The best scientist is open to experience and begins
with romance - the idea that anything is possible.

–Ray Bradbury

Green Tech – the climate crisis syndicate

corn ethanol pumpRenewable Portfolio Standard advocates recently held their 2015 National Summit. The draft RPS agenda suggests it was quite an event – populated by bureaucrats, scientists and consultants who have jumped on the climate and “green energy” bandwagon, to follow the money.

Indeed, they are no longer content with 10% corn ethanol in gasoline, or some wind and solar power in the electricity mix. Now they want to convert the entire electrical grid from fossil-fuels to renewable sources and, if Catholic bishops get their way, totally eliminate hydrocarbons by 2050, despite the horrendous impacts that would have on workers, families and the world’s poorest people.

An Outbreak Of Sanity Down Under

sealevelThe Australian is reporting that the New South Wales government has suddenly come over all sensible on the subject of sea-level rise. This is of course precisely the approach recommended by Carter and de Lange in their GWPF report on the subject. --Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 13 November 2015

The NSW government will today unveil sweeping changes to how the state’s coastline is managed, building on its insistence that local councils look at the science and evidence of individual beaches rather than blindly adopting UN predictions of climate change. Planning Minister Rob Stokes will announce what he says are world-first strategies that treat the 2007km NSW coast not as static fixed geography but as a constantly changing and evolving phenomenon. The initiatives mark the second phase of the Coalition government’s demolition of the previous Labor government’s policy, which among other things directed local councils on the coast to enforce the climate change and sea level rise predictions of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. --Ean Higgins, The Australian, 13 November 2015

How La Ninas Successfully Prove That El Ninos are Geological in Origin

Someone once said that "behind every successful woman is herself." In an era when all anyone can talk about is El Nino, it takes a woman, La Nina, to prove that both El Ninos and La Ninas are geological in origin. Even more interesting, it turns out that this same woman proves there is no such thing as the famous climatological event called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). There is no oscillation, no changing from an El Nino warm phrase to a La Nina cool phase. El Nino and La Nina are actually the result of the same geologically induced deep ocean seafloor fluid flow event.

Figure 1.) SST Maps of El Nino and La Nina events (credit NASA).Figure 1. SST Maps of El Nino and La Nina events (credit NASA).

These are extremely bold contentions to be sure, especially when one considers that it implies every climate scientist, world renown university, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have gotten it wrong. Well the facts speak for themselves.

Britons Less Concerned About Climate Change Than Any Other Nation

pewBritish people are less concerned than any other nationality about the risk they face from climate change, according to a survey ahead of negotiations on a global deal on emissions next month. Only 46 per cent of British people believe climate change will harm them personally in their lifetime, far below the global average of 72 per cent. The British are also less likely than most other major countries to agree with the statement that “global climate change is a very serious problem”. --Ben Webster, The Times, 12 November 2015

Acidic water may be a sign of healthy corals, says a new study, muddying the waters still further on our understanding of how coral reefs might react to climate change. Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth. “At first we were really puzzled by this,” says Andersson. “It’s completely the opposite to what we would expect in an ocean-acidification scenario.” --Michael Slezak, New Scientist, 9 November 2015

Shun the global warming extremists

"We really snookered this time, buddy.""We really snookered this time, buddy."It’s on the order of craziness, this scuttling of the XL Keystone pipeline, but that’s not where overreaching global-warming alarmism can do the most harm.

How about criminalizing free speech? How about saddling the nation with anti-warming policies whose primary effect will be economic hurt? How about an upcoming international conference on climate that could keep the undeveloped world undeveloped as the developed world regresses?

None of this is to say that global warming is an issue with no serious questions requiring rapt attention. The worry is that apocalypse-fearing absolutists are the ones dictating policies that not so coincidentally are despotic, hurtful and poorly justified. For years, scientists have been researching the proposed oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, yet how much attention have screeching opponents paid to the findings? Virtually none.

Our Science-Denier-in-Chief

Obama AirForceOneWhat happens when you spend seven years trying to prove a big infrastructure project will increase global warming and come up empty? Do you admit you were wrong? If you're President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, the answer is no. You deny the science and announce that the over-the-top PR campaign by your liberal allies, funded by hedge fund kingpin Tom Steyer, has created the perception that the project is bad for global warming, and thus it must be blocked without regard to science.

President Obama laid out his personal standard for approving the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline in his global warming speech at Georgetown University on June 25, 2013. "Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution," he said. "The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward."

The State Department 2014 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) not only concluded that approving the pipeline would not increase greenhouse gas emissions, but would actually reduce emissions relative to the "no action" alternatives.

The State Department analyzed three different potential "no action" scenarios and found they would all have significantly higher emissions than approving the pipeline. The all-rail scenario would have 41.8 percent higher emissions; a scenario in which rail is used for part of the route to reach existing pipelines would have 39.7 percent higher emissions, and a scenario in which rail is used to ship crude to reach tankers would increase emissions 27.8 percent.

When timely approval of the pipeline looked likely by the end of 2011, rail shipments from Canada were less than 2,000 barrels per day. But when the Obama administration made clear that no decision on the pipeline was coming any time soon, the market reacted. Rail shipments skyrocketed to over 190,000 barrels per day in January 2015 and remain above 100,000 even with lower oil prices.

Whatever you think about global warming, lives are at stake. The State Department also looked at the safety implications of rejecting the pipeline and found "potentially an additional 49 injuries and six fatalities for the No Action rail scenarios compared to one additional injury and no fatalities for the proposed Project on a yearly basis."

So how did President Obama get to "no"?

The operative language, with emphasis added, is on page 28 in Secretary Kerry's 32-page National Interest Determination. "The broad perception of the oil that would be carried by the proposed Project is that it would be 'dirty,'" Kerry said, referencing the deep-pocketed smear campaign run by well-heeled environmentalist groups with Steyer's backing.

"Whether or not that oil would still find other transport to market in the absence of the proposed Project (that complex issue is analyzed in the Supplemental EIS), the general perception is that a decision to approve the pipeline would pave the way for the long-term and intensive extraction and importation of that oil into the United States."

In other words: who cares that the oil will get to market anyway with higher greenhouse gas emissions and more fatal accidents? Or that the president's own "net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate" standard is being violated? The "general perception" created by the smear campaign is what's important.

Then Kerry gets to what he really cares about: "Issuing a permit for the proposed Project would thus be understood at this time as a decision to facilitate particularly GHG-intensive crude imports... undermining the power of U.S. example as a leader in promoting the transformation to low-carbon economies."

As Kerry and Obama head to Paris for the latest United Nations global warming confab, they want the appreciation their global environmental elite friends are sure to give to a move that is perceived to be pro-environment - regardless of the actual scientific facts. While they enjoy that nice green feeling in Paris, thousands of Americans who could be working building that pipeline will not be.

Unfortunately, President Obama cares more about perception than reality; he's our science-denier-in-chief.


NY Attorney General Schneiderman Targets Exxon Mobil: Climate Thuggery, Part 1

schneidermanNew York attorney general Eric Schneiderman could severely depress Exxon Mobil stock values while piously claiming to protect shareholders from fraud. Welcome to the Orwellian world of climate-policy sanctimony.

Schneiderman “has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business,” the New York Times reported last week. According to the Times, Schneiderman is investigating the company under the State’s 1921 Martin Act, the envy of regulatory bullies throughout the land. The statute gives New York’s AG “extraordinary powers and discretion” that “exceed those given any regulatory in any other U.S. State” (Wiki). As one commentator describes it:

Science Says: Evil Coral Reefs Acidify Oceans

coral bleachScientists have discovered the cause of the world’s second deadliest environmental threat after global warming. And the news really couldn’t be worse for the greenies.

It seems that Ocean Acidification is not, after all, the result of man’s selfishness and greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle. Apparently, according to New Scientist, it’s caused by those hateful Gaia-raping monstrosities we call coral reefs:

Acidic water may be a sign of healthy corals, says a new study, muddying the waters still further on our understanding of how coral reefs might react to climate change.

Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth.

“At first we were really puzzled by this,” says Andersson. “It’s completely the opposite to what we would expect in an ocean-acidification scenario.”

Andersson’s puzzlement is understandable, given the plethora of articles over the last few years that have tried to big up ocean acidification as the “evil twin” of climate change and inevitably trying to pin the blame on man.

Ocean Acidification: Evil Twin Threatens The World’s Oceans, Scientists Warn

Ocean Acidification: the next big threat to coral reefs

Rate of ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years

Shellfish face high risk from ocean acidification, study finds


Some cynics have long argued that “ocean acidification” is little more than a green urban myth: a fallback position for when the man-made-global-warming theory finally collapses and another excuse is needed to justify the increasingly unjustifiable war on carbon dioxide.

(And, besides, the very phrase is a lie: the oceans aren’t turning acid. Their alkalinity is being marginally reduced, bringing the seas slightly close to neutral ph. That may sound like nit-picking, but it’s much more honest and accurate, as Willis Eschenbach explains here.)

This evidence unearthed late last year seemed to confirm it: Ocean Acidification may well turn out to be the marine version of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick.

But this latest study on “ocean acidification” may be even worse news for the alarmists still, for it puts them on the horns of a terrible dilemma.

One of the main justifications for their hysteria about “ocean acidification” is the terrible threat it poses to our coral reefs. As Jane Lubchenko, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told a conference in Sydney in 2012, it’s part of a “perfect storm of stressors from multiple places really hammering reefs around the world.”

If however, it turns out that coral reefs really are causing this “ocean acidification” then it may be that the only way to save them is to kill them.

Luckily the people who go into climate science and related environmental disciplines have exceptionally vivid imaginations. So they’re sure to come up with an exciting range of projections and options, modelled on state-of-the-art equipment, paid for by you and me.


PBS NewsHour continues its biased global warming

woodruffJudy WoodruffIn a PBS NewsHour broadcast discussion segment airing 11/10/15 ("Has Exxon Mobil mislead the public about its climate change research?") Judy Woodruff interviewed New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman about his efforts to subpoena ExxonMobil documents. These are supposed to prove whether the company misled its own investors and the public on what it knew and when it knew it about the purported catastrophic human-induced global warming rhat has been on “pause” for almost 18 years.

Woodruff, noting the situation was brought to light "by PBS's Frontline in collaboration with Inside Climate News," said Exxon's response to the reports was that they contained "deliberately cherry-picked statements attributed to various ExxonMobil employees," and that this involved "statements taken completely out of context." A.G. Schneiderman's reaction to that latter point was as follows (bold emphasis mine):

ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, then they should welcome this investigation, because, unlike journalists, my staff is going to get to read all of the documents in context, and they will have an opportunity to explain the context of the statements and whether there are contradictions or not.

OK: to render an objective fair judgment on any given situation, people need to see the full context of it. But in the case of the PBS NewsHour, the producers have ignored basically half of the context of global warming for almost twenty years.

My second-ever online piece, "The lack of climate skeptics on PBS's 'Newshour'", appeared here at American Thinker on December 29, 2009. Within it, I detailed a particular much repeated talking point on excessive “fair media balance” given to skeptic climate scientists, a situation demonstratively not happening at all. I followed up in July 2010 with my "The Left and Its Talking Points" piece, in which I quantified at that time the bias of the NewsHour on the global warming issue. Via a lengthy look through all of their online broadcast archives going back to 1996, which included web-only pages having direct ties to particular global warming broadcast segments, I found that among 200+ specific discussions of the topic and major references to global warming, only three on-air segments had any mention of basic skeptic science points.

The NewsHour has been quite busy ever since that time on the topic. I've constantly updated my ongoing computer file of this bias, copying their page links and key words from their discussions anytime they bring it up. By my count, this Eric Schneiderman segment is number #534.  With just an increase, since I last wrote, of two instances where at least some semblance of skeptic science climate assessment points was offered to counterbalance assertions made about the certainty of catastrophic global warming, their bias now stands at a ratio of approximately 529:5. I say "approximately" because I've probably missed some of the NewsHour's increasing online-only blog material on the topic.

Assuming the staff of the New York Attorney General's office does examine all of the material surrounding the PBS Frontline / Inside Climate News in context and finds that both not only took material out of context while also having a history of bias against skeptics (for example, Frontline's 2012 "Climate of Doubt" program, which I detailed, shouldn’ here), shouldn’t ttorney General Schneiderman instead launch an investigation into Frontline and Inside Climate News?


Obama’s War on Keystone XL: High Costs, Tiny Benefits

cartoon obama weathermanPresident Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline exemplifies the main problem with the administration’s push to build a legacy of combating climate change. This decision—like previous decisions to block energy infrastructure, prohibit construction of new coal-fired power plants and impose deep carbon emission reductions on the states—will stifle economic growth for little, if any, climate benefit.

Fresh off rejecting the permit application to construct Keystone XL, the White House officially announced President Obama would participate in the international climate talks this December in Paris. In denying Keystone XL, Mr. Obama said, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change, and frankly, approving this project would have undercut that leadership.”

Hillary hops on carbon-spewing private Learjet after winning endorsement from environmental group

Hillary Clintonhillary left New Hampshire campaign Tuesday night after receiving a powerful environmental group's endorsement, boarding a private plane that emits more than two tons of carbon for every hour it's in the air.

Video footage obtained exclusively by shows the Democratic front-runner climbing aboard a Learjet model 60 aircraft at the Lebanon, New Hampshire municipal airport around 6:00 p.m.

A day earlier, she appeared with League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinsky to receive the organization's formal endorsement.

Great news: carbon dioxide rose less than 2 parts per million in 2014!

Greenhouse theory going to potGreenhouse theory is going to pot. Literally.A new report released this week by the U.N.-funded WMO said that the levels of the three most potent 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere reached new levels in 2014. The good news is that CO2 rose less than 2 ppm, with the other two gases barely climbing at all. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increased to only 397.7 parts per million (PPM), up 1.9 PPM from 2013.

They also said methane levels measured 1,833 parts per billion (PPB) in 2014, and were up only 9 PPB from 2013. The globally averaged level of nitrous oxide in 2014 grew to 327.1 PPB, which is 1.1 PPB above the previous year. The largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapor, which makes up 95% of all so-called greenhouse gases. All of which may be bad news if you've instituted economy-crippling policies ahead of a UN-sponsored climate treaty.

Hurricane activity down a stunning 80% from a decade ago

atlantic hurricanesAs the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season winds down, NOAA is fear mongering again even as Atlantic hurricane activity has dropped a whopping 80 percent from 10 years ago. That's according to a new analysis released yesterday by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. To blunt this historical news, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced yesterday that global warming could be to blame for an active hurricane season last year around Hawaii. Meanwhile, as the Atlantic hurricane season finishes out its eleventh year, there hasn't been a category 3 or higher hurricane to hit landfall in over a decade.

With the upcoming UN-sponsored Paris Climate Talks in early December, NOAA's scientists have instead released a new report saying that global warming may have played a role in the increased hurricane activity around Hawaii last year. To hammer home its point, NOAA reiterated that "tropical storm Iselle slammed into the Big Island in August 2014 and was one of three tropical disturbances that approached Hawaii last year, making it the third largest number" since recordkeeping began.