Australia will be left without a major scheme to cut greenhouse gas emissions after Clive Palmer last night backed the repeal of the carbon tax without supporting any concrete alternative. The Palmer United Party leader sounded the death knell for the carbon tax last night by confirming his senators would vote to abolish the impost after the new Senate takes shape next week. In an unlikely pairing with former US vice-president Al Gore, one of the world’s leading climate change campaigners, Mr Palmer held a press conference in Parliament House to declare the carbon scheme dead. --David Crowe, The Australian, 26 June 2014
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.
The Fairfax MP is due to reveal how the Palmer United Party Senators will vote on the crucial bill in Parliament’s Great Hall at 5.30pm AEST…
A statement from Mr Palmer’s office says ...: “Mr Palmer said it is apparent that climate change is a global issue and in the meeting he will discuss this with Vice President Gore”.
Yesterday, Mr Palmer told the ABC the announcement would “offer hope to mankind” and “a solution for Australia and the world”.
I don’t know which of the two men is shamed most by this association.
A major report released by a group co-chaired by San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer highlighting the potential economic damages of global warming and a series of events planned by the White House will potentially help Democrats build support for President Obama’s climate agenda.
On Tuesday, the group Risky Business put out a report attempting to quantify the economic damages from the impacts of global warming, including sea level rises, heat waves and lower crop yields.
The day the report came out, Politico reported that the White House unveiled “a series of events this week to shine a spotlight on the economic consequences of climate change” which included a discussion with Steyer, whose group conducted the study.
A New York Times article on the Obama administration’s latest climate change regulations opens with a salvo from the perspective of someone championing those regulations. Certainly no effort was made to consider those who do not believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
“In a big win for environmentalists, the Supreme Court on Monday effectively endorsed the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants, even as it criticized what it called the administration’s overreaching,” begins the article. “But the combative tone of Monday’s ruling, along with its rejection of one of the agency’s principal rationales for the regulations under review, suggests that the road ahead may be rocky for other initiatives meant to reduce carbon emissions.”
When President Obama announced an unprecedented effort by the EPA to strong-arm states into adopting cap-and-trade, he made the announcement not by focusing on the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but rather on the so-called co-benefits that closing coal plants will have on particulate matter, which is already tightly regulated. These purported co-benefits are based on two secret studies that have never been publicly validated. Amazingly, the architect of this co-benefits strategy is a long-time EPA staffer named John Beale, now known as federal inmate number 33005-016 and locked up for fraud at Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution.
There’s one kind of disaster that will most assuredly never happen:
The one everybody is worried about.
History teaches this. While Winston Churchill warned of Adolf Hitler’s dangerousness, others pooh-poohed the matter and few foresaw WWII. Prior to then, how many expected the Great Depression? Did any Pompeians predict the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 A.D.? How many Romans worried about the Goths sacking the Eternal City in 410? Did medieval Europeans foresee the Black Death disaster of the 14th century? You can go right down the list.
This brings us to what everyone is worried about today: global-war…er…climate chan…uh…. What’s the latest iteration? Ah, yes, “global climate disruption.” However they change the name, though, they can’t change a simple fact:
The global-warming agenda is increasingly being revealed for the scam it is.
There was the Climategate scandal of 2009, in which “scientists” at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were conspiring to suppress data that contradicted their global-warming agenda; there was the British judge who ruled, in a lawsuit to ban Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth from UK government schools, that the movie contained nine significant errors; there was the revelation that the claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed with the AGW (man-caused global warming) thesis was bunk. Now a mainstream publication, the UK’s Telegraph, has published a scathing denunciation of warmist propaganda. Citing information from Steven Goddard’s blog Real Science, Christopher Booker writes:
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s] US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
Booker also asks what it means when a theory has to be promoted with continual “fudging” of the data. Is it science at all? Perhaps, however, he has those English manners that preclude one from saying what I, in my colonial brashness, will put bluntly: these so-called scientists aren’t merely “fudging.”
If they were Pinocchio, their collective nose would be the size of our national debt. If they were shepherds, they could be a whole boys’ school that cried wolf. Despite this, Western pseudo-elites are still running around like Chicken Little.
For example, while Iraq becomes an Islamic state, Russia moves on Ukraine, China angles to be the world’s hegemon, and the United States is in moral freefall, Barack Obama gives a commencement speech at the University of California, Irvine, condemning climate-change “deniers” (translation: people in touch with reality). He also recently commended New Zealand prime minister John Key for being a fellow Chicken Little in his “crusade” against climate change, and Obama’s EPA continues to unconstitutionally enforce regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions, even though calling CO2 “carbon” is a lot like calling H2O “hydrogen.”
We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.
This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.
We need to act now.
Yes, act now, think later. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
The irony of this is that even if the AGW thesis were correct, there would be little we could do about it. First, China and India — which together boast 36 percent of the world’s population — are rapidly building coal-fired power plants. Any Western reduction in CO2 will be dwarfed by these behemoths’ increases alone. Add to this other CO2-happy developing nations and Russia, and the fruitlessness of the uniquely Western climate-change obsession becomes apparent.
Second, there are scientists who believe that AGW is a reality, but said long ago that it was too late to do anything about it, anyway. So are we cooked? Now the good news.
Whatever the cause, there’s no reason to be afraid of the big bad climate change.
Not if it’s in the direction of rising mercury, that is.
Contrary to the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, it seems a warmer planet’s benefits far outweigh its downsides. Like eating? Note that greater temperatures probably mean more arable land. In addition, higher CO2 levels increase plant yields 30-plus percent across species; this begets better crops. This is why botanists pump the gas into their greenhouses, mind you. It’s why the age of the dinosaurs was one of dense foliage — CO2 levels were five to 10 times what they are today. The gas is not a pollutant. It’s plant food.
Moreover, as the aforementioned Jurassic CO2 levels indicate, climate change is not unprecedented. There was a time when the waters surrounding Florida were 300 feet lower and another when they were 100 feet higher. The Earth was completely or almost completely covered with snow and ice during the Cryogenian period while during another time the snow and ice were virtually gone. There have been four or five major ice ages and numerous minor ones; there are 100,000-year glacial periods followed by 12,000-year interglacials (approximations) and 1,500-year cycles of heating and cooling within them. Climate is no more stable than are people.
Speaking of which, there’s a philosophical point to be made here. The liberal climate alarmists are the first to say that humans are just animals, just part of nature like an amoeba. If this is true, however, wouldn’t we then just be another “natural” factor in naturally occurring climate change?
At most, though, we appear a negligible factor. This raises a question: Why won’t Obama, Gore, Paulson, and the other Chicken Littles fly the coop of climate fear?
One reason is that everyone needs something to give his life meaning, and, absent true faith, an environmental crusade in Gaia’s name perhaps best fits the bill. This means that, for some, leaving the Church of Warmism is like a jihadist leaving Islam. Related to this is that when you’ve devoted a good part of your life and your passion and energy to a cause, it’s hard to admit you’re wrong.
But there’s another reason. Many individuals and companies, such as those producing ethanol, are profiting via doomsday prophesying. For instance, Al Gore — perhaps one of history’s most shameless con-men — “could become [the] world's first carbon billionaire,” reported The Telegraph in 2009. This, not to mention all the climate-change grants governments give malleable scientists for “research.”
What this means is that, despite its unraveling, the climate-change con will be around for a while longer. But driven by a combination of naiveté (gullible followers), envy, and cash, at least we can say that the “green” movement has certainly earned its name.
Frank Bosse puts the spotlight on a global warming forecast published by British Met Office scientists in 2007. It appeared in Science. The peer-reviewed paper was authored by Doug M. Smith and colleagues under the title: “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model“. Using sophisticated methods, the target of the paper was to forecast the temperature development from 2004 to 2014 while taking internal variability into account. Now that it’s 2014 and the observed data are in, we can compare to see how Smith et al did with their forecast. Boy, did they fail! --Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, 24 June 2014
It’s not that I’m particularly prescient, but today’s headlines, prompted by the latest NOAA press release, rather substantiates the point I was making last week.
The Telegraph (and no doubt many other outlets) report:
Driven by exceptionally warm ocean waters, Earth smashed a record for heat in May and is likely to keep on breaking high temperature marks, experts have said.
May’s average temperature on Earth of 15.54 degrees Celsius was the warmest since records began in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
So let’s recap:
NOAA’s own figures give an error margin for their figures of +/- 0.07C. When this is allowed for, May 2014 statistically joins an eight-way tie as the hottest May, all since 1998. The other years being:
Alarmist claims about the impact of global warming are contributing to a loss of trust in climate scientists, an inquiry has found. Apocalyptic language has been used about greenhouse gas emissions as “a deliberate strategy by some to engage public interest”. However, trying to make people reduce emissions by frightening them has “harmful consequences” because they often respond suspiciously or decide the issue is “too scary to think about”. The inquiry concludes: “Alarmist messages that fail to materialise contribute to the loss of trust in the science community.” --Ben Webster, The Times, 24 June 2014
Global warming science and climate policy face a severe and deepening crisis of credibility. The whole climate agenda is confronted by growing doubt and criticism, not least as a result of the so-called Climategate scandal, the Copenhagen fiasco and the revelations about the IPCC's alarmist claims based on unreliable sources. The scientific community is haemorrhaging integrity and authority at an unprecedented speed and scale. What we are witnessing is a growing backlash over the suppression of scientific data, the exaggeration of global warming impacts and the maltreatment of climate critics. --Benny Peiser, The Observer 7 February 2010
White House officials and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will meet Wednesday with Tom Steyer, a billionaire and top climate-change activist who has become one of the leading opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Reuters reported.
The meeting comes as the Obama administration pushes its climate-change agenda harder than ever, and a day after Mr. Steyer and his partners in the "Risky Business Project" released a new report showing the purported economic consequences of climate change.
The project, chaired by Mr. Steyer — who made a fortune as a hedge fund manager — former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, unveiled its lengthy study on Tuesday.
It predicts, among other things, between $66 billion and $106 billion in coastal property will be below sea level by 2050.
The Supreme Court failed to roll back the EPA's regulatory excess and is keeping most of the White House's carbon dioxide rules in place. The decision is doubly disappointing given the latest warming data.
Justice Antonin Scalia simplified the effect of the court's ruling in writing that the Environmental Protection Agency "is getting almost everything it wanted in this case."
"It sought to regulate sources it said were responsible for 86% of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide," he noted. But under the court's holdings, "EPA will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83% of those emissions."
There's no reason to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at any level. We've made this case many times, and our argument was supported over the weekend when it was shown that the temperature record has been doctored to make it appear that Earth is warming. The charge was made Sunday in an entry in the Real Science blog .
Those who don’t believe in climate change are “a threat to the future,” says the Washington Post in a June 14 article on President Obama’s commencement address for the University of California-Irvine. Regarding the speech, the Associated Press reported: “President Obama said denying climate change is like arguing the moon is made of cheese.” He declared: “Scientists have long established that the world needs to fight climate change.”
The emphasis on a single government policy strays far from the flowery rhetoric found at the traditional graduation ceremony—especially in light of the timing. While the president was speaking, all of the progress made by America’s investment of blood and treasure in Iraq was under immediate threat. And, as I pointed out last week, what is taking place right now in Iraq has the potential of an imminent impact to our economic security. Instead of addressing the threat now, why is he talking about “a threat to the future” that might happen in the next 100 years?
The answer, I believe, is found later in his comments.