Poland and other eastern European countries are prepared to scupper the EU’s landmark climate change deal next week if they do not receive greater guarantees about their future energy costs. Spearheaded by Germany, Britain and France, the EU wants to seal an agreement at a summit on October 23-24 to ensure the 28-member bloc will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But coal-dependent Poland and some of its neighbours argue that the EU’s proposals to compensate them for modernising their heavy industry do not go far enough. The opponents to the deal, led by Poland and the Czech Republic, but also including Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, are ready to walk away from the summit if they are not offered improved terms. --Financial Times, 15 October 2014
Judith Curry had an excellent piece in The Wall Street Journal the other day called "The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown":
A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.
Just so. With every month, the alarmist thesis seems more obviously insufficient, and the recent, very belated explanation for the 18-year-old warming "pause" - that the heat is merely hiding Godzilla-like in the ocean depths, biding its time - isn't holding up too well either.
Yesterday I was privileged to be cc’d in some communications between Steve Milloy (of junkscience.com) and UCLA. The communications dealt with yet another false claim of Michael Mann being a “Nobel Prize Winner” in an announcement about an upcoming talk of his, as seen below:
I went out for a walk today and enjoyed seeing how the autumn leaves are changing color because autumn, simply stated, is one of the four seasons that affects the Earth. It is part of the change that occurs as it has for billions of years.
The notion that humans have anything to do with autumn or the other seasons or that we should be spending billions of dollars to have any effect on the climate of the Earth is utterly insane.
On October 10, The Hill reported that “The U.S. might make a substantial contribution in November to an international fund that helps poor nations fight climate change, according to Peruvian Foreign Minister Gonzalo Gutierrez.” Does anyone actually believe that any amount of moneywill change the climate? And yet, there is a United Nations Green Climate Fund. The UN is the locus of the climate change, formerly global warming, hoax.
Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week. Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed. He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say. Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet. --Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013
It’s no mystery why American companies have stockpiled over $2 trillion of overseas earnings in foreign bank accounts. If they bring it to the United States, the IRS would grab 35% of it. That’s the US corporate tax rate – the highest in the developed world, double the average in EU nations.
Medtronic found a creative way to repatriate its cash, allowing it to bring money to the USA subject to just a 12.5% tax. The company acquired Covidien, another, smaller medical device firm in Ireland and will establish its formal headquarters in Dublin, thereby slashing its tax rate by two-thirds, and leaving it with far more cash for plants and equipment, innovation, hiring and keeping workers, and tapping new markets.
More Antarctic sea ice = COASTAL FLOODING!!1! Less Antarctic sea ice = COASTAL FLOODING!!1!—
Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) October 10, 2014
Here we go again …
We're referring to the Environmental Protection Agency's new "Clean Power Plan" to reduce carbon emissions from electric power plants. These rules are estimated by the Heritage Foundation to cost the national economy some $2 trillion in lost GDP and 600,000 jobs through the next decade.
But a new study shows that some states are much bigger losers than others. Just eight — Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Oklahoma — will absorb almost as much of the carbon-reduction requirements as the other 42 states combined. Texas and Florida are responsible for one-quarter of the plan's costs.
It’s a debate worth having no doubt, as job creation is something to think about when crafting economic policies. But like most policy debates, discussing job creation misses the point of taxing carbon in the first place: It’s supposed to stem global warming.
On this point taxing carbon dioxide is a fool’s errand. A carbon tax will do nothing to stop global warming on top of making energy more expensive and less reliable for everyone.
At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.
According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.
A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviews the scientific literature on rainfall and floods and finds little evidence that there have been significant changes in recent years and little support for claims that they will become worse in future.
Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no significant change in rainfall trends in recent years both at global and UK levels. It remains very difficult to make strong claims about any changes there have been because of high natural variability in rainfall patterns, particularly in the UK.
interview with ABC 10's news director Greg Peterson, Rep. Dan Benishek (who is also a medical doctor), shared his views on global warming, leaving the viewer to wonder why Peterson thinks climate change is more important than the struggling economy and Michigan's dismal unemployment rate:In an
During a recent visit to a Skandia dairy farm, Dan Benishek (R-Crystal Falls) said he does not believe the many computer models and other climate change evidence.
"The climate may be changing, but I don’t think man is contributing to it,” Benishek said.
Fair enough. So now is Peterson's chance to ask the congressman those important, thought-provoking questions that people are actually concerned about: The anemic economy, Ebola, Obamacare, lack of job opportunities, Michigan's appalling crime rate, you know, things that voters want to hear about. But Peterson has a bone, and even though this "issue" is dead last in every single poll ever taken, he presses on. Bloomberg and Gore must be aflutter at this reporter's tenacity.