to 104 Fahrenheit. This erroneous transposition is real “man-made global warming.”] See more details on my Wryheat blog here.
See also: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect
The IPCC’s use of bad data and erroneous assumptions in their climate models have made IPCC projections run much warmer than measured temperatures.
The hidden agenda behind ‘climate change’
By John Eidson
In comments that laid bare the hidden agenda behind global warming alarmism, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, let slip during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the U.N.’s real purpose in pushing climate hysteria is to end capitalism throughout the world:
This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.
The economic model to which she referred is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America’s two-party constitutional system is hampering the U.N.’s climate objectives. She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the U.N. is to impose its environmental will on the world’s most free and prosperous capitalist nation. In other words, for the U.N. to have its way, America must somehow be transformed into a communist nation.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Figueres is not alone. Another senior U.N. official had comments of his own about the true agenda behind “climate change.” If you’re among those who still believe climate alarmists when they say all they’re trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.
In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC’s Working Group III, made this shocking admission:
One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. Read more ☼
In a time when the IPCC is predicting much more warming, Nature may have a different plan:
NASA: The chill of solar minimum is being felt in our atmosphere – cooling trend seen
by Anthony Watts
The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
These results come from the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface. By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas at the very top of the atmosphere–a layer researchers call “the thermosphere.” Read more
See abstract of NASA paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics which concludes: “As of February, 2018, the thermosphere power is in the lowest quintile of values, to which we assign the level of ‘Cold.’” ☼
Spencer Describes Corrosive Role of Government Funding in Climate Research
By H. Sterling Burnett, Roy Spencer
Burnett interviews Dr. Roy Spencer, an award-winning meteorologist and a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. With his colleague Dr. John Christy, Spencer developed the first system for monitoring global temperatures by combining data from a variety of operational meteorological satellites, and he served as the lead NASA scientist on a research satellite instrument for monitoring the climate system. (read full post)
Here are some excerpts of Spencer’s responses to Burnett’s questions:
As far as the strength of warming is concerned, I believe some of the recent warming we have measured is due to humans, but that it is relatively weak. I reject the premise this is necessarily a bad thing, though. Certainly, life on Earth is benefitting from more CO2 in the atmosphere. Global greening has been measured by satellites in recent decades. The benefits to agriculture have been estimated in the trillions of dollars. Modest warming is likely to be beneficial overall.
We must keep in mind there is good evidence the climate system was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago, so it is not even obvious how much of the modest warming we are seeing now is actually due to human greenhouse gas emissions versus part of some natural cycle in the climate system.
Essentially all climate research is now funded by government, and so is influenced by elected officials and political appointees if there are any policy implications of that research. As a result, the funding of climate science is biased in the direction of specific policy outcomes that favor more government control and power: for example, a carbon tax.
As a former government employee, I can say this isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s just the way government works. Virtually all climate research now simply assumes climate change is almost entirely human-caused, and if a scientist has a theory about it being even partly naturally caused, he or she can forget about getting that research funded. ☼
Dr. Spencer’s comments show that a warning given by President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell address have come to pass:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. ☼
MORE CLIMATE MADNESS
Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘tactics to defeat Nazi Germany can defeat global warming’
by Anthony Watts
From the occasionally used cortex department:
Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on Friday at a campaign event that the United States’ blueprint for beating global warming needs to be the same as the blueprint the U.S. used for defeating Nazi Germany in the 1940s.
What she misses is this inconvenient truth – a year after President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, the USA is leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions while many of the other nations are breaking their promises to reduce emissions. Read more ☼
The Guardian: UN Climate Report Requires Urgent Switch to an Insect Protein Diet
by Eric Worrall
Would you eat insects to save the planet? Apparently the answer is yes – you just need to be persuaded the right way.
More people would give up meat for edible bugs if they believed they were tasty and trendy.
The thought of rising sea levels and more intense heatwaves are enough to keep you up at night. But while we all know the situation is getting more serious, most of us are preoccupied with work, doctor’s appointments and paying bills – and these immediate, visceral worries win every time.
Edible insects have been hailed as a solution to both global food shortages and reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but despite the industry’s best efforts, our response when faced with a cockroach is disgust. Even in London edible insects are seen as nothing more than a gimmick, and there are only a handful of restaurants serving them up. Read more ☼
“Heart-Jamming” Wind Turbines …New Medical Research Confirms Infrasound Negatively Impacts Heart Health!
By P. Gosselin
Infrasound has a frequency under 20 Hz and thus is not audible to the human ear. However the low frequency sound is physically perceptible at high sound pressure and lead to health consequences, a German medical researcher said.
Wind turbines convert 40 percent of the wind’s energy into power and 60 percent into infrasound, thus making them a real potential threat to human health.
The problem with wind turbines is that the infrasound exposure is long-term and can travel great distances. The researchers conclude: “We are at the very beginning, but we can imagine that long-term impact of infrasound causes health problems. The silent noise of infrasound acts like a heart jammer.” Read more ☼
Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant warming
by James Temple, MIT Technology Review
A Harvard study raises questions about just how much wind should be part of a climate solution.
A new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems.
The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 °C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 °C.
“If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has—in some respects—more climate impact than coal or gas,” coauthor David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, said in a statement. “If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas.”
The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming. The new research suggests we can’t put too many turbines too close together or the whole group become far less efficient. That means we need 5 – 20 times as much land as previously thought (at least as thought by academics). Read more ☼
Everything You Need To Know About EPA’s New Energy Rule But Were Afraid To Ask
by Larry Bell
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP) which had been developed as a key part of the Obama administration’s war on fossil fuels, coal in particular. Under ACE, each state is allowed to select the most appropriate and effective technologies to achieve emission reductions through “heat-rate” efficiency improvements at individual power plants. Heat rates are influenced by numerous variables, a key factor being the fuel type used. ACE also revises CPP “New Source Revenue” permitting guidelines to allow power plant operators to perform routine maintenance and to make upgrades without triggering requirements to implement expensive equipment makeovers. The National Economic Research Associates (NERA) has estimated that the CPP rule would have increased electricity prices by double digits in 40 states at costs up to $292 billion. Read more ☼
Conventional Farms Are Better For Environment Than Organic Farms
By Alex Berezow, American Council on Science and health
According to legend, organic farms are the way Mother Nature meant for us to live.
Science says that’s all nonsense. Organic food isn’t tastier or healthier than conventional food. And no matter what Mom and Pop say, organic farms use pesticides. Lots of them. And now, a new study in Nature Sustainability says that gigantic, high-yield “corporate” farms are better for the environment than Mom and Pop’s organic one.
The study essentially confirms what ought to be common sense: It is better for the environment if we farm as efficiently as possible. That way, we can use less land for farming and conserve the rest for biodiversity. Read more of article Read study ☼
Meet the Machine That Drives the Environmental Movement: Big Green, Inc.
By Thomas J. Pyle
The Environmental Left relishes its carefully crafted image as a modern-day David battling the mighty fossil fuel giants in an epic struggle to save our dying planet. While it may sound compelling, this narrative is simply false.
What is conveniently left out, and often under reported, is that the environmental movement is a deep-pocketed and powerful force in American politics, orchestrating efforts to restrict the production and movement of our domestic natural resources and upend our energy markets. This multi-billion dollar effort weakens our nation’s energy prosperity, does little by way of environmental protection, and disproportionately harms the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes. Read more ☼
Environmental Law Without Property Rights
by Richard A. Epstein
Monday, October 22, 2018
The new term of the United States Supreme Court got off to an inauspicious start in the important case of Weyerhaeuser v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. At issue in the case is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), which allows the government to take steps to protect endangered and threatened species from destruction. Weyerhaeuser involved the preservation of potential habitat for the dusky gopher frog, whose lifestyle requires living underground in areas covered by open-canopied pine forests, from which the frogs migrate to isolated, ephemeral ponds for breeding before returning home. These exacting conditions are not easily found, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) spent an inordinate amount of time, effort, and careful study to locate such a habitat. In this case, the FWS acted only after it conducted, as the majority in the Fifth Circuit noted, an exhaustive “economic analysis, two rounds of notice and comment, a scientific peer-review process including responses from six experts, and a public hearing.”
After its investigation concluded, FWS designated as critical habitat some 1,544 acres of privately-owned land in Louisiana. That land had been slated for timber harvesting, followed by residential and commercial development. The FWS made its designation even though only one such frog was found on these lands back in 1965. The ESA’s instruction to the FWS was to make sure that the site designated as critical habitat contains “those physical or biological features . . . essential to the conservation of the species.” The FWS read the term “essential” broadly to cover the proposed site, subject to two huge caveats. First, the designated space could not support the dusky gopher program in its current condition. Extensive site modification was required to make the area habitable for the frog. Second, FWS had no current plans for the needed site modification, and it had set aside no funds for its improvement. As a result, the site was in limbo. The Fifth Circuit majority protested that such critical habitat designations “do not transform private land into wildlife refuges” because they neither authorize the government to enter the land nor require the private owner to modify the property to populate it with members of the endangered species. But that sentence tells only half the story: the designation does put the land into legal limbo because its owners can no longer use it for its intended purposes unless they first obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to alter the site, which can only happen if FWS approves of the change in use under the ESA. The plaintiffs alleged “that the resulting lost development opportunities could cost the landowners $34 million.” Those are social as well as private losses. Read more ☼
“When People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” —Samuel Adams (1775)
The great climate scam: “An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” -Michael Crichton
IPCC conceded in its Third Assessment Report, “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (IPCC, 2001, p. 774).
* * *
1) Support private property rights.
2) Support multiple use management of federal lands for agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, oil and gas production, recreation, timber harvesting and water development activities.
3) Support a balance of environmental responsibility and economic benefit for all Americans by urging that environmental policy be based on good science and sound economic principles.
Newsletters can be viewed online on Jonathan’s Wryheat Blog:
See my essay on climate change:
The Constitution is the real contract with America.
* * *
People for the West – Tucson, Inc.
PO Box 86868
Tucson, AZ 85754-6868
Jonathan DuHamel, President & Editor
Dr. John Forrester, Vice President
Lonni Lees, Associate Editor
People for the West – Tucson, Inc. is an Arizona tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation. Newsletter subscriptions are free.
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.