When fossil fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- burn, the major combustion products are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor. Water doesn’t matter since it is already everywhere and adding a little bit more to the Earth won’t tip any balances. CO2, on the other hand is considered to be a great evil by those who believe in catastrophic global warming.
It’s perfectly reasonable that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could cause some warming, probably minor. This perfectly reasonably supposition was turned into unreasonable dogma by certain scientific disciplines that sensed an opportunity. They realized that if CO2 were inflated into the great Satan, it would be very beneficial for their careers. Backwater scientists in the obscure specialty of atmospheric science became well-traveled celebrities by promoting the doomsday theory of global warming.
The first day of the Heartland Institute’s 10th International Climate Change Conference has come and gone, and, though as a member of The Heartland Institute I may be a bit biased, it was amazing.
The day opened with a rousing breakfast keynote address by the inspirational leader of the climate realists on Capitol Hill, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe was awarded Heartland’s 2015 Political Leadership on Climate Change Award, sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and in exchange treated the assembled attendees a rousing discussion of the highs and lows of his experience fighting for a rational assessment of climate science and climate policy in his tenure as a Senator.
With that as a warm up, the true meat of the conference began with morning breakout sessions on topics including, Climate Science, Climate Science and Accurate Data (at which I was honored to serve as a moderator), Energy Realities and Energy Policy.
California has a major water crisis the way 1990s New York once had an urban blight crisis. But don't look for a Rudy Giuliani to the rescue. The state's governor, Jerry Brown, has morphed into a full-blown space cadet.
In most parts of the world, when a leader starts talking wildly as a crisis builds — think Ecuador during the presidency of Abdala "El Loco" Bucaram or Russia during the heyday of ex-communist parliamentarian Vladimir Zhirinovsky — attention focuses on the lunacy coming from the top.
Aren't those polar ice caps a rotten lot? As politicians are busily trying to save them from melting, they've gone and stopped disappearing all on their own. Despite the best efforts of climate change fanatics at producing a lot of hot air, NASA have quietly noted that Antarctic sea ice reached a new maximum extent last year. That wasn't supposed to happen. As everyone knows the ice is melting because of all the carbon we're emitting, so how do we explain that it actually isn't?
It isn't actually that difficult to explain, but it would involve making the crucial admission that we don't actually know why the ice is doing what it's doing. We have absolutely no idea, and a terrible record at predicting it. Al Gore thought it would all be gone by 2014.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be issuing new carbon dioxide-reduction rules next week, putting an expensive bullseye on the large truck industry. With roughly 19 months left in office, Obama's far-reaching climate plan is coming to fruition and he's not letting congress get in his way. The new rules targeting large trucks, like tractor trailers, buses, and delivery trucks, are part of a an "ambitious climate agenda" that Obama hopes will cement his environmental legacy.
The Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental activists frequently claim that climate change will disproportionately affect poor and minority communities.
This, they argue, justifies unprecedented environmental regulations like the EPA's soon-to-be-finalized "Clean Power Plan" to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030.
But what effect will the regulation itself have on minority communities? A new study commissioned by my organization, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, answers this question.
For the third time in just under three weeks, the major broadcast networks ignored news related to the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the latest news coming on Wednesday that the agency has announced its goal to regulate aircraft emissions in a similar fashion that it does for automobiles and powerplants.
While the networks skipped a story that stands to impact multiple sectors of the economy, the Fox News Channel (FNC) program Special Report and the PBS NewsHour found time to inform their viewers of the agency’s latest foray into the economy.
Is it twice as likely that the Earth is cooling than that it is warming? That humans and fossil fuels have nothing, or everything to do with it, or somewhere in between? Or is it over 99% certain that anthropogenic carbon burning-induced warming is sweeping us to the apocalypse, with all other possibilities combined being less than one percent probable?
The only way to find out is through the most rigorous and critical application of the scientific method, from laboratory practice to public discourse. Anything less than that increases the risk that the 'solution' could be more catastrophic to humans than the results of climate change itself.
Let us examine what the climate change alarm community has done and how they have done it, and see if it qualifies as the rigorous and unimpeachable science that its proponents claim it is. We'll walk it back from results to first principles.
First tailpipes, then power plants and now airplanes. The Obama administration announced another major effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes after the Environmental Protection Agency linked airliners to global warming.
The EPA issued a proposal Wednesday declaring that CO2 from airliners threatens public health because it contributes to global warming. The agency says it’s doing this in conjunction with an international effort to bring the airline industry under global carbon dioxide standards for commercial jets.
Republicans have already vowed to challenge the EPA’s proposal to regulate airline emissions, saying new federal regulations would increase travel costs and fuel prices.
One of the charts NOAA used to show that the global warming hiatus was not occurring reveals that temperatures have been rising since 1905, even though carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions didn’t increase significantly until the 1950s.
As reported last week to much fanfare, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report stating there had not been a pause in global warming, despite more accurate, robust datasets showing the exact opposite. NOAA claims that its new chart (Figure 1) proves that man-made global warming has continued unabated during the last 18.5 years, a heavy-handed attempt to silence climate scientists that point out the global warming pause as further proof of no statistical warming.
On Thursday and Friday, June 11-12, there will be a gathering of some of the nation’s and the world’s leading climate change “skeptics” in Washington, D.C. and joining them will be members of Congress and their staffs. The Tenth International Conference on Climate Change will occur and the odds are that the mainstream media, as it has done for all the previous conferences, will do its best to ignore it.
In attendance as well will be scores of scientists, economists, and policy experts for a conference being held just two blocks from a White House in which the President of the United States resides while lying about “climate change” as the greatest threat to the planet.
The German government appears to have abandoned the planned carbon tax on coal power plants. This is the result of a meeting of German Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) with the head of the mining union IG BCE, Michael Vassiliadis, and ministers of those states where lignite is produced. The ministry’s original plan was to avoid emitting additional 22 million tons of CO2 by 2020. This plan was opposed by trade unions and energy companies who saw this as an existential threat to Germany’s entire lignite production. These interest groups seem to have won the battle for now. --Der Spiegel, 7 June 2015