Climate change

A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

(Remember back in the 1970s, climate scientists and media were predicting a return to an “ice age.”)

I have posed that question to five “climate scientist” professors at the University of Arizona who claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of dangerous global warming. Yet, when asked the question, none could cite any supporting physical evidence.

Some of the professors would claim that computer models, when corrected for natural variation, required carbon dioxide emissions to correlate with observed warming of the late 20th Century. But computer modeling is not physical evidence; it is mere speculation. And correlation does not prove causation. One could easily substitute any increasing time series of data to produce similar results. In fact, an Australian group did a tongue-in-cheek exercise of comparing the historic price rise of a first class U.S. postage stamp with temperature. Results are shown on the graph below. The rise in the price of a stamp shows a remarkable correlation with the rise of global temperature.

In seeking an answer to the initial question, I also read the many reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The reports provide no physical evidence, only various scenarios generated by computers. The outputs from computer models diverge widely from observational evidence because the models attribute too much warming influence to carbon dioxide emissions and too little to natural variation. (See Why Climate Models Run Hot by Rud Istvan.)

It appears that there is no physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. There is, however, physical evidence showing that our carbon dioxide emissions are not having any significant effect, see my article Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect for details. That article examines four predictions made by climate alarmists of what we should see as atmospheric carbon dioxide content rises. In each case, what really happened was the opposite of what was predicted.

The benighted, eco-faddish, Tucson City council wants to reduce the City’s carbon footprint by installing 100 percent renewable energy for all city government operations so Tucson will not get as hot as Phoenix. (Source) If they do that, they really will be in the dark. In another article, Impact of Paris climate accord and why Trump was right to dump it, I present research which shows that even if all countries fulfilled their pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions made in the Paris Climate Accord, it would make a difference of only 0.17°C by the year 2100.

Can anyone provide an answer to the initial question?

Note: evidence of warming is not evidence of the cause of warming.

One other complication, Fake warming: A new peer-reviewed study finds that nearly all reported warming in the 20th century is a result of historic adjustments made to the original data. The study concludes: “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets [ Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY] are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.” Read the study

Bottom line: Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have little, if any, effect on global temperature. Such efforts are therefore a waste of money and other resources.

See also:

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

Satellite data show that CO2 has almost no effect on global warming

Geology is responsible for some phenomena blamed on global warming

The past is getting cooler – an example of fake warming

 

 

More March Madness – AZ Star blames human-caused climate change for March heat

On Sunday, April 30, the Arizona Daily Star published a front-page story by Tony Davis which proclaimed “Greenhouse gases called a factor in March heat.” (Link to online version)

The story begins: “Human-caused climate change was at least partly to blame and probably mostly to blame for Tucson’s record-setting March heat, says a researcher with expertise in this field.”

This story is another example of speculation based on computer modeling and cherry-picked data rather than physical evidence. The Star consulted Dr. Geert Jan van Oldenborgh of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute who analyzed possible factors for explaining Tucson’s March temperatures. “He concluded that long-term temperature trends point almost certainly to human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions as a factor. The unresolved question, he said, is how big of a factor they are.” The article provides no physical evidence to support that conclusion.

Ignoring the high temperatures during the 1900s to 1930s, van Oldenborgh examined the record beginning in 1950 and found “a clear upward trend in the March high temperatures started in the middle 1970s.” (See my article: March 2017 – Hottest Ever in Tucson? for earlier temperature data. That article shows Tucson’s temperatures steadily rising, probably due to the urban heat-island effect, while temperatures in rural Tombstone remained level.)

From the Star: “Looking across Southern and Central Arizona high temperatures for March, van Oldenborgh found they seem to be warming across the region but that Tucson’s temperatures are rising faster than in nearby cities Casa Grande and Willcox.”

“The urban heat-island effect often accounts for differing temperatures between larger and smaller cities. But van Oldenborgh said he tried to account for such differences by focusing his analysis on daytime high temperatures, not nighttime lows that are most commonly affected by the heat island effect.” So he didn’t study the heat island effect.

Oldenborgh looked at computer models. One model set “showed that March high temperatures have risen at a point near Tucson at about 2.5 times the rate the global average temperature has risen since about 1950. The model shows that is the local effect of global warming.” (A new term: local global warming?) The other model set “showed that Tucson has received on average less long-term warming than shown by the first model.”

The article contained much “expert” speculation, but from the material presented, I see no physical evidence justifying the conclusion nor the headlines that could attribute the high March temperatures to carbon dioxide emissions. If it was not just a quirk of natural variation, then maybe Tucson has its own evil cloud of carbon dioxide hovering above the city. Of course, there was lots of hot air expelled by local politicians in March.

In my opinion, this type of story is, to put it politely, junk science, designed to stir up alarm about a subject that has become purely political. It is not really news, but propaganda.

Here is the temperature record from the USHCN weather station at the University of Arizona. The top red line shows March high temperatures. The other lines show a slow rise consistent with the urban heat island effect. Had van Oldenborgh used this more complete record, his “clear upward trend” would have disappeared.

See also:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Also look at this story from 2012: MILD WINTER MAKES MARCH MADNESS

Earth Hour: A Dissent

Reblogged from WUWT

Earth Hour: A Dissent

by Ross McKitrick

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, Univer...

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour.

Here is my response.

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.

Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.

Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.

Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases.

Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the west developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.

Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity.

People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply.

If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations.

No thanks.

I like visiting nature but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization with all its tradeoffs is something to be ashamed of.

Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph

El Nino to El Nino – no net global warming

uahdec2016

The Earth experienced two super El Ninos recently: 1997/1998 and 2015/2016. It was expected that 2016 would be the hottest year in the satellite record which begins in 1979. It was, but by only 0.02°C over 1998. That is not statistically significant according to Dr. Roy Spencer, keeper of the UAH satellite system data. (The margin of error is 0.1°C, much larger than the difference between the El Nino years.) The graph above shows the UAH results. A separate satellite analysis by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) came to the same conclusion.

Satellites measure the temperature of the lower troposphere, the portion of the atmosphere where weather takes place. These measurements give a more realistic picture of global temperature than do surface measurements. Essentially, global temperature now is the same as it was nearly 18 years ago.

The earlier El Nino had a sharp drop off as a strong La Nina cooling took effect. The 2016/2017 La Nina appears to has started in mid December, 2016, and we can expect more cooling during the first half of 2017, but the current La Nino is expected to be weaker.

The media may still proclaim 2016 as the hottest year ever (in a cherry-picked time frame). For some perspective on that let’s see a longer perspective.

CCIP fig1

One thing the media may not mention is that our carbon dioxide emissions seem to have had no effect on global temperature. This was recently noted by Australian Jo Nova in her article “Since 2000 humans have put out 30% of their total CO2 but there is nothing to show for it.” There has been an 18-year “pause” in global warming.

If CO2 is supposed to be the principal cause of global warming, why hasn’t this great outpouring of CO2 had a noticeable effect? According to the Department of Energy, “Since 1751 approximately 337 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s.” And 30% have occurred since the 1997/1998 El Nino. There is no indication that all this CO2 is producing global warming.

global-co2-human-emissionsBoth North America and Europe are experiencing record cold weather. The North Atlantic Ocean has been rapidly cooling since the mid-2000s. (Source) Also, Solar activity is now at a low point as the current cycle winds down. Many scientists are confident the next cycle will also be a weak one. Periods of weak solar cycles are associated with periods of global cooling.

It seems that any alleged warming effect that CO2 may have is overwhelmed by natural variation in climate.

See also:

An Illustrated Guide to El Nino and La Nina

 

Climate Madness 9

The climate madness highlight in November was the UN’s Climate Change Conference in Marrakech, Morocco, held 7-18 November. The bureaucratically official designation of this meeting is: The 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 22), the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 12), and the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1).

It seems that the UN delegates are terrified of Trump because it could mean the end of their cash cow. (“My only worry is the money,” said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. “It’s worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change skeptic,” he toldReuters.)

COP22 climate conference has now ended – and green groups are just waking up to the fact that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything. Read more

Marc Morano, who publishes the Climate Depot website and co-wrote and hosted the new skeptical film ‘Climate Hustle,’ demonstrated outside the meeting by literally shredding the UN Paris agreement. Morano was removed by UN guards (See videos). Morano also attempted to present a 43-page report on the state of the climate (Read full 43-page report).

This is what the meeting accomplished:

UN Climate Talks Agree to Delay Paris Rules until 2018

by Alister Doyle and Megan Rowling, Reuters

At the end of two-week talks on global warming in Marrakesh, which were extended an extra day, many nations appealed to Trump, who has called climate change a hoax, to reconsider his threat to tear up the Paris Agreement for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Showing determination to keep the Paris Agreement on track, the conference agreed to work out a rule book at the latest by December 2018. A rule book is needed because the Paris Agreement left many details vague, such as how countries will report and monitor their national pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Read more

Also you can:

Get Your Gender Climate Tracker

by Rupert Darwall

An event of such magnitude struck the latest round of the climate conference – talks which have been going on in various forms since the early 1990s – that the response of many participants and NGOs is to pretend nothing’s happened and carry on as before. Today is gender and education day at the COP22 in Marrakech. Gender equality and the empowerment of women is written into the preamble of last December’s Paris Agreement, the climate treaty that President Obama ratified without sending to the Senate for its advice and consent. ‘Gender justice is climate justice,’ as one feminist NGO puts it.

There are Feminists for a Fossil Fuel Free Future. You can download a Gender Climate Tracker app for iPhone and Android. ‘Our existing economies are based on gender exploitative relationships,’ one speaker told a side meeting. ‘The first ecology is my body,’ another declared. Sexual and reproductive rights require climate justice. ‘Sixty percent of my body is water. What I’m drinking takes me to my city and to the health of the planet.’ Read more (What is she drinking?)

COP22 also had to deal with an inconvenient fact: a dramatic decline in global temperature (1.2°C drop) since early 2016; and the fact that satellites show very different temperatures than “adjusted” land based thermometers. See: Hottest Year?! NOAA claimed ‘record heat’ in numerous locations that don’t have any actual thermometers. Maybe this was the “Gore Effect.” (see ADI explanation)

Other climate madness news:

There Is A Major Climate Issue Hiding In Your Closet: Fast Fashion

by Maxine Bédat and Michael Shank

Disposable clothes, often made from oil, in factories powered by coal, and shipped around the world, mean that the apparel industry contributes 10% of global emissions. Today, more than 150 billion new articles of clothing are produced annually. People don’t keep their clothing anymore; it is no longer owned, it is just consumed. They wear and discard it quickly. That’s fast fashion and it’s ruining our planet. Read more

UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change. Pricing food according to its climate impacts could save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Taxing greenhouse gas emissions from food production could save more emissions than are currently generated by global aviation, and lead to half a million fewer deaths from chronic diseases, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change. Read more

Children win right to sue US government for climate change inaction

You may not have realized we have the right to a perfect climate. A bunch of kids age 8 to 19 have won the right to take the US government to trial for not protecting the atmosphere. It’s being called the “biggest case on the planet”. Read more

New study quantifies your personal contribution and guilt over Arctic sea ice melt

by Anthony Watts

From the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft and the department of “it’s all YOUR fault and it’s worse than we thought” comes this guilt trip over Arctic sea ice from Greenpeace activist and NSIDC scientist (now just a person because she stopped being a scientist when she started accepting Greenpeace assistance, IMO) Julienne Stroeve. Of course, Stroeve has no explanation of what caused dramatic sea ice melt in 1922, but she’s certain you caused it today.

For each tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) that any person on our planet emits, three square meters of Arctic summer sea ice disappear. This is the finding of a study that has been published in the journal Science this week by Dirk Notz, leader of a Max Planck Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and Julienne Stroeve from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre. These figures enable us for the first time to grasp the individual contribution to global climate change. Read more

Feds Join Conference on ‘Psychosocial Resilience’ to Climate Change – Causes Depression, PTSD, Suicide, and Spiritual Problems

by Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – Several federal officials spoke on Friday at a conference in Washington, D.C., organized by The Resource Innovation Group, an Oregon-based organization that promotes the idea that climate change can cause a range of human health problems, including PTSD, depression and suicide and that human behavior should be changed to avoid these problems.

The website said attendees to the conference will learn:

The personal mental health, spiritual, and psychosocial impacts of climate change on youth, adolescents, adults, and why major preventative human resilience-building policies and programs are urgently needed to address the risks.

Methods, policies, and benefits of building personal resilience for climate change-enhanced traumas and toxic stresses.

Methods, policies, and benefits of building psychosocial resilience within all types of groups and organizations for climate change-enhanced traumas and toxic stresses.

Methods, policies, and benefits of building psychosocial resilience within communities for climate change-enhanced traumas and toxic stresses. Read more

Green heads to explode: ‘elimination of GMO crops would cause hike in greenhouse gas emissions’

by Anthony Watts

From Purdue University and the “better living through genetics” department comes this press release that is sure to setup an impossible quandary in the minds of some anti-GMO zealots who also happen to be climate proponents…

Planting GMO crops is an effective way for agriculture to lower its carbon footprint.

A global ban on genetically modified crops would raise food prices and add the equivalent of nearly a billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, a study by researchers from Purdue University shows. Using a model to assess the economic and environmental value of GMO crops, agricultural economists found that replacing GMO corn, soybeans and cotton with conventionally bred varieties worldwide would cause a 0.27 to 2.2 percent increase in food costs, depending on the region, with poorer countries hit hardest. According to the study, published Oct. 27 in the Journal of Environmental Protection, a ban on GMOs would also trigger negative environmental consequences: The conversion of pastures and forests to cropland – to compensate for conventional crops’ lower productivity – would release substantial amounts of stored carbon to the atmosphere. Read more

The Latest Global Warming Threat: Trick Or Treating

by Andrew Follett

Environmentalists have decided that letting kids trick or treat on Halloween is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and the only solution is for the activists to get more money to fight it.

Environmentalists suspect that candy eaten by trick-or-treating kids probably generates a lot of CO2 and therefore isn’t sustainable. The environmental website TerraPass even encourages parents to “start a new trend and skip the candy handouts, opting for more sustainable treats as a greener way of participating in the festivities. Instead of candy coated, sugary bites, offer up little storybooks, crayons, playing cards or toys.” Read more (That sounds like the “safe places” offered college students traumatized by Trump’s election.)

Explosive coolant being put into cars to fight global warming

By Ed Straker

A new kind of explosive coolant called HFO-1234yf is being put into cars to fight global warming.

HFO-1234yf is already becoming standard in many new cars sold in the European Union and the United States by all the major automakers, in large part because its developers, Honeywell and Chemours, have automakers over a barrel. Their refrigerant is one of the few options that automakers have to comply with new regulations and the Kigali agreement.

It has its detractors. The new refrigerant is at least 10 times as costly as the one it replaces.

Daimler began raising red flags in 2012. A video the company made public was stark. It showed a Mercedes-Benz hatchback catching fire under the hood after 1234yf refrigerant leaked during a company simulation.

Daimler eventually relented and went along with the rest of the industry, installing 1234yf in many of its new cars.

“None of the people in the car industry I know want to use it,” said Axel Friedrich, the former head of the transportation and noise division at the Umweltbundesamt, the German equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency. He added that he opposed having another “product in the front of the car which is flammable.”

While cars, obviously, contain other flammable materials, he was specifically worried that at high temperatures 1234yf emitted hydrogen fluoride, which is dangerous if inhaled or touched.

The new coolant is superior to the HFC it is replacing in its impact on global warming.

Man-made global warming is a myth, a fantasy; there has never even been a workable theory to even prove it. (The current theory, that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming, doesn’t work because most CO2 is produced naturally in the environment, not by industrial output.) And yet our lives are risked, again and again, to protect us against this fantasy.

More and more people are dying because cars are getting lighter and lighter – the left’s human sacrifices to appease their global warming gods. The left won’t be satisfied until we are driving around in vehicles loaded with explosives with the crash-worthiness of papier-mâché. (Source)

 

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6

Climate Madness 7

Climate Madness 8

Climate Madness 8 – global warming is racist and will cause moose to freeze

As you read the items below, remember this:

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us. -Paul Driessen

Dirty Politics:

WIKILEAKS: ThinkProgress Trashes A Climate Expert’s Career To Appease A Hillary Donor

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

ThinkProgress Editor in Chief Judd Legum sent an email to a billionaire donor bragging how the liberal blog’s environmental writer targeted a climate researcher who challenged a major Democratic talking point on global warming, according to leaked emails.

The blog’s environmental arm, ClimateProgress, took issue with pollster Nate Silver’s 538 website, hiring Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. to write about global warming issues. Pielke is no skeptic of man-made warming, but he challenged a Democratic talking point that global warming was making extreme weather more severe.

ClimateProgress is part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which was created by Clinton’s presidential campaign chair John Podesta. Read more

From the climate science “experts”

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016

by Sarah Knapton

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more ice now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012. Read more

Eye roller: we measured sea levels in the wrong places, therefore it’s ‘worse than we thought

by Anthony Watts

From the UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

New research published in Geophysical Research Letters shows that the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels may underestimate the amount of global average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century. Dr. Philip Thompson, associate director of the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), led the study.

“It’s not that there’s something wrong with the instruments or the data,” said Thompson, “but for a variety of reasons, sea level does not change at the same pace everywhere at the same time. As it turns out, our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average.” Read more

Study: Global Warming Causes Cold Winters

by Eric Worrall

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research claims that global warming is the root cause of recent spate of cold winters in the Eastern United States. But don’t worry – as temperatures rise, the warming effect of global warming will overcome the cooling effect of global warming. Read more

Huffing and puffing over HFCs won’t cut global warming

by Christopher Booker

Back in 1987, when there was a huge panic over the hole opening up in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, 197 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, the world’s first major environmental treaty, agreeing to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in everything from refrigerators to hair-sprays, which were supposedly causing the ozone to disappear.

How far this has actually been responsible for the fact that the ozone hole has recently been shrinking is still a matter of scientific dispute. But CFCs have been widely replaced by hydrofluorocrabons (HFCs), used in refrigeration and air-conditioning, which, because they are short-lived, were viewed not to be damaging to the ozone layer.

However these HFCs are even more powerful greenhouse gases than the CFCs. So the Montreal Protocol must now be amended to ban these wicked “pollutants” as soon as possible, not least in light of last December’s Paris agreement that supposedly pledged the world to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.Read more See also: The biggest players in the chemical industry were all too happy to line up behind the United Nations (U.N.) deal to cut hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) from air conditioners, freezers and other appliances. Link

Bad timing: Study Claiming Less Rain Published in the Middle of a Flood

by Eric Worrall

A study led by ANU Professor Neville Abram, which claims climate is driving clouds south, resulting in less rain reaching Australia’s Southern Coast, has been published in the midst of massive flooding in South Australia. Greens of course blame climate change for the deluge. Read more

Brainwashing and the Thought Police:

Climate Change may destroy sunsets — Southern Cross Uni teaches children

from Australia

Apparently CO2 can absorb sunsets:

The Climate Change Challenge will be held at the Lismore campus where students from ages 8 to 15 can take part in the ‘photo voice’ competition, where they can use photography to have a voice on the issue and win prizes.

‘Some students take photos of beautiful things such as sunsets or waterways and then write about how it could be lost or destroyed because of climate change. Some take photos of land that has been bulldozed; they are very aware about how plants repair from damage, produce oxygen, absorb CO2 and so on. (Source)

Don’t say Climate Change: “Its a poisonous term to use”

by Eric Worrall

EPA funded Sociologist Sabrina McCormick has some advice for city officials trying to push their climate projects past the legislature: The best way to fight climate change? Don’t call it climate change. McCormick said she learned that many city officials believe the key to getting everybody on board to battle climate change is to avoid uttering the words “climate change.” It’s “a poisonous term to use.” Read more

To Fight Climate Change Attorney General Eric Schneiderman Deputizes Thought Police

by Jeff Stier, New York Observer

With his latest plan to punish even thoughts and speech related to climate change, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has raised the eyebrows of even his fellow climate-change activist Democrat attorneys general. Officials from a number of state AG offices expressed anxiety about Schneiderman’s controversial plan to investigate and possibly prosecute not only energy companies, but think tanks, for challenging the science underpinning some of the more alarmist statements coming from the Al Gore camp of the party on climate issues. Newly-released emails, obtained under freedom of information laws, reveal a level of discomfort with Schneiderman’s strategy. (Source)
Guardian: Global Warming Is ‘Racist’

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

Just when it seemed that climate change fantasies couldn’t get any more bizarre, the liberal UK newspaper The Guardian has launched the wild theory that global warming is essentially a “racist” crisis, perpetrated by wealthy whites against poor, vulnerable blacks. The “reasoning” behind the outlandish hypothesis runs something like this. Begin with the unprovable premise that “Britain is the biggest contributor per capita to global temperature change.” Next, assume that Britain “is also one of the least vulnerable to the effects of climate change,” whatever that means. Finally, declare that “seven of the 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change are in sub-Saharan Africa.” Et voilà, climate change has just become a racial issue, wrought by selfish white people on unsuspecting blacks. Read more

Scary stories:

Global warming may cause moose to freeze

JACKSON, Wyo. – Global warming might cause moose to freeze to death in Yellowstone National Park.

As explained in Headwaters, a special environmental supplement to the Jackson Hole News&Guide, moose populations in Jackson Hole have declined significantly in recent years, as they have across the northern United States. The reason for the decline is complicated. Wolves have taken moose, and grizzly bears have been expanding their presence. But climate could be the biggest challenge. Part of the problem is ticks. A moose with too many of the parasites during the winter can lose its hair and freeze to death. Read more

Climate change threatens status of several British mountains

Staff writers, News Corp Australia Network

Several mountains in the UK could literally disappear from the map because of climate change after it was revealed that rising sea levels could see them reclassified as hills. Read more

NYTimes & Zika: a brief case study on climate change hype

By David Wojick

The folks who make their living by hyping the supposed threat of runaway global warming use a lot of scary language in the process. Here the ever creative New York Times has set what may be a new standard in scary climate change hype, by tying it to the Zika outbreak.

In our Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases we point to the press exaggerating unproven scientific hypotheses that support government policies. Policies that depend on scaring people are especially subject to this kind of press bias. The NYT has provided a fine example of this sort of scientific distortion, one that is worth analyzing to see just how the game is played. Not surprisingly, they do this in what they call a “Science” article.

It begins with this ever so scary headline:

“In Zika Epidemic, a Warning on Climate Change” Read more

Money and Regulation:

STUDY: US Carbon Tax Would Devastate Economy And Not Change Temp

by Andrew Follett

Newly proposed carbon taxes would devastate the U.S. economy while doing nothing to reduce projected global warming, according to a new study published by scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Researchers found that carbon taxes cause considerably more economic damage than generic taxes do and disproportionately target the poor, so even a revenue-neutral carbon tax would probably reduce economic growth while doing little to fix global warming. (Read CATO report)

There are all sorts of things wrong with a carbon tax, but primarily, it does little to nothing to limit carbon dioxide emissions to the extent necessary to have any appreciable impact on the future course of the earth’s climate, and it produces a net drag on the economy.

Only four nations — Ireland, Sweden, Chile, and Finland — actually have carbon taxation today. The largest economy to ever have a carbon tax, Australia, repealed it in 2014 over concerns it was harming the economy.

Critics have said carbon taxation disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. A 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that a carbon tax would double the tax burden of the poorest households, making it effectively impossible to have both a carbon tax and a living wage. Read more

Germany’s Bundesrat Resolves End Of Internal Combustion Engine

by Bertel Schmitt, Forbes

Diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles officially are an endangered species in Germany, and possibly all of the EU. This after Germany’s Bundesrat has passed a resolution to ban the internal combustion engine starting in 2030, Germany’s Spiegel Magazin writes. Higher taxes may hasten the ICE’s departure. Read more

UN Brokers New Global Green Tax on Air Travel

by Eric Worrall

The United Nations has brokered a new international agreement which forces airlines to pay for “green” projects. By 2035, the UN expects the deal will siphon $24 billion / annum from the pockets of air travelers. Read more

Taxes Are Purgatory In The Religion Of Environmentalism

Environmentalism drains our wealth in a doomed effort to buy us salvation.

By Georgi Boorman

Long has it been noted by conservative commentators that environmentalism is a religion, in which Earth becomes a deity, carbon emissions become sin, and environmental activism is the pursuit of paradise through good works.

But no longer is climate-change alarmism a cult of the hippie left. It has grown into a full-fledged establishment, a church, if you will, complete with funding (separation of church and state need not apply here), dogma, and clergy. Unlike the religions of old, there is no “wall of separation” between this church and the state, and that means a portion of our taxes ($39.14 billion were earmarked for energy and the environment in 2015) are really a tithe to the church.

Such an intertwining of faith and government merits a discussion of how the religion of environmentalism practically impacts us all: namely, how it is draining our wealth in an effort to buy us salvation. Read more
President Obama Demands Intelligence Agencies Draft Plans to Combat Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

President Obama is asking 20 federal offices to work together on a national security strategy to address climate change.

How does the CIA, the NSA, and all the other agencies in the bottomless government agency alphabet soup respond to a demand that they plan for combatting climate change? Do they simply analyse what is happening around the world, and make stuff up when it becomes apparent that climate is not a significant issue? Or do they try to look busy, by harassing ordinary people who oppose government policy? (Source)

France Bans Plastic Forks And Knives … Because Of Global Warming

by Chris White, Daily Caller

France passed a law to outright ban the use of all plastic cutlery in an effort to fight man-made global warming. The law, which goes into effect in 2020, mandates that all disposable utensils and dishes must be made of biological, rather than petroleum-based, material. It is part of the Energy Transition for Green Growth, a plan that amps up France’s efforts to combat climate change. Read more

Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost And 400 Mines Shuttered

by Andrew Follett

This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry. Read more

Cow Fart Regulations Approved By California’s Legislature

California’s Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence and manure – both blamed for releasing greenhouse gases.

The measure was approved shortly before the end of the legislative session Wednesday after its author, Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, agreed to give dairy farms more time to comply.

The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions associated with manure to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030. Methane is one of several gases known as short-lived climate pollutants that don’t persist for long in the atmosphere but have a huge influence on the climate. Read more

Claim: “Worsening Wildfires Linked to Temp Rise”

On Tuesday, Oct 11, 2016, the Arizona Daily Star printed a front page, top of the fold story from the Associated Press (AP) with the title claimed above. The Star’s online version (with a different title) can be found here.

The story claims: “Rising temperatures are flatly to blame for recent fearsome fire seasons, leading scientists reported Monday.” It also claims: “The study showed that more than a century of fossil-fuel burning, deforestation and farming has helped push the American West into an explosive new wildfire regime, and the findings suggest far worse could be ahead.”

The AP story never gives a link or even mentions the title of the paper, but I found it through other sources. The paper itself, “Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests” is pay-walled, but you can read the abstract here.

I have two problems with this story: one with the research and one with the way AP reported it.

Science first:

The paper abstract says: “We use modeled climate projections to estimate the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to observed increases in eight fuel aridity metrics and forest fire area across the western United States….We estimate that human-caused climate change contributed to an additional 4.2 million [hectares] of forest fire area during 1984–2015, nearly doubling the forest fire area expected in its absence.”

I presume these are the same climate models which can’t get their temperature projections even close to reality. From that they conjure a contribution from “Anthropogenic increases in temperature” even though there is no physical evidence to support such an assumption.

I also found it very curious that they chose 1984 as the start point.

The National Interagency Fire Center provides a table listing the number of fires and acres burned from 1960 through 2015 (link). In 1984, they report that there were 20,493 fires that burned 1,148,409 acres. In 2015, they report that there were 68,151 fires that burned 10,125,149 acres. That would seem to support the hypothesis that there are more fires with warming. It says nothing about the alleged anthropogenic cause of warming.

BUT: here is what the researchers and press releases left out. In 1960, there were 103,387 fires that burned 4,478,188 acres. That high number of fires continued into the early 1980s. In 1981 there were 249,370 fires that burned 4,814,206 acres. In 1963, fires burned 7,120,768 acres; in 1969 fires burned 6,689,081 acres. The drastic drop in the number of fires from 1982 to 1983 was followed by a gradual increase in acres burned. That could reflect a change in fire policy rather than a response to warming. Could this paper represent cherry-picking data that fits the hypothesis and while ignoring data that doesn’t?

A large body of research shows that wildfires both increased and decreased with rising temperatures depending on the locality. For the globe as a whole, there is no consistent relationship between temperature and acres burned. See a summary of that research here: http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/firegw.php

The graph below, based on analysis of charcoal trapped in sediments, shows a longer perspective of cyclical wildfire regimes (source:http://www.pnas.org/content/109/9/E535).

Fire western US biomass burned

“The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” -T. H. Huxley

The AP report:

In describing the research, the unnamed AP writers use the terms “climate pollution” and “greenhouse gas pollution” when referring to carbon dioxide emissions. This indicates to me that the AP writers are ignorant of science, the fact that carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, and that for most of the history of this planet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 3- to 10 times higher than the current concentration. Or, is it just that these writers have imbibed deeply the global warming kool-aid? That the Arizona Daily Star continues to print stories like this indicates that they too are ignorant of science and have a political agenda.

See also:

Wildfires and Warming – Relationship not so clear

University of Arizona produces another global warming food scare

A recent paper from the University of Arizona claims “Grasses across the globe may be unable to keep pace with a changing climate, threatening some of the world’s most critical food sources, according to new research by University of Arizona ecologists.”

The study compared “past rates of niche change in 236 species of plants in the grass family with projected rates of climatic change by 2070, the team led by Alice Cang and John Wiens found that the rate of future climate change may dramatically outpace the capabilities of grasses to change their niches and survive.” (Read press release here and the full paper here.)

I see two problems with the claim:

1) Past rates of niche change reflected existing conditions at the time and does not prove that plants cannot adapt at a faster rate if they had to. The authors admit this deep in the paper.

2) The rate of warming projected by modeling has “dramatically outpaced” reality.

This is not the first time this claim has been made. There are hundreds of papers which have studied plant productivity from the near and distant past, and also conducted experiments on plant productivity. Most show that plant productivity is enhanced by warming, especially with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Many of these papers have been reviewed and summarized by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. (http://www.co2science.org/) That organization provides summaries and reviews of scientific papers. Here are the conclusions of their summary studies of plant productivity:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/bioprodhistoric.php (Distant and historic past)

In conclusion, in spite of claims that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and unprecedented global warming since the inception of the Industrial Revolution are destroying (or will destroy) the productivity of the biosphere, the terrestrial vegetative biomass of the globe as a whole continues to rise; and it appears to be doing so at a remarkable rate. As for why is this so, it may well be that the twin evils of the radical environmental movement (rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations) are not the evils they are made out to be, but actually blessings in disguise … blessings that are fueling the biosphere!

http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/bioproductivity.php (Recent past)

In spite of climate-alarmist claims that the temperatures of the latter part of the 20th century and on through the present were unprecedented over the past one to two millennia (which is highly debatable) and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were the highest they had been for several hundred millennia (which is true), as well as the fact that mankind yearly harvests and/or destroys much of the planet’s natural vegetation, the total yearly production of terrestrial vegetative biomass for the globe as a whole continues to rise, and at a remarkable rate.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/bioprodfuture.php (Projection for the future)

Throughout the course of the current century, even the severe warming predicted by current climate models will not likely be detrimental to plant growth and productivity. Rather, it will likely be a major benefit, enhancing plant growth and soil organic carbon storage, which (in addition to their own virtues) will provide a significant negative feedback to global warming as the Greening of the Earth continues!

The studies above are on plant productivity in general. More specific studies on food crops show enhanced growth with warming temperatures and increases of carbon dioxide.

A review of papers on grasslands finds “as the air’s CO2 concentration continues to increase, grassland species should respond positively by exhibiting increased rates of photosynthesis. In addition, such increases in photosynthesis will likely occur even under unfavorable growing conditions characterized by less-than-adequate soil moisture, inadequate soil nutrition, elevated air temperature, and physical stress imposed by herbivory. Thus, earth’s grassland species will likely grow ever more robustly in the future, thanks to the ever increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration produced by the burning of ever larger quantities of fossil fuels.”

A review of papers on food crops is not summarized. Individual papers show that food crops such as wheat and rice will benefit from warming and increases carbon dioxide because the latter extends the temperature range of the plants and make them more water efficient.

In my opinion, the UofA paper does nothing to advance science. It serves only to propagate alarmism. The paper ends with this sentence: “These results support our inferences from grasses that niche shifts may generally be too slow to save populations from rapid anthropogenic climate change.”

New paper: Plants’ native distributions do not reflect climatic tolerance.

This work revealed that “plants’ native ranges strongly underestimate climatic tolerance, leading species distribution models to under-predict potential range,” and while further noting that “the climatic tolerance of species with narrow native ranges appears most prone to underestimation.” And in light of these findings, they conclude that “many plants will be able to persist in situ with climate change for far longer than projected by species distribution models.”

History shows that crises in food production occurred during cool periods such as “the little ice age.”

One other thing: Let’s suppose that plants cannot adapt fast enough to survive the projected warming. A solution would be to design cultivars of plants that would be more drought and heat tolerant. Oh no, GMO!

Another Greenland melting scare

From the “it’s worse than we thought department”:

A new paper published in Science Advances claims that the amount of melting of coastal glaciers in eastern Greenland has been underestimated by about 20 gigatonnes per year. (Link to full paper titled “Geodetic measurements reveal similarities between post–Last Glacial Maximum and present-day mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet”) The paper does not mention global warming or climate change. The melting is due entirely to geologic processes. But the press manages to sound an alarm.

The New York Post translates the 20 gigatonnes figure to pounds to make it scarier sounding: “The new study, published in Science Advances, discovered that the island is losing 550 trillion pounds of ice a year — 40 trillion, and about 7.6 percent, more than scientists previously thought.”

The Post quotes a professor:

“It is pretty scary,” Michael Bevis, a professor at Ohio State University and co-author of the study, told the AP. “If you look at the last 15 years since we’ve been having these measurements, it’s clearly getting worse.” According to Bevis, the extra ice will add approximately 1/50th of an inch a decade to global sea level. So 1/50th of an inch per decade is scary?

An article from Climate Central (an alarmist site) begins with these paragraphs:

Rising temperatures are melting ice and sending it to the ocean, a process that is pushing sea levels higher and altering the landscape at both poles. The latest news comes from Greenland, where researchers have used high-tech satellite and GPS measurements to see how much mass the ice sheet is losing.

Their results, published this week in Science Advances, indicate that it’s melting faster than previous estimates, particularly in areas where the ice sheet comes in direct contact with the ocean. It’s a troubling finding for the future of coastal areas around the world.

Greenland hot spotThe claim that melting is due to rising temperatures is debunked by the Science Advances study itself. In the study, they show that isostatic rebound following the last glacial maximum is tilting the continent and causing east coast glaciers to flow faster into the sea. They also note that “The onset of increasing flow of the northeast Greenland ice stream (the largest flow feature of the ice sheet), for example, has been linked to a geothermal hot spot.”

As I note in my article Greenland surprises:

Ice-penetrating radar and drilling have led to some surprises in Greenland during the last few years. The continent is bowl-shaped, it has a massive canyon running down its middle, and it contains a large aquifer of liquid water beneath the ice. That means that the continental ice sheet is in no danger of slipping into the ocean as some have claimed.

Regardless of the cause of melting, is it “a troubling finding for the future of coastal areas around the world” as claimed by Climate Central?

According to calculations at the Watts Up With That blog, melting of 550 trillion pounds of ice would cause a sea level rise of 0.689 millimeters or 0.0271 inches per year. That additional 40 trillion pounds actually added 0.045 mm/yr to global sea levels. The total melt contributes to sea level rise of less than the thickness of a penny. Do you find that scary?

To put things in further perspective, consider this report:

“A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated. 2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74N and 80N have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared.”

That report is an extract from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, written in 1817 (Royal Society, London. Nov. 20, 1817. Minutes of Council, Vol. 8. pp.149-153).

Sea also:

The Sea Level Scam

Climate Madness 7

By now you should realize that the war on carbon dioxide emissions is not about the climate but about money and power. As you read the items below keep in mind these two things:

1) Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has admitted the real reason for the climate hysteria: to transform the world economy, redistributing income from rich nations to poorer ones. Figueres stated: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” (Source)

2) Obama’s Clean Power Plan, if fully implemented, would reduce temperatures by 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The UN’s Paris climate agreement, if fully implemented would reduce global temperatures by 0.08 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 according to UN modeling. The costs of the Paris climate pact are likely to run $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually throughout the rest of the century. (Source)

Should We Be Having Kids In Light Of Global Warming?

By Andrew Follett, Daily Caller

National Public Radio (NPR) featured an academic philosopher who says morality requires Americans to stop having kids, because they will only cause more global warming.

“Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” NPR Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR. “The situation is bleak, it’s just dark … Population engineering, maybe it’s an extreme move. But it gives us a chance.”

Rieder said America produces a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) per person, and the world’s poorest nations will be most affected by global warming. He suggests rich nations should stop having children to remedy this. Reducing the current birth rate to 0.5 kids per woman could be the “thing that saves us,” he said. Read more Read a rebuttal

Climate Anxiety Counseling: Worried about global warming? Fear not because you can now get Climate Anxiety Counseling. (Link)

Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

by Kate Hardiman

‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’

Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course. The class is taught by professors in Genetic engineering, English, and Sociology/Social Justice. Read full story from the College Fix

Perhaps these professors should consult the Climate Anxiety group. Update: The University of Colorado professors who shut down climate change debate in class have landed on the radar of a member of the school’s board of regents, who says he wants to make sure students are being “educated, not indoctrinated.”

Bill McKibben Goes Full Jackboot on Climate Change

Environmentalist Bill McKibben wants the world to wage war against climate change, by giving governments full wartime powers to seize private property and coerce businesses into supporting the effort, and with strict government control of the economy. Read more

George Monbiot Eats Roadkill to Save The Planet

by Eric Worrall

Prominent Guardian (UK) environment reporter George Monbiot has decided to eat Vegan supplemented with Roadkill to “reduce his impact” on the global climate.Read more

Vibrating roadways to generate electricity?

By Dr. Roy Spencer

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any more stupid…

Solar Freakin’ Roadways was a bad enough idea…now, the California Energy Commission has agreed to fund several projects to investigate the generation of electrical energy from piezo electric cells placed in road surfaces. The idea is that since a piezo device can convert mechanical vibrations into electricity, they can regain some of the energy lost by cars and trucks that are constantly vibrating the roads. At first it seems like a reasonable idea…until you think about the tiny amount of energy involved compared to the cost of such devices. Read more

How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming

By Tatiana Schlossberg, New York Times

It sounds simple: If something has a big carbon footprint and you get rid of it, you eliminate those carbon dioxide emissions. Right? But it’s not always that easy. In a recent study published in The Journal of Industrial Ecology, researchers at the Center for Environmental Strategy at the University of Surrey in England estimated the annual carbon footprint of crime in England and Wales, and found that reducing crime could actually cause society’s overall carbon footprint of society to increase. That’s because inmates generally consume less than an average citizen in the country, so fewer prisoners might mean higher overall energy consumption. Read more(FYI, Tatiana Schlossberg is a granddaughter of JFK)

Government regulations:

Federal contractors will have to detail “climate risk”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration recently proposed requiring that all companies doing business with the federal government publicly disclose what they know about their climate-risk exposure. This information will be a factor in taxpayer-funded contracting decisions. The administration is also working to increase disclosure of climate risks that America’s more than 140 million pension beneficiaries face in their investments. And we now require that our agencies consider and publicly disclose climate risk when undertaking other major federal actions, like leases of public resources, issuance of permits, and investment in infrastructure. Read more

Government: New 700,000-Word Regulation is Good for You

by Terry Jeffrey, Townhall

The EPA has just signed a new 1,689-page regulation that imposes new “greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards” on vehicles ranging from heavy-duty pickup trucks to tractor-trailer combinations used to haul cargo. According to the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, by model year 2027, the regulation will increase the cost of tractor trucks, depending on the type, between $10,235 and $13,749. Trailers will cost from $1,204 to $1,370 more. The regulation follows from the EPA administrator’s determination, made seven years ago under the terms of the Clean Air Act, that greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, “endanger public health.” Read more

The Department of Energy (DOE) has now developed an energy efficiency regulation specific to wine coolers.

It estimated the rule would cost the average small business $12,500 to test whether their equipment meets specifications. While DOE said the $12,500 testing cost is “unlikely to represent a significant economic impact for small businesses,” it did not address the costs to or impact on individual consumers who have or might purchase wine chillers for their homes. Read more

Obama issues guidance making it tougher to build roads, bridges in name of climate change

by Valerie Richardson, the Washington Times

Building that bridge or expanding that highway just became more difficult under a rigorous standard issued by the Obama administration that will make it easier to block a wide range of projects in the name of climate change. The final guidance broadens the National Environmental Policy Act by requiring agencies to quantify the impact of activities that require federal permits not just on the environment but also on “projected direct and indirect GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.” The White House described the guidance as “another big step in the administration’s effort to consider how all types of federal actions will impact climate change and identify opportunities to build climate resilience.” Read more

Climate Predictions:

2009: The 2016 Olympics will be the last summer games due to global warming.

2016: The 2080 Olympics will be the last summer games due to global warming.

The Imaginary Drought Of 2016: Experts predicted a severe drought in the corn belt this summer. But: The past two years has been much wetter than normal across the corn belt.

1923: experts said Glacier National Park will be ice-free by 1950.

1952: experts said Glacier National Park would be ice-free by 2000

2009: experts said Glacier National Park would be ice-free by 2020.

2016: Dengue fever flip-flop: Health researchers now predict that the transmission of dengue fever could decrease in a future warmer climate, countering previous projections that climate change would cause the potentially lethal virus to spread more easily.

Flashback:

“… every season is sure to be ‘extraordinary,’ almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known… speculating quite as conjecturally and even more absurdly, seem to attribute the impending change of climate, of which they assume the reality, to the operation of men. ” -Brisbane Courier, January 10, 1871 in an article entitled “Imaginary changes of Climate”

Climate “science”:

The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature

In this post Tony Heller, proprietor of the blog “Real Science” documents how NASA has been manipulating the temperature record to conform with the current political agenda.

In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and a 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970. Climatologists blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on the global cooling that was occurring.

In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported the same thing, and said global cooling is inevitable.

In 1989 Tom Karl, the Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said Earth had cooled from 1921 to 1979.

But by 1999, NASA had changed the 1921 to 1979 cooling which Tom Karl reported into almost 0.3C warming, and had erased most of the 1940 to 1970 cooling.

By 2001, NASA had increased the fake 1921 to 1979 warming to more than 0.3C, had further erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and showed about 0.5C warming from 1880 to 1999.

NASA now shows 0.5C warming from 1921 to 1979, have completely erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and shows 1.1C warming from 1880 to 1999. They more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their 2001 graph.

Summarizing : NASA has completely erased the post-1940 cooling. They turned Tom Karl’s 1921-1979 cooling into 0.5C warming, and have more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their own 2001 temperature graph. Malfeasance like this in most professions would have serious consequences for the perpetrators.

A new global warming study says only a total power shutdown can save us now

by Thomas Richard

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has a new study this week: to prevent catastrophic global warming, the world will need to stop emitting all man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2085. So say goodbye to Uber, iPhones, computers, trains, planes, automobiles, air conditioners, heating, or anything that even remotely relies on fossil fueled power. It means our entire way of life would be thrown into the Stone Age to prevent an unlikely two-degree Celsius rise in temperatures from occurring by 2100. And it would keep developing nations from being industrialized. Forget renewables. According to manufacturing analyst Steven Capozzola, you “can’t build a wind farm with the electricity generated by a wind farm.”

Additionally, the federally funded NCAR study says that we will need to develop carbon scrubbing devices capable of removing CO2 from the air. It notes that even if every sector in every country – including manufacturing, power generation, farming, transportation, and the military–ceased all operations, we would still need technology to remove 15 gigatons of CO2 a year from the atmosphere. Read more

See also:

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6