Imperial Party forum

thomas davison

Life in a climate cataclysm box
By Robert On October 18, 2013 � Leave a Comment
Facebook Twitter

�People have been conned�

�Climate experts Dennis Mitchell and David Legates have found the perfect analogy to explain the actions of climate alarmists who are frantically trying to explain away their bogus science, manipulated data, hidden codes, worthless computer models, absurd predictions of global doom, and other questionable practices,� says reader Paul Driessen. �Like hermit crabs looking for bigger shells, the alarmists have put themselves in a climate cataclysm box, and now are desperate to protect their sullied reputations, faulty predictions and exorbitant funding.�

�Their article will make you chuckle, as you learn some amazing facts about climate change and the incredible lengths the alarmists have gone to concoct a story of global Armageddon � and then cover their tracks.
Life in a climate cataclysm box

Like hermit crabs, climate alarmists scramble to find new ways to hide, when put in a box
By Dennis M. Mitchell and David R. Legates

As children playing on the beach, we discovered a fascinating behavioral pattern among hermit crabs. Place a dozen in a cardboard box, and within minutes the crabs exit their shells and try to occupy another. This mild stress-induced response probably reflects their life-long drive to continue growing by repeatedly commandeering larger shells, to protect their vulnerable soft bodies.

Similarly, climate alarmists are now scrambling to find new shelter from the stress coming from a public that increasingly realizes their doom-and-gloom predictions of climate chaos are based on shoddy data, faulty computer models and perhaps outright deception. The alarmist scientists have put themselves in a climate cataclysm box, and are desperate to protect their reputations, predictions and funding.

Despite the absence of warming in actual measured temperature records over the last 16 years, and near-record lows in hurricane and tornado activity, they still cry �wolf� repeatedly and try to connect every unusual or �extreme� weather event to human emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide. (Actually, people account for only 4% of all the CO2 that enters Earth�s atmosphere each year.)

Alarmists used their predictions of climate catastrophe to demand that the world transform its energy and economic systems, slash fossil fuel use, and accept lower living standards, in response to the politically manufactured science. Even as growing evidence conflicted with their dogma, the money, fame and power were too good to surrender for mere ethical reasons.

The impact on energy prices, national economies, jobs and people�s lives has been profound and negative. For example, in response to the unfounded alarmism, Germany moved aggressively toward wind and solar energy over the past 15 years � both politically and with taxpayer and investment spending. It also shied away from more nuclear power and saw its economy contract and energy-intensive companies shed jobs and threaten to move overseas. Now Germany is burning more coal and building new coal-fired power plants, in an attempt to reverse the economic disaster its �green� and �climate protection� policies unleashed, but its actions are still sending shock waves at investors around the world.

In Spain, every renewable energy job the government�s climate alarmist policies created was offset by two jobs lost in other sectors of the economy that were punished by soaring electricity prices. The demise of a Spanish economy so committed to wind and solar power finally caused reasonable people to reevaluate why these decisions had been made, and the renewable subsidies were slashed, just as they have been in Germany.

How does Brazil�s future look with biofuels? As reality finally overcomes media bias and political correctness, the naive excitement of a few years ago � when anything �green� was portrayed as lower cost, clean and superior in every technological sense � has given way to more rational thinking. Brazil is now going more for oil and gas, via conventional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, onshore and offshore.

Why are so many countries deciding to abandon or diminish the fools-golden eggs of green-tech? First, green technology power has been grossly oversold on reliability, cost, capacity, job creation and environmental impacts. A stable economy requires all of these power characteristics. Second, speculative alarmism about CO2 has been exposed by the hard data of the past couple decades.

The NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered-II report presents the facts, so that even non-scientists can appreciate the relevant range of the climate components � and the ways people have been conned into believing we faced a manmade climate Armageddon that hasn�t materialized and was never a threat.

Nevertheless, insisting that �climate chaos� was real, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson wailed that her agency would need at least 240,000 new EPA employees (each making some $100,000 per year, plus benefits) that she said would be needed just to administer new carbon dioxide regulations � and control nearly everything Americans make, drive, ship and do!

EPA currently employs some 20,000 people at an annual budget of over $8 billion. The new hires alone would cost taxpayers another $24 billion annually � plus hundreds of billions of dollars in economic pain, manufacturing shutdowns and new job losses that EPA�s CO2 regulations would inflict.

Year after year, alarmists have changed their protective shells for more absurd answers regarding where the Earth has mysteriously stashed all the energy that greenhouse gases supposedly trapped. For years, alarmists said ocean waters were storing the missing energy. But when the ARGO project demonstrated that the heat was not in the ocean, at least down two kilometers (1.2 miles) beneath the surface, one prominent alarmist responded, �We are puzzled at the results.� We are not puzzled.

When the data consistently conflict with their hypothesis, reputable scientists revise the hypothesis. Five-alarm climate scientists desperately seek new shells, and new excuses.

The �puzzling� facts triggered the predictable alarmist tactic of attacking the data and claiming the heat was hiding in the really deep ocean. Ignoring the physics of the problem � how the asserted heat was transferred from atmospheric carbon dioxide, through the sea surface, and beyond the first mile of ocean waters, without being detected � they expect us to believe that fluid thermodynamics is akin to magic.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released its 2013 report Climate Change Reconsidered II. The world finally has a chance to see the actual science � not the kind that�s hidden, massaged and filtered through alarmist shell games.

Unencumbered by political pressure and mega-lobbyists, this 1,018-page review by 50 serious and highly accomplished scientists has exposed the alarmists� fraud. These real scientists have also exposed as illusory the alarmists� mystical �tropical hot spot.� This sacred cow turns out to be as fanciful as planetary warming hidden in the deepest ocean, or the infamous hockey stick of Michael Mann�s hidden data and secret computer codes.

Have we forgotten that 1998 was to be the �tipping point,� after which Earth would warm uncontrollably? The 1988 hearing in Washington one hot summer afternoon was dominated by the always sly James Hansen, who wiped his brow furiously, in a room made stifling by Senator Tim Wirth�s cheap trick of turning off the air conditioning. Politics, theatrics and manipulation had replaced honest science.

Because Al Gore switched his CO2 and temperature curves to make it look like rising carbon dioxide levels caused planetary temperature increases � when in fact increasing temperatures always preceded higher CO2 � shouldn�t he have corrected his mistake, returned his ill-gotten millions, and shared his 2007 Nobel Prize and money with Irena Sendler, who should have gotten it for saving 2,500 Jewish children during World War II? Shouldn�t his accomplice, IPCC director and pseudo-Nobel Laureate Rajendra Pachauri, be held accountable for trumpeting made-up stories about melting Himalayan glaciers?

But when you�re an alarmist, being wrong, lying, cheating, misleading the public and killing jobs simply does not count against you � even when the alleged human-caused global warming stopped in 1996.

We literally laughed aloud at a so-called �documentary� that�s about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting public. It�s called �Do the Math: Bill McKibben and the Fight over Climate Change.� For McKibben and his comrades, �doing the math� is really a matter of �counting the cash� the alarmists rake in.

The serious money has always flowed to alarmists, guilt-ridden environmentalists and control-seeking regulators, whom the world�s taxpayers are generously and unwittingly funding. That�s also the real meaning of the �green� movement and �green� energy.

______________

Dennis Mitchell, CPA/QEP has been professionally involved in environmental and tax compliance, monitoring and education for over 40 years. David Legates, PhD/CCM is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware and has been studying climate and its changes for 35 years. A version of this article originally appeared in the 10/18/2013 Investor�s Business Daily.

Thanks to Paul Driessen for this article

thomas davison · Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject:

Increasing clouds and thunderstorms for climate alarmists
By Robert On October 22, 2013 �

Turning deaf ears to the alarmist rhetoric
As actual evidence turns increasingly against claims of an impending climate cataclysm, alarmist scientists and politicians have redoubled their assertions of imminent doom and their reliance on GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) computer models. Despite those intensified efforts, more people and countries are turning deaf ears to the alarmist rhetoric � and rejecting the outrageously expensive anti-energy, anti-people policies that alarmists are demanding to prevent �climate chaos.�

In short, the weather forecast is 95% certainty of increasing clouds, thunderstorms and hurricanes for climate alarmism.
Increasing clouds and thunderstorms for climate alarmists

Science-based analyses are gaining ground, despite bureaucratic tricks. It�s about time.
By Paul Driessen and Madhav Khandekar

What a month it�s been. Rejecting claims of looming cataclysm, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) issued Climate Change Reconsidered-II on September 17. This report by 50 experts documents actual planetary temperature, climate and weather in recent decades � and the ways alarmist scientists have manipulated data, graphs, computer models and weather events to make it appear that human influences are much greater than they actually are.

On September 20, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed tough new standards for carbon dioxide emissions (EPA calls it �carbon pollution�) from future power plants � ignoring the fact that this plant-fertilizing gas is essential for virtually all life on Earth. The standards would effectively prevent construction of new coal-fired plants, which could not possibly comply. Older plants would gradually be closed down and, as the limits are ratcheted downward, even gas-fired power plants would be affected.

The September 26 release of the fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report marked sea changes for this politicized organization. Though it tried to obfuscate the fact, the panel finally admitted that its models don�t work very well and there has been no global warming for 16 years. IPCC chairman Pachauri nevertheless still insisted that there is �definitely an increase in our belief� that humans are �responsible for climate change,� and his organization is now 95% confident it�s been right all along.

On October 15, the US Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court decision that said EPA could use its regulation of automobile emissions as a springboard to impose power plant and other stationary source emission standards. The court said it would not reconsider its 2007 decision that allowed EPA to treat carbon dioxide as a �pollutant� and �threat to human health and welfare.� However, litigants are certain to raise that central issue in their coming arguments before the court.

Meanwhile, Australia�s new Prime Minister has vowed to scrap his country�s carbon dioxide cap-tax-and-trade law. In Europe, families are reeling from energy price shocks, elderly people are dying because they cannot afford proper heating and nutrition, and industry leaders are warning that �green� energy and other climate change policies threaten �a systematic industrial massacre,� as soaring electricity, transportation and natural gas prices make companies less and less competitive in international markets.

All in all, for purveyors of climate alarmism, the forecast calls for increasing cloudiness, severe thunderstorms and stronger hurricanes for months and years to come. That is hardly surprising.

The alarmists have systematically assaulted and corrupted genuine science. They have injected subjective values and ideological tests, while eliminating the most vital components of the scientific method: comprehensive, independent, empirical and transparent processes that, above all, require that hypotheses and models be confirmed by actual observations, or be rejected and replaced by new ones.

What began as an honest inquiry into possible roles of human activities on �global warming� evolved into assertions that mankind alone is responsible for �climate change,� and society�s carbon dioxide and other �greenhouse gas� emissions somehow replaced the complex, interrelated natural factors that have driven global warming, cooling, storms, droughts and other climatic changes throughout geologic history.

Claims of �manmade climate disaster� are now zealously defended by politicians, eco-activists, alarmist scientists, government agencies, and directors of scientific societies in the United States, Canada and Europe � at all costs, to the exclusion of alternative explanations. They reject debate, vilify challengers to alarmist orthodoxy and, by rejecting genuine climate science, make it impossible to predict future climate. Their chief goals are to redistribute wealth, keep �climate chaos� money flowing in � and justify demands that fossil fuels be eliminated, even for developing nations that need them to lift billions out of poverty.

That�s why Brazil, China and India alone are emitting 180 times more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide than can be attributed to energy from Alberta�s oil sands: 9 billion tons per year versus 50 million! Moreover, reality continues to be contrary to media stories and what alarmists now refer to as �climate disruption.� Even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reach 400 ppm (0.04% of all the gases in Earth�s atmosphere), average planetary temperatures have remained stable for 16 years, and heat-related �extreme weather� events are not increasing. That�s not surprising.

The models assume all warming since the industrial revolution began is due to human carbon dioxide; exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2 levels; program in temperature data that is contaminated by urban heat sources; and simplify or ignore vital climate influences like solar energy variations, cosmic ray fluxes, clouds, precipitation, ocean currents, and recurrent phenomena like El Ni�o and La Ni�a. It�s garbage in � garbage out. That�s why the IPCC climate models predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 1.6 degrees F higher than they actually were over the past 22 years.

In fact, modest 1-3 degree F temperature increases, especially coupled with more carbon dioxide, would help green the Earth, spur plant growth, boost crop yields, and feed more people more nutritiously. However, many solar scientists now believe the sun has entered a low activity or cooling phase that could continue for decades. If that is the case, instead of average global temperatures increasing, they could well decrease a few degrees, which would adversely affect forests, grasslands, growing seasons and the extent of arable acreage. Thankfully, that has not happened so far.

However, extreme cold weather events have occurred in recent years over Europe, northern India, and parts of North and South America. Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters in the last half century have occurred since 2008, closing down villages and killing wildlife, farm animals and people. Antarctic ice is at a record high. Arctic sea ice is back to normal, after the coldest summer in decades.

But these heavy snows � along with the highly publicized 2010 Russian summer heat wave, severe floods in Pakistan that same summer, and the Midwestern United States 2012 summer heat wave � were all part of natural climate variability, as books, research papers and NIPCC reports have documented.

Climate chaos false prophets like Rajendra Pachauri, Al Gore and David Suzuki predicted bigger, deadlier storms and flooded coastal cities, because of global warming. But the opposite has happened. It has been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States: Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, in 2005. That is the most years since the 1860s with no major hurricane making landfall. Tornado frequency is the lowest on record. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s.

Sea levels continue to rise at a meager half-foot per century � which translates into a maximum possible increase of just one inch (25 mm) by 2025. Such a modest rise in sea level poses no threat whatsoever to humanity or coastal communities. It�s also a far cry from the 1-2 feet by 2100 that the IPCC predicted in 2007; the nearly 1-3 feet that its 2013 �scientific report� predicts just for 2081-2100; or the ridiculous 20 feet of sea level rise by 2100 that media-hungry climate charlatan James Hansen has forecast.

2013 witnessed the fewest US forest fires in a decade; it ranks second in the fewest acres burned. But such conflagrations are really due to irresponsible policies on forest management and fire suppression.

In short, our Earth�s climate may well be changing, as it has repeatedly throughout history. But the changes are natural, and they have been far from catastrophic � nothing like the wooly mammoth ice ages or Little Ice Age, and no worse than the 1930s Dust Bowl. Moreover, the changes are natural in origin. They are not due to humans, and they are not occurring in ways the alarmists and their models predicted

We need hydrocarbon energy: to lift more people out of poverty, maintain our living standards, and ensure the wealth and technology to adapt to any climate changes that nature may visit upon us (with or without some localized contribution from humans). We also need genuine climate forecasting capabilities, to predict and prepare for those future fluctuations. Climate alarmism undermines all of this.

___________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author or Eco-Imperialism: Green power � Black death. Madhav Khandekar is a PhD meteorologist (Florida State University) and lead author for the �extreme weather� chapter in Climate Change Reconsidered-II.