Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Motors, wants to nuke the polar ice caps on Mars to speed up terraforming the planet, part of his vision to see a human colony on its blood-red landscape. Musk made the remarks on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' this past Wednesday, prompting Colbert to call his guest a 'supervillain.' Nuking Mars' poles, Musk said, would release lots of trapped CO2, methane, and other so-called greenhouse gases stored in the ice, much like here on Earth.
And since Musk foresees people living along the equator of Mars, the radioactive blast would not affect them or any undiscovered life that might be buried beneath the soil. Once the gases are released into the planet's already thin atmosphere, Mars would presumably warm up. But unlike most of his ideas, this one fails on just about every scientific principle (Didn't he read the book The Martian?).
The Southern Ocean has recovered its ability to suck vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, overturning fears the natural “sink” had stalled with dire consequences for future climate change. Climate scientists had feared the uptake of carbon dioxide by the Southern Ocean had slowed in what was feared to be a “feedback” response to human activity. New research published today in the journal Science reveals that rather than stalling, the amount of CO2 being absorbed by the Southern Ocean was on the rise again. --Graham Lloyd, The Australian, 11 September 2015
We have been conditioned with the belief that human activities are increasing the incidence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which is the prime cause behind global warming and climate change. We are also led to believe that science is predicting that the consequences of this will be catastrophic to the earth and threaten our very existence.
Most of what we read within the mainstream media today, and hear from politicians, has the above assumptions embedded within the various narratives. Government policy towards carbon emissions and renewable energies reflects these beliefs, as hard cast scientific and moral truths.
The public is continually told that the vast majority of the world’s “scientists” are in general agreement about man-made global warming being the cause of climate change, and the potential damage it will do to the earth. However, the reality is that there may actually not be more than a couple of hundred people in the world who really understand the science of climate change, and are experienced and qualified enough to make a valid scientific opinion.
A new survey of Harvard business alumni is exhibit Number One on why our ruling elite just can’t manage to understand the gravity of the crisis that this country is facing.
The study of 2,716 Harvard Business School graduates, some of the most powerful people in the U.S economy, shows that by a large margin they think the worst thing that faces this country economically is “rising income inequality”.
“A total of two-thirds said the top priority should be addressing rising inequality, middle-class stagnation, rising poverty or limited economic mobility,” reports the Market Business.com
The article says that by a wide margin, the graduates believe that while things are getting better, it is only the top one percent who are benefiting.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has just made it official: this year’s emerging 2015 El Niño is identical to the 1998 El Niño. These two El Niños have remarkably similar Sea Surface Height Anomalies (Figure 1), Shallow Sea Surface Temperature maps, and most importantly the exact same deep ocean fixed / non-moving heat source point (Figure 1.).
Figure 1.) Sea Surface Height maps comparing the 1998 and 2015 El Niños. Sea surface height is used by NASA as an excellent proxy for sea surface temperature.
Even more telling, it can now be confidently stated that every single El Niño in recorded history has had the same exact deep ocean fixed / non-moving heat source point! The implications of this fact are profound, because it strongly suggests, if not proves that all El Niños have been generated / fueled by deep ocean geological heat flow and NOT atmospheric warming. This contention fits very well into Plate Climatology Theory, which states that fixed / non-moving geological deep ocean heat sources drive many climate patterns and climate related events including the generation of El Niños.
A high-profile Scottish environmental campaigner has given his backing to fracking as long as safeguards are in place and key conditions are met. In a significant intervention that will help to undermine opposition to the energy source, Robin Harper, the first Green MSP and now the chairman of a major environmental trust, said that he would be prepared to give his cautious backing if it could be proved that it was an improvement on the burning of coal and oil. His comments will be a major setback for anti-fracking campaigners, who have argued that anything other than a complete ban would damage the environment. Mr Harper’s powerful green credentials mean that they will not be able to dismiss his views easily. --Hamish Macdonell, The Times, 10 September 2015
Environmentalists should keep cool heads over fracking, says Friends of the Earth's former climate campaigner. Bryony Worthington - now Labour shadow energy minister - says fracking will create less CO2 than compressing gas in Qatar and shipping it to Britain. Baroness Worthington's intervention may prove significant. She is a professional climate and energy analyst, and one of the architects of the UK's radical Climate Change Act. "We have to be realistic," she told BBC News. "We are going to be using gas for a long time because of the huge role it plays for heating homes and for industry. --Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 10 September 2015
Members of Pacific Island ForumTHE Pacific Islands Forum failed come up with a united climate change stance on temperature warming to take to UN talks in Paris this December.
CLIMATE change was the main hot-button issue for the 16 leaders at the retreat in Port Moresby on Thursday.
Small island nations facing rising seas argued desperately for the forum to back restricting global warming to 1.5 degrees or risk their survival.
There are few things more dangerous to private enterprise than government bureaucrats with time on their hands. And since most bureaucrats have no legitimate reason for being – they have lots and lots of time on their hands.
In 2009, the federal government had at least 2,748,978 employees – and 97.6% of civilian federal employees were in the executive branch (and do you think that tally has ticked up a bit during the Barack Obama Administration?) These are the departments, agencies, commissions and boards populated by people who do very little but promulgate and impose regulations – and enforce them.
But government doesn’t even enforce their own rules well. Because in addition to being boorish and overbearing, unilateral and tyrannical – government is unavoidably, inherently incompetent. Because of (at least) two immutable rules of human nature – the Wallet Rule and the Yellow Pages Rule.
Over the last decade, the biggest change in energy was how and where hydrocarbons were removed from the earth. The United States led this change. However, a different kind of energy revolution will take place between now and 2025. While the last decade was about the energy buried in the earth and how to get it out, the next decade will be about how the energy already removed from the earth is moved across it. An energy-transit revolution has begun. The consequences of this next energy revolution will be geopolitical and important. --John Richard Cookson, The National Interest, 4 September 2015
America could soon be exporting a lot of oil. Momentum is building fast on lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports. Some believe the ban may not even live to see its 40th birthday this December. A powerful combination of forces, starting with the massive United States shale oil boom, cheap gas prices and the Iranian nuclear deal is propelling this move much quicker than anybody expected. The effort is picking up a lot of political support in both Houses of Congress. Barton said he hopes to give the American people a "Christmas present" by getting a bill on President Obama's desk before the end of the year. --Matt Egan, CNN Money, 8 September 2015
Here’s a briefing about climate change, prepared for Politifact at their request. Unused, of course, since the reporter was just fishing for smears (here’s an analysis of what they published). However, it’s a useful introduction to this complex subject. What do we know about the consensus of climate scientists, and why does it matter? These are unedited emails, and so roughly written and unproofed. (2nd of 2 posts today.)
Initial Inquiry by Linda Qiu of Politifact, and my response
I’m a reporter with PolitiFact, the fact-checking website of the Tampa Bay Times. I’m currently looking into something Rick Santorum said: 57% of scientists “don’t buy into the idea that CO2 is the knob that’s turning the climate.” His campaign hasn’t gotten back to me on his source but one of your posts also has the figure, but it’s not quite what Santorum said. So I was hoping for your take on Santorum’s reading on your analysis — how accurate is it?
Pope Francis has been brushing up on his English ahead of his arrival in Washington in September, and tickets to his U.S. events are already a hot commodity. But anyone expecting his message to be simply one of mercy and love could be in for a distinct surprise.
In his speech to a joint meeting of Congress, the pope of the poor could well deliver a harsh message for the world’s richest nation. For all the genuine warmth of his smile, his track record suggests he sees it as his job not just to comfort the afflicted, but also to afflict the comfortable. And however delicately he fine-tunes his language, the hard fact is that he believes the United States is as much a part of the problem as the solution.
Here is the lede of Jonathan Chait’s long but optimistic piece on climate change (“This is the year humans finally got serious about saving themselves from themselves” says the subhead) in New York magazine:
Here on planet Earth, things could be going better. The rise in atmospheric temperatures from greenhouse gases poses the most dire threat to humanity, measured on a scale of potential suffering, since Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany launched near-simultaneous wars of conquest. And the problem has turned out to be much harder to solve. It’s not the money. The cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels, measured as a share of the economy, may amount to a fraction of the cost of defeating the Axis powers. Rather, it is the politics that have proved so fiendish.