Read here. Dr. Richard Muller, a highly acclaimed Berkley physicist and author of Physics for Future Presidents, is joining with other prominent scientists in an all out effort to establish an accurate and transparent global temperature data record that policymakers can hopefully believe and rely on. It's called the BEST project.
Existing temperature databases maintained by NASA, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRUT have been highly tainted by political agenda-driven science, to the point where empirical-based scientists are incredulous about many of the "accelerating," "unequivocal" and "unprecedented" global warming claims. In this video, it is painfully clear that Dr. Muller knows that existing, fabricated temperature records are highly suspect.
And how about the reporting on this important and unique climate science endeavor from the New York Times and Washington Post? Nada. Zilch. Goose egg. Nil. Zip. Over the last 60 days, the NYT has had 68 stories referencing global warming and the Washington Post has had 97 - none of which reported on Muller's BEST project.
Why is that the case? The NYT and Wapo have invested substantially in publicizing the extreme, hysterical claims of global warming alarmists, which this new climate project ultimately threatens. If either newspaper started publishing the truth about climate science, there would have to be a lots of 'splainin' to do to their readership. Instead, they keep the liberal/left audience in the dark with "leading edge" science reporting on global warming like this.
In the meantime, here's one global temperature chart that NYT and Wapo readers won't ever see - the actual global warming reality from high technology, instead of fabrication. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Actually, it really is hard to believe that a highly compensated, environmental bureaucrat, speaking of the need to regulate CO2 emissions before Congress, is totally clueless of the real-world atmospheric CO2 level. But it's true, and recorded in living color.....Honestly, why are leftists/liberals such ignorant, anti-science stupidos?
It's a classic example of big government incompetence, and the real dangers that the typical government bureaucrat poses to the American populace. And, BTW, in a strictly rhetorical fashion, why does this moron still have a cushy, lucrative government job?
Read here. I've never used this phrase at 'C3' before but it seems appropriate: "you can't make this stuff up."
"With a schedule as hectic as President Obama's it must be hard to stick to a training regimen without help -- but why does he insist on having his old trainer fly out from Chicago to D.C. regularly when Obama and his wife exhort the rest of us to drive less? And in a recession? According to Ashley Parker at the New York Times, Obama's fitness czar Cornell McClellan comes out to D.C. every week.....but that comes at a steep cost for those as environmentally minded as the Obamas: 50,000 lbs of carbon emissions. That's how much carbon emissions are involved in McClellan's flying back and forth every week for a year.....Doing so would have at least been consistent with Obama's statements about the need to reduce emissions. Last July, Obama announced that he wanted federal workers to cut down on business travel and commuting by car in order to reduce emissions produced by the federal government: The White House was announcing Tuesday that the government will aim to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from indirect sources like employee driving by 13 percent in 2020, compared with 2008 levels."
The big government loving politicians, bureaucrats, and the chattering-class elites don't give a F.F. about global warming, nor are they concerned about their own conspicuous production of CO2 emissions. These ruling-class elites will never "walk their talk," and that's why no one should ever believe a single word they say about the dangers of CO2 to the climate.
Why do the elites act so differently than their climate propaganda rhetoric, claims and pleas suggest? Because the real reasons behind their support of climate change policies being forced on the masses are not what the MSM portrays - the real reasons can best be understood by reading the elites' own inconvenient quotes.
Read here. Mercer, an expert global investment consulting concern, recently published a study that indicated the portfolio risk from actual global warming (climate change) is not significant.
"The economic model used in this study excludes physical risks of climate change which are not consistently predicted by the range of scientific models, and primarily for this reason concludes that, over the next 20 years, the physical impact of changes to the climate are not likely to affect portfolio risk significantly."
Mercer did find significant risk though, but it was primarily due to possible governmental climate change policies that may induce economic and investment havoc.
"[C]limate policy could contribute as much as 10% to overall portfolio risk: Uncertainty around climate policy is a significant source of portfolio risk for institutional investors to manage over the next 20 years. The economic cost of climate policy for the market to absorb is estimated to amount to as much as approximately $8 trillion cumulatively, by 2030."
Sooo, the real risk derives from the ruling class, idiot-elites who authored the recent global financial meltdown, are in the process of destroying the states of California, Illinois and New York, and are driving the U.S. economic machine into a banana republic destitute condition of galactic-sized debt. The good news is that expert firms like Mercer are warning the public where the real risk comes from - your elected officials and overpaid bureaucrats, not the climate.
And, as Roger Pielke Jr. notes, the MSM report on this study was completely misleading, which is hardly surprising when one considers the faux-objective reporting of the lamestream media.
Read here and here. Although it is empirically obvious that temperatures world-wide have increased from the trough of the Little Ice Age over the last two centuries, the level of temperature increase that NASA claims is in the realm of scientific fraud. Unfortunately, temperature fabrication has become a very misleading and black art at NASA.
In order to influence policymakers about the "reality" of global warming, NASA fabricates temperature charts like this one for Honolulu.....,
which is obviously disconnected from the actual temperature reality. (click on images to enlarge)
This type of disgraceful scientific evidence tampering by NASA has so blemished the reputation of science, a group of prominent and empircal-based scientists are now taking direct action to establish a credible and objective record of global temperatures. A record that policymakers and the public could actually believe, and potentially act on - based on reality, not the exaggerated falsehoods being currently fabricated.
Read here. The crazed crowd of AGW believers, fanatics, disciples and propagandists have for years wrongly claimed that global warming causes more severe weather events. As C3 readers are very aware, the actual empirical evidence does not support that claim whatsoever. In addition, even the AGW theory does not support the claim that global warming will cause extreme weather.
That last sentence is verified by a statement from Gavin Schmidt, a very prominent NASA climate scientist:
"There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general."
As Luboš Motl (one of the world's premier physicists) explains in his article, the global warming theory better supports the claim that less severe climate extremes will be the result of warming. Why? AGW theory calls for the polar areas to warm more rapidly than the tropical areas. That result means the temperature difference between polar and tropics is lessened. If the temperature difference shrinks, the potential for severe weather shrinks also.
In a nutshell, that is actual weather science that all scientists agree on.
Soooo, why does the speculation persist that global warming causes more severe weather despite known science and empirical evidence? Well, the UN's IPCC political agenda requires a propaganda strategy of continuous lies and misconceptions to take root and thrive. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to convince policymakers and the public to go along with draconian economic policies that reducing CO2 emissions require. And, as the crazed belief in the Soviet Union proved conclusively in the 20th century, leftists/liberals relish in the 'Big Lie' concept, in all its anti-science trappings.
Read here and here. Science magazine, and others of its establishment ilk, have attempted mightily to push the IPCC's political agenda of CO2-induced catastrophic global warming. Fortunately, blogs by scientists are identifying the AGW anti-science that the establishment is attempting to foist on policymakers and the public.
Consider this fisking by a scientist of an article written by an establishment AGW-religion believer and published by Science:
"The paleogeography of late Eocene Earth was visibly different than Earth today, and even more significantly different in terms of its effect on climate. The truth of the matter is that Earth, as it existed 35 mya [millions of years ago], is gone and will never return. The planet we inhabit is not the same or even very similar to that vanished world. Kiehl's specious assertion to the contrary is not just wrong, it is deceptive...That a senior scientist like Kiehl, working in the field of climate science—specializing in “understanding Earth’s warm greenhouse climates for deep past time periods ranging between 300 to 50 million years ago”—could be ignorant of our planet's ever changing geology is beyond incredulous. And ruling out incompetence leaves only mendacity. Efforts to prop up the discredited theory of CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming without the support of computer models fall far short. Take away their bogus climate models and promoters of global warming are left only with lies and half-truths."
Read here. Month after month we see new revelations that the Climategate-style of science promoted by the alarmist IPCC is one of shoddiness and extremes. As with the incredible errors discovered during the infamous Glaciergate fiasco, now a new peer-reviewed study finds that Alaska's glacier loss has been (surprise!) "overestimated" by some 33%+.
The new Berthier et al. research highlighted the massive uncertainties associated with climate science, and that previous IPCC proclamations about the Earth's climate conditions continue to be exposed as serial exaggerations, designed to frighten policymakers.
"...a team of five scientists from France, Arizona, and British Columbia focused their attention on what has happened to glaciers in Alaska over the past 50 years.....“However, these estimates of ice loss in Alaska are based on measurements of a limited number of glaciers that are extrapolated to constrain ice wastage in the many thousands of others. Uncertainties in these estimates arise, for example, from the complex pattern of decadal elevation changes at the scale of individual glaciers and mountain ranges.” .....the massive Columbian glacier (in the center) has experienced significant ice mass loss over the past five decades. However, the smaller Harvard glacier to the west has “thickened and advanced” according to the authors.....“We find that between 1962 and 2006, Alaskan glaciers lost 41.9 ± 8.6 km3 yr-1 of water 34% less than estimated earlier. Reasons for our lower values include the higher spatial resolution of our glacier inventory as well as the reduction of ice thinning underneath debris and at the glacier margins, which were not resolved in earlier work. We suggest that estimates of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps in other mountain regions could be subject to similar revisions.”" [E. Berthier, E. Schiefer, G.K.C. Clarke, B. Menounos, and F. Rémy2010: Nature GeoScience]
Read here. In an attempt to hype global warming fears, the IPCC Climategate AGW-scientists have speculated that human CO2 emissions would massively influence ocean climate modes such as ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation. This speculation led to the hysterical hypothesis that increased CO2 emissions would cause a permanent El Niño condition. Like most IPCC claims designed to pressure policymakers, this one was also pure science fiction.
A study by Kemp et al. determined that the wide variability of modern ocean climate patterns is very similar to the natural variations found some 75 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period. That period also had extremely high levels of atmospheric CO2 but no El Niño "tipping point" ever resulted - the natural ocean modes just kept on being variable.
"Based on reconstructions of Arctic climate variability in the greenhouse world of the Late Cretaceous, scientists have concluded that man-made global warming probably would not greatly change the climatic influence associated with natural modes of inter-annual climate variability such as the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Arctic Oscillation/ North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/ NAO).....“A key question is how an Arctic without permanent ice cover will affect atmospheric circulation and climate variability, particularly over high and mid latitudes,”.....“Understanding Late Cretaceous climate should inform debate about future climate trends and variability under greenhouse conditions,”.....“Based on our findings, it seems unlikely that man-made global warming would cause a permanent El Niño state." [Alan Kemp, Andrew Davies, and Heiko Pälike 2010: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. As has been written before, using crops to feed cars instead of mouths is an unmitigated disaster for multiple reasons. The only explanation that the biofuels industry survives is the Obama Democrats need to enrich its billionaire supporters and its big business friends in the agriculture sector.
Study after study has documented the complete waste that the biofuels effort represents, with the latest by Bryan et al., again providing the proof that only taxpayer funded subsidies keep this unconscionable renewable energy effort afloat.
"...as they [researchers] describe it, "assessed the potential benefits, costs, and trade-offs associated with biofuels agriculture to inform bioenergy policy.".....The three Australian researchers report finding that "biofuels agriculture was more profitable over an extensive area of the most productive arable land," producing "large quantities of biofuels" that "substantially increased economic profit." But they add that the end result was "only a modest net GHG [greenhouse gas] abatement" that had "a negligible effect on net energy production." In addition, they indicate that the economic profit was largely due to "farm subsidies for GHG mitigation," and that whatever benefits were accrued came "at the cost of substantially reduced food and fiber production."....."if biofuels are to be embraced," as Bryan et al. comment in concluding their assessment of the issue, "additional policy design features and institutions are required to support farm subsidies."" [Brett A. Bryan, Darran King, Enli Wang 2010: Global Change Biology Bioenergy]
Read here. The UK's highly publicized Stern report on global warming impacts has been analyzed extensively and now finds itself on the ash heap of likely fraudulent, totally misleading economic/science research.
Based on the flood of AGW rubbish coming out of Britain, one wonders if the UK's elites and ruling class have taken a blood oath to assure their country is viewed as the island of messianic idiots and imbeciles; or, are they just attempting to enrich themselves by impoverishing their subjects?
A new World Bank study by scholars has this summary of the hysterical, Lord Stern AGW climate-impact "research":
"Given empirical evidence about the link between climate and damages, climate change is calculated to increase the damages from these five extreme events by between $11 and $16 billion a year by 2100. There is little supporting evidence that climate affects deaths from these events.....These values are completely consistent with estimates in the literature per extreme event. However, they are completely inconsistent with values stated by Stern (2006) who suggests that extreme event damages could be 0.5 to 1.0 percent of GWP by 2050. Oral statements by Lord Stern even suggest values as high as 5 percent of GWP by 2200. The Stern analysis has been criticized because it confuses changes caused by what is in harms’ way (baseline changes) with what is caused by climate change (Pielke 2007b). But even this mistake cannot justify the estimates by Lord Stern. The hypothesized damages quoted by Lord Stern are completely inconsistent with empirical evidence." [Robert Mendelsohn and Gokay Saher - pdf here.]
In addition, Roger Pielke, Jr. states:
"These studies underscore the fact that efforts to try to pin claims of attribution of recent events to greenhouse gas emissions are empirically groundless, even if symbolically and emotionally satisfying. We are going to have to proceed into the future without knowing the influence of greenhouse gas emissions on extremes."
Read here. As Climategate and the subsequent inquiries have substantiated, the major victims of the UN's global warming agenda have been reputation and credibility of the the 'press' and AGW climate scientists. It's become painfully obvious that anything these people report, claim or predict should not be believed - their ideology and beliefs don't square with the importance of factual truth, nor any known empirical-based scientific process.
"A look at the information makes clear there is nowhere left for the Met Office to hide. The Met Office has been caught ‘cold’ lying about its winter forecast in a disgraceful attempt to salvage its reputation. Its claim that it forecast the cold start to the winter lays in tatters thanks to an exchange of emails between the department and the Cabinet Office...As a result the Met Office is completely discredited. Also utterly discredited is the BBC..."
Read here. Willis Eschenbach does an excellent job in this article describing the substantial problems that the government-funded, climate AGW-scientist advocates have caused, not only for climate science, but for the entire science community.
Over the past few years, the public has become less supportive and less believing of the AGW-scientists. Why? The IPCC political agenda driven science that taxpayer-funded scientists promote has become widely recognized as robust, bogus hysteria that is not supported by the observed empirical evidence. Essentially, people now know it's a cornucopia of fabrications and lies, commonly referred to as a 'travesty', or more colorfully, as a 'pile of shit'.
Indeed, climate science and the science community has been tarnished ('trenberthed'?) and it's not going to recover its reputation and credibility any time soon. Hey, way to go, Kevin of NCAR!
"The bottom line is we’re no longer willing to trust you. You could publish in the Akashic Records and I wouldn’t believe what you said until I checked the figures myself. I’m sorry to say it, but by the actions of you and your colleagues, you have forfeited the public’s trust. You blew your credibility, Dr. T, and you have not yet rebuilt it...And further actions like your current attempt to re-write the rules of science aren’t helping at all. Nor is trying to convince us that you look good with a coat of the finest English whitewash from the “investigations” into Climategate. Didn’t you guys notice the lesson of Watergate, that the coverup is more damaging than the original malfeasance?"
Read here. Republican members like to talk tough about controlling government spending and balancing the budget, but in recent years they've been all talk, and no walk.
With the 2010 elections showing that Americans want the uncontrolled U.S. spending to stop, NASA's climate science budget provides a perfect opportunity to show leadership through action: simply freeze NASA's climate science budget at 2010 levels.
'Freeze NASA now!' Kind of catchy tag line for serious budget cutters, plus it would surely be reflective of the actual global cooling of temperatures (click on image below to enlarge) the world really is experiencing, not the hysterical global warming that NASA's James Hansen keeps claiming.
Read here (scroll down to "Nitrous Oxide From Rivers & Streams"). Over the last year, it has become painfully obvious that the IPCC "climate science" has been terriblyflawed due to political agendas, resulting in the bogus and inaccurate IPCC climate model simulations. Part of the IPCC agenda is to downplay other contributors to global warming that would detract from the favored, politically correct human CO2 emissions.
As another example of the IPCC's scientific fraud incompetence, a recent peer-reviewed study reveals the IPCC's gross underestimation of another potent greenhouse gas: nitrous oxide (N2O).
"Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change and stratospheric ozone destruction. There are many sources for oxides of nitrogen: the ocean, peat bogs, microbial denitrification in soils, etc. One source that has been mostly overlooked is how much N2O is produced by flowing waters: the world's rivers and streams"..."This is yet another example of the IPCC getting its greenhouse gas sums wrong. In this case they underestimated the emission of N2O from river systems by three fold. One more reason to discount the blame CO2 first dogma put forth by warmist climate science"....."In our study [Beaulieua et al.], most streams were sources of N2O to the atmosphere and the highest emission rates were observed in streams draining urban basins...his estimate of stream and river N2O emissions is three times greater than estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." [Jake J. Beaulieua, Jennifer L. Tanka, Stephen K. Hamiltonb, Wilfred M. Wollheimc, Robert O. Hall, Jr., Patrick J. Mulhollande, Bruce J. Petersong, Linda R. Ashkenash, Lee W. Cooperi, Clifford N. Dahmj, Walter K. Doddsk, Nancy B. Grimml, Sherri L. Johnsonm, William H. McDowelln, Geoffrey C. Pooleo, H. Maurice Valettp, Clay P. Arangoq, Melody J. Bernotr, Amy J. Burgins, Chelsea L. Crenshawj, Ashley M. Heltont, Laura T. Johnsonu, Jonathan M. O'Brienv, Jody D. Pottern, Richard W. Sheibleyl, Daniel J. Sobotaw, and Suzanne M. Thomasg 2010: PNAS peer-reviewed article.]
Read here. As has been well documented, the economic impacts of California politicians and regulators has been astoundingly negative - jobs and prosperity are fleeing the state. The California Air Resources Board is probably the most aggressive agency in terms of stopping economic and job growth with its crazed and non-scientific decisions regarding CO2 emissions.
Per the obvious CARB craziness, one has to wonder if CO2 emissions actually cause bureaucrats to become dumb and dumber. The recent stated objective to mandate auto manufacturers to reach 60 mpg by 2017 is an exceptional case of dumbness, besides being clear evidence that no business entity should ever trust the word of California regulators, and we mean ever.
"“We were very surprised when environmental groups called for 60 mpg because just last year we worked with the Obama administration and the State of California and environmental groups to agree on a new national standard that would reach over 35 mpg by 2016, and before we’ve even achieved those new heights, in fact, before the program has even taken effect, there are already calls for almost double the mileage,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and 10 additional auto manufacturers."
Read here. As the New Zealand climate authorities recently admitted to wholesale temperature fabrication, it is important to note that other national climate agencies continue policies of blatant fabrication. NASA's GISS research unit is still on a personal quest to make 1998 hotter than by 1934, which they appeared to have finally acheived.
Despite 65 years of 1934 being recorded as the hottest U.S. year, NASA's James Hansen and his personal minions turned up the heat furnace on 1998 and the A/C on 1934. Over a decade of effort they finally achieve their result, a fabricated temperature record that the lame mainstream media (NYT, Wapo, AP, NBC, etc.) duly reports without mentioning to the public that NASA's temperatures have been faked.
"Why? Well, given steadily rising CO2 levels, and the high warming sensitivity of virtually all climate models to CO2, it would have been, let us say inconvenient, for 1998 to have been bested by a hot golden oldie from over 60 years previous! Kind of like your great grandpa beating you in a foot race."
"Sato’s first report, dated July 1999, shows 1934 with an impressive lead of over half a degree (0.541ºC to be exact) above 1998.....OOPS, the hot race continued after the FOIA email! I checked the tabular data at GISS Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) today and, guess what? Since the Sato FOIA email discussed above, GISS has continued their taxpayer-funded work on both 1998 and 1934. The Annual Mean for 1998 has increased to 1.32ºC, a gain of a bit over an 11th of a degree (+0.094ºC), while poor old 1934 has been beaten down to 1.2ºC., a loss of about a 20th of a degree (-0.049ºC). So, sad to say, 1934 has lost the hot race by about an eighth of a degree (0.12ºC)."
Within the last few days, NCDC released a revised global temperature data set stretching all the way back to 1880. The chart below shows the monthly changes NCDC made to temperature anomalies based on the previous data set, which was the global temperature anomaly record through October 2010. (click on images to enlarge)
[Note: New NCDC data, source here. Previous (October 2010) NCDC global temp anomaly data here. The chart depicts the monthly difference between these two NCDC data sets.]
Amazingly, they found mucho, newly discovered degrees of global warming during the late 19th century. (How did they miss all this "warming" during their last fabrication revision of global temperatures way back in 2009?)
What the chart above also clearly indicates are major changes (cooling adjustments) to the global temperature record starting around 1938. The cooling adjustments continue up through 1965. After 1965, the majority of the adjustments made to the old 2009 temperature record are of "global warming" nature.
The chart below shows the cumulative adjustments for the two periods: 1938-1965 and 1966-2010. Based on this simple analysis, it is clear why NOAA/NCDC continues to fabricate revise global temperature records - they need to "cool" down the 1930 and 1940's and "heat" up modern temperatures to lend credence to the very wobbly AGW hypothesis.
Read here. As most U.S. conservatives and libertarians (and a growing number of middle-of-the-road independents) recognize, the decades long fear-mongering about global warming has nothing to do with climate change risk. It's all about the objectives of power, control and money, and the Copenhagen/Cancun conferences have been the elites' means to accomplish these objectives.
Now, we have a peer-reviewed article by climate scientists that cleary documents the real concerns of those vested in climotology research: "Where's the money?" It's defintely a case of more-toys-for-the-boys mindset, and the climate science pork machine "we want it now" mentality, despite the known evidence that climate models don't work (which they even admit in their study).
Toward a New Generation of World Climate Research and Computing Facilities (Shukla et al. 2010)
"This paper is part of an ensemble of papers proposing an international multidisciplinary prediction initiative.....Since current climate systems models are not able to provide predictions with adequate accuracy and detail, climate prediction needs to be revolutionized to be able to fulfill society’s expectations……We recommend the creation of a small number (at least three) of highly connected multinational facilities with computer capability for each facility of at least 20 petaflops in the near term, 200 petaflops within five years, and 1 exaflop by the end of the next decade.....Soon the societal demand for policy-relevant climate predictions will be so great that the most advanced technology and the best available talent must be brought to bear to address this great challenge. The time to begin that process is now!" [J. Shukla, T. N. Palmer, R. Hagedorn, B. Hoskins, J. Kinter, J. Marotzke, M. Miller, J. Slingo, 2010]
"The Shukla et al paper perpetuates the top-down global model driven perspective to provide regional and local information to the resource communities.....The expenditure of large funds for a small set of computer centers devoted to multi-decadal climate predictions therefore, in my view, is a very poor use of tax money."
Read here and here. Defeated by a candidate that did not share his NY Times' view of the climate change terror, the soon-to-be former Congressman Bob Inglis never was able to figure out that "global warming" was almost entirely fabricated by government scientists in their attempt to assure a stable source of research funding.
In his own state of South Carolina, it's very easy to see the fabrication of warming, yet because of Congressman Bob's stupidity and mental laziness, he was never able to distinguish between fact and science fiction. As a result of his stupidity and laziness, he got his keister booted from the D.C. country club by his electorate who were fed up with big government idiocy that has been unleashed on the public.
Soooo...where's that modern "global warming" that terrifies him? Well, it's certainly not in the actual temperature readings. One can only conjure up scary warming if the temperatures are "adjusted" - also known as fabricating, Bob. (click on images to enlarge)
Both of these South Carolina temperature charts are similar to all of those across the U.S. The actual raw temperature readings will show that recent temperatures are below those earlier in the 20th century. In order to create the modern "unprecedented" global warming, government "scientists" lowered the earlier 20th century temperatures and then raised the more recent temperatures.
And, it's also easy to spot the bogosity of these temperature adjustments since there is always a span somewhere in the middle (between the dotted green lines on these 2 charts) that reveals very little, if not zero, temperature adjustments being done.
The 'crooks and liars' of national climate research centers across the globe have generated these bogus adjustments, which are now finally being exposed as the leading cause of "global warming," not human CO2.
Why has it taken so long to expose the global temperature fabrications? A couple of reasons. First, you have MSM science reporters who are basically clueless and do nothing but press-release-reporting (they read a scientist's press release and then repeat what it says - like a trained parrot). Another reason is the fact there are a lot of politicians like Bob Inglis who are too stupid and too lazy to do their job properly.
In his next career, don't be surprised if Bob becomes the newest ex-Republican to become a 'Big Green' shill, or even a science-parrot reporter - both careers seemingly require personalities with high stupidity and laziness quotients.
Notes: South Carolina temperature graphs can be found here. The above has the adjusted temperature chart (black curves) superimposed on the raw temperature chart (red curves).
What do climate scientists-bureaucrats do when they need to convince policymakers that global warming is "accelerating" and "unprecedented"? Well.....what would crooks and liars do if faced with the same challenge? They would cook-the-books in order for the scam to be believable.
How would one cook the global warming books? As it turns out, it's easy for scientists to do. One, prior warm temperatures need to be "cooled" down and then later temperatures need to be "warmed" up. This is exactly what the National Climate Data Center accomplished in 2009 with their new global temperature series.
First, the NCDC cooled down the hot 1920 and 1930's by adjusting temps down at a per century rate of -33.7 degrees (a maximum cumulative temperature adjustment of -16.8 degrees). Next, they adjusted the post-WWII temperatures up (a cumulative positive temperature adjustment of 9.3 degrees), to the tune of a 12.9 degree per century warming trend - voila, instant Joe Romm-scary, accelerating and unprecedented global warming. (click on image to enlarge)
As a result of the climate scientists and climate research agencies cooking the books, in their attempt to prove global warming is worse than reality, the public no longer is buying into the global warming hysteria, and is rapidly losing faith in scientists, in general.
Most experts familiar with the climate science field can easily name the 'crooks and liars' responsible for the gross fabrication of temperatures. It would be pleasing to finally see these individuals and agencies be held responsible for their actions - those actions being purposefully designed to deceive both politicians and the public alike. But, instead of focusing on the past (investigating past climate science transgressions), the Republicans should focus on the future by establishing new polices and guidelines to prevent past instances of flagrant scientific abuse from reoccurring.
At a minimum, the GOP should relieve all NASA and NOAA climate research units of any future responsibility for temperature data collection, compilation and reporting. A different, single agency should be responsible for these temperature data functions with their single goal being the scientific/statistical accuracy and objective empiricism required for the policymakers' use.
Government advocates (bureaucrats and scientists) for global warming and CO2 emission policies should have zero responsibility for any of the most basic, fundamental data used in the policy debates - it's a massive conflict of interest if they are, and it has already proven to be self-destructive.
This is a policy softball the GOP can knock out of the park, and no "scientist" or "scientific" body could object to removing the temptation of fabricating temperatures once and for all. The GOP would be saving science from its worst-of-breed individuals and at the same time, minimizing the future science fraud in the climate change field.
Every month, the National Data Climate Center (NCDC) has the latest monthly U.S. temperatures available online by the 8th or 9th day of the month. It's now the 12th day of November and NCDC still has not made available the October U.S. temperatures. Although the previous page link leads to this NCDC image suggesting October 2010 temperatures are available, all the data behind the scenes is only through September 2010 (Updated: as of 9:00a EST, 11-15-2010, October temperature data was finally made available on NCDC site).
The reason for the "unprecedented" delay could be a significant technical issue but since their site has no announcement as to the delay, it can be assumed that technical difficulties are not the issue.
Another possibility for the delay is NCDC is working on a set of new temperature maladjustments (ie, fabricating fake temperatures) since government bureaucrats and climate alarmist scientists are in serious need of increased global warming. One can imagine as the wheels are falling off the gravy train of global warming research due to non-warming, there is a sense of desperation to produce some heat, like ASAP.
Read here. The power elite of California are totally out of control, driving the once great state into perpetual Greece-dom. The lies and scaremongering that Big Labor, Big Wealth, Big Government and Big Media spread about the benefits of AB32 (lottsa green jobs!) and the dangers of passing Proposition 23 will continue to make news as economic reality is forced on the California voters. It's truly going to be an ugly reality show.
Did we say ugly? No sooner than the defeat of Proposition 23, a California solar company that received $535 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars closed one of its major manufacturing plants, causing California to experience a 1,000 loss of those really fantastic, secure green jobs.
"Solyndra, if you remember, was visited by President Obama and touted as being so wonderful. $535 million “wonderful”
Instead of having 2 plants, they will now close one, leaving only the new one running. (Flush!)
Instead of having 2,000 green jobs, they’ll can 1,000 people and we’ll only have 1,000 green jobs. (Flush!)
They will also eliminate 155 to 175 jobs at the new Fremont plant. (Total of 1,155 to 1,175 green jobs down the toilet – flush!)
The Obama Administration gave them $535 million in loan guarantees. (Tax dollars down the toilet?)
So, two days after Prop 23 was voted down we have our first green-tech company in California having major problems. If they are having major trouble after an infusion of about $1.535 billion dollars, I have to wonder just how good these wonderful green jobs that AB32 is allegedly going to create will be? How many hundreds of millions or billions of tax dollars will be required to subsidize them? Will there even be a significant amount of green jobs created? Or, will they end up in some other state or country where operating costs are cheaper and regulations fewer?"
Not too long ago, California was a cornucopia of freedom and prosperity, envied by the entire world, as well as many Americans. Over the last 20 years though, big government loving politicians and bureaucrats have so trashed the state's economy that it has become a banana republic, teetering on financial collapse - a golden dream turned into a nightmare, so-to-speak.
The rapid California decline can be directly traced to the state's progressives/liberals/leftists embracing any issue that calls for greater government regulation, control and taxation. Global warming is such an issue and because of big government spenders and regulators, it promises to make life even more miserable for individual taxpayers and for the small and medium-sized businesses.
The literal craziness of California's global warming fears has resulted in the anti-prosperity legislation known as AB32, and anti-choice regulations, such as banning black paint for new cars. For those paying attention, it is more than obvious that government control and tax revenue sources are the motivations driving the "global warming" laws and rules, not actual California warming or saving the world.
(click on images to enlarge) The graph on the left depicts the total cumulative global emissions (about 1.1 trillion tons) from 1946-2009, and the average California annual temperature over the last two decades. Clearly, California does not have a "global warming" problem caused by humanity's large increase in CO2 emissions. In addition, "global" warming is actually regional warming, and the U.S. is a major region that is not warming at all.
IPCC and climate alarmist scientists inform us that every human CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years, incessantly causing temperatures to increase. Thus, per the IPCC scientists, per the AGW theory and per the global temperature data (NCDC global temperature data), the cumulative 1.1 trillions tons of CO2 has caused an actual global temperature increase of about 0.44 degrees Celsius since 1945. That translates into an increase of 0.0000000000004 degree per ton of human CO2. With a little more arithmetic, we can then calculate what will happen to global temperatures if all 400 million tons of annual California CO2 were reduced to zero - the answer is nada, zilch, zero and nothing. The chart on the right reveals the impact of the California CO2 reductions on global temperatures.
(For more information about the trivial impact of CO2 reductions on global temperatures, go here and here for more information.)
So, the California politicians and bureaucrats are fighting the imaginary global warming problem, which does not exist for California, the U.S., nor many large regions of the globe. For the citizens of California, fighting this and other imaginary problems for the sake of empowering and enriching the state's elites has had terrible consequences, as documented below.
Simply put, California's big government, big green and big bureaucrat elites have single-handedly changed California from the envy of the world to a laughingstock. Not only is unemployment in California terrible - it has gotten so bad that even '60 Minutes' is claiming that California unemployment exceeds 20% - California also has the 2nd highest home foreclosure rate and easily the worst credit rating in the nation. Did we say 'banana republic'?
Despite the gross incompetence of California's ruling class, they still enjoy the support of the wealthy and privileged. As a result, many of the world's largestCO2spewers are in favor of the economy destroying AB32 - they know full well that they themselves will be able to avoid CO2-spewing restrictions because they are favored by the existing left/liberal big government ruling class.
Fortunately, Californians have the opportunity to seize control from the incompetent elites by voting for the suspension of the "global warming" AB32 regulations and voting out the big government politicians who have facilitated the total economic disaster that California is headed for.
Read here and here. After this November's election, the nation's CO2-fearing commander-in-chief is traveling to India for some R&R. Below describes the logistics of Obama's travel "party." The CO2-global warming hypocrisy of the Democrats/left/liberals is mind-boggling.
Read here. Simply the best essay eviscerating the idiocy of the Left/Liberal fears of global warming. As most are familiar with, the Left will always turn to the pathetic tactic of putting an issue into the context of "what-will-happen-to-our-grandchildren" in order to win debating points and sway public opinion. As Willis Eschenbach points out in his essay, the empirical evidence does not support the manipulative "grandchildren" tactic, plus even if it does continue to warm, the "grandchildren" will do just fine.
"What would I do differently if I knew for a fact that my Grandchildren would be eight-tenths of a degree warmer in 2050? Or alternatively, how would I feel if I knew for a fact that I had sentenced my as-yet-unborn Grandchildren in 2050 to live in a world that was eight-tenths of a degree warmer?
And you know, I couldn’t think of one single thing about buildings, or businesses, or roads, or lives, that I’d do differently for eight tenths of a degree by 2050. Not one thing. Even if I knew it was coming, I don’t know what that slight warming will do, so what would I do to get my Grandchildren and Puppies and business and bridges ready for it? How would I know what to do to prepare my buildings and roads and life for eight tenths of a degree of warming?
There might be some adverse outcomes from that eight tenths of a degree of temperature rise threatening my grandchildren in 2050, but neither I nor anyone else knows what those outcomes might be. We’ll assuredly get an extra flood over here, and one less flood over there, it’s very likely to be drier somewhere and wetter somewhere else, in other words, the climate will do what climate has done since forever — change.
But anyone who says they can predict exactly where the floods and droughts might be in that unknown climate future is blowing smoke. And I don’t know if we could even tell if the average temperature changed by eight-tenths of a degree......
So my questions are … where are all of the catastrophes from that couple of degrees of warming since the Little Ice Age, and from the half century fast warming since 1958? I mean, James Hansen would excoriate the Elizabethans because they bequeathed not only their Grandchildren, but their great-great Grandchildren, a warmer world. I don’t know how the Elizabethans slept at night, after wishing a degree or more of warming on their poor innocent Grandchildren. And puppies. But where are the catastrophes from the couple of degrees of slow warming since the 1600s?
Seriously, people keep saying that the problem with the climate is that we can’t do laboratory experiments. But for the past three centuries we have two excellent natural experiments. In the first we saw warming century after century, and yet we didn’t experience Thermageddon. Where are the catastrophes?"
As they say, read the whole essay, it's excellent and provides strong support of why big government leftists/liberals should never be allowed to be near the reigns of power, at least for the sake of our future grandchildren.
Read here. We've written before about the huge Chinese risk that Democrats and climate alarmists were creating for the U.S economy. Pushing renewable energy solutions for electricity and transportation that rely on China as a major provider of rare element materials is pure Democrat/liberal/leftist/progressive stupidity. Energy innovation and new technology are great ideals, unless it creates an unhealthy dependency (addiction?) that is even more unstable than the foreign oil dependency the U.S. presently relies on.
Read here, here, here, and here. If one reads the previous linked articles, one will find that multiple scientists are taking serious issue (on multiple levels) with the most recent NASA study done by its climate modeling scientists.
This NASA publication quotes the lead "scientist" as stating that "CO2 acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," and the NASA web page headline "Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature" suggests the same. The use of the term "thermostat," in regards to the trace gas CO2, implies a specific, fine tuning capability, a CO2 tweaking mechanism so-to-speak that can be used to "control" the ups and downs of global temperatures. If this were true, the CO2 thermostat (changes in CO2 levels) would have an obvious correlation with global temperature changes. In fact, as the below chart reveals, there is almost a zero relationship between CO2 changes and temperature changes.
As the chart depicts, since the mid-1940's, every single year has the atmospheric CO2 level increasing. In contrast, the annual global temperature change has varied in a narrow band, usually between a -0.20 and 0.20 degree Celsius. (Note the red line, which is the 20-year average of annual temperature changes - it's basically flat.) When viewing the data in this manner, it becomes obvious that the NASA proclamation of CO2 being a "thermostat" is empirically absurd, if not fraudulent.
The scientists at NASA know this, yet they use the blatantly false analogy of a thermostat that "controls" Earth's temperature. Knowing that NASA climate scientists have previously been exposed misrepresenting climatescienceandtemperatures (more here), is it fair to start asking the obvious question?: Have NASA climate scientists become pathological liars? Based on the scrutiny their work now receives, it would seem a lot of scientists are taking no chances with NASA's research.
Archived NASA web page. (click on images to enlarge)
If the above chart represents the short-term period of "thermostat" capabilities, does a longer-term perspective provide better support for NASA's "CO2 thermostat" is a Earth temperature "control" statement? Nope. Per the study of ice cores, the high resolution evidence found that CO2 changes lagged temperature changes by approximately 800 years, just the opposite of what NASA scientists are claiming. The ice core chart below is another indication of the NASA "thermostat" bogosity.
Read here. Michael Mann is suspected of defrauding taxpayers due to his work in climate science. Science fraud is not unusual, yet Michael Mann refuses to cooperate with various individuals and organizations seeking information about his taxpayer funded scientific work that could actually exonerate him. Michael Mann seeks to be placed above the law, namely the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The FOIA is designed to establish essential expectations of transparency of the government funded bureaucracy and its minions, which categorically applies to both the University of Virginia and Michael Mann. Both UofV and Mann have refused to comply with the FOIA thus putting themselves in harm's way of the law.
Scientists and universities are not immune, nor above any law, as are the crooks in Congress and the plethora of corrupt UN diplomats - thank goodness. Misconduct and/or fraud in science needs to be identified and stopped legally, especially when institutions of higher learning and the scientific governing associations fail continuously to protect the public from these science transgressions.
"Whether it is the special immunities and privileges the MainStream Media (MSM) seek to deny ordinary citizen journalists or the climate data and information climate scientists attempt to deny ordinary citizen observers of climate science, you don’t have to be a Republican, a political conservative, or a right-wing-nut, to join with our political opponents in demanding non-discriminatory application of the due process of law to scientists the same as other citizens and professions."
Read here. Here is the recent headline from USA Today: "Expert: Texas is getting hotter due to global warming".
What are the real Texas temperature facts, though? As the NOAA temperature graphs for Texas reveal (the below graphs represent temperatures through August 2010), over the last 100 plus years Texas temperatures exhibit a cooling trend equal to a minus 0.10 degree Fahrenheit per century. For the second graph below, the temperature trend for the last 15 years is a minus 2.7 (-2.7) degrees Fahrenheit per century. What about the warmest decade "evaaar!", ending on December 31, 2009, you may ask? Welllllll.....Texas temperatures declined during that time span declined at a minus 7.3 (-7.3) degrees per century rate.
Okay, why does the USA Today headline say otherwise? Unfortunately, the climate scientists the "objective" reporters quote base their Texas "temperatures" on the fictional, speculative, computer climate model predictions, not the actual Texas temperatures. The scientists use their virtual "climate porn" temperatures to assure they can maintain their funding (research grants, taxpayer subsidies, green organization endowments, etc.), or increase funding, in the name of global warming research. If the scientists actually spoke the truth about Texas temperatures, their source of funding may shrink or entirely disappear.
Why doesn't the mainstream press, like USA Today, report the actual Texas temperatures correctly instead of bogus alarmist climate model predictions? The press, unfortunately, is not interested any longer in the truth and objective reporting. Instead, the MSM eagerly supports the big government agenda that climate alarmist scientists are advocating for, and thus slants the reporting to push the agenda.
The MSM press wants Democrats/progressives/liberals elected so that more regulations and taxes can be imposed on the traditional energy sector (Big Oil & Big Coal). The MSM has decided that the only way to assure Democrat victories is literally to spread bogus temperature information from the Left/liberal climate-porn scientists in order to scare the voters. It's really as simple as that.
Moral of this story? Don't trust the MSM press regarding any climate change issue, and don't trust any big government funded scientist about global warming. And for goodness sakes, don't believe any output from climate models - they're a global joke. (click on images to enlarge)
Update: I see where Steve Goddard has also taken issue with the bogosity of Texas temperatures used by the USA Today article. He uses the same official NOAA temp database but uses different time periods to look at Texas temps.
Read here. Big government bureaucrats, whose entire careers are based on incompetence and wasting billions of tax dollars, have now decided that students should learn about the government's inaccurate, non-reliable, CO2-centric computer climate models.
Are they really unreliable and inaccurate? Well, the facts do speak for themselves. As everyone knows from real world day-to-day experience, weather computer models are notoriously inaccurate for weather projections out past a few days. Seasonal forecasts by weather/climate models are even worse, to the point that experts are no longer relying on them. It has become established scientific fact that the inaccuracy of computer model's increases exponentially over time, making them entirely useless as thermometer predictors for any future period.
The good news though about NASA's "education" initiative? Ultimately, this will allow students to start learning just how incompetent and politicized government paid scientist-bureaucrats are, plus provide a solid eye-witness experience for not trusting the bogus, virtual-world, computer models, especially the climate model variety. That's what's great about the internet. As students start researching climate science and climate models, they will find accurate and objective analysis that will totally refute the NASA bureaucrat-scientist propaganda pushed into the classroom.
To help get students started on the road to a honest and truthful climate model education, we present the following:
There is not a single government sponsored climate model, nor government paid NASA/NOAA scientist, that predicted the above significant temperature cooling scenario (forecast) over the past decade for the large landmass that the U.S. continental states represent.
In Senate testimony during the summer of 1988, a NASA scientist testified that his GISS climate model's predicted temperatures will accelerate to much higher levels if the world's governments did nothing about reducing CO2 emissions. In reality, as the temperature data above shows, actual temperatures in 2009 were about the same as in 1988, some twenty years later.
h/t: Real Science. The above temperature prediction map from NASA's climate models shows Antarctica temperatures increasing 6 to 10 degrees Celsius from 1960 to 2060, over large swaths of the ice continent. It's been 50 years since 1960 and the overall trend of Antarctica temperatures has been a stable to a tiny cooling trend, just the opposite of what climate models predicted.
Finally, what do the climate models actually predict about global temperatures that NASA does not reveal to students or to the general public? If the U.S. reduced CO2 emissions by 80%, global temperatures would be impacted by an almost unmeasurable 3/10's of a degree. In other words, the climate reality is that the climate policy (reducing CO2 emissions) that NASA promotes (and that the climate models were specifically designed to support) will literally have no impact on the climate, per the government's own climate models. Did we say SNAFU?
For students new to the massive waste and incredible incompetence of government bureaucrats and scientists, welcome to the real world!
Read here. Soooo, China and Japan get in a dispute about a Chinese fishing boat and the next thing the world knows, China has put an embargo on rare earth metals. These chemical elements are essential for the manufacture and maintenance of green vehicles, which especially rely on the state-of-the-art batteries and electronics that rare-metals make possible. For the unaware, China produces about 95% of the world's supply of these elements.
As this most recent example illustrates, for the U.S. government to push electric cars onto the auto produces and consumers, knowing China could easily strangle the global market with a stroke of a pen, is the height of big-government stupidity. Of course though, when it comes to stupid and moronic ideas for businesses and consumers, the liberal-left Democrats are in a class of their own.
Update: Here's a great piece on why rare earth elements are not really a rare resource but are indeed "rare" in the global marketplace. In a way, the U.S. is responsible for manufacturing a shortage in rare earth elements, which will likely continue.
Over the past week, the Obama administration has introduced the new terminology of "climate disruption" in order to advance the necessary fear-mongering that elites of big government and big business plan to literally prosper from. Much like the war armament merchants of decades past, who hyped the potential of war in order to sell more arms, the merchants of "evil" global warming do the same.
Luckily, modern fear-mongering has become less effective, as evidenced by the recent desperate changes from "global warming" to "climate change" to today's idiotic phrase of "climate disruption." (Note: vote for next scary Obama/Democrat phrase to be used when "climate disruption" is thrown under the bus.) Obviously, this newest terminology now allows the merchants to claim any weather event as human caused (ie, caused by human CO2 emissions), which liberal Democrats hope to enrich and empower themselves by using.
The good news for the world's populace though, is that severe, extreme weather events have caused less fatalities over the past two decades, which includes events defined as tropical cyclones. If modern global warming is causing more disastrous and fatal climate cyclonic disruptions as claimed and predicted, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
Read here and here. If our recent posting on electric cars wasn't damning enough about these not-ready-for-prime-time toys, here's the clincher: we, the people, will be subsidizing the purchase of these vehicles for the rich and famous. Did we say stooopid yet?
See, we need to help reduce the self-guilt trip the wealthy have about living the good life; and, we need to raise their self-esteem if they're to survive all the future CO2-spewing their lifestyles absolutely demand. Hey, it's really, really important that they feel good about themselves! That's why Obama and the Democrats need all the taxpayers to help and sacrifice for the "poor" wealthy folks during these bad economic times.
"Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and Alyssa Milano have joined Lance Armstrong as celebs who have reserved the Leaf. Nissan spokesperson Katherine Zachary confirmed that the Tour de France extraordinaire is still in line to receive one of the first Leafs to reach U.S. shores.....The average buyer of a 2011 Nissan Leaf is a 45-year-old baby boomer.....The typical buyer has an income of about $125,000 a year.....Buyers list energy independence and environmental consciousness as primary motivators for choosing the Leaf."
"[Gov.] Bredesen (TN) said the state's $2,500 rebate, coupled with an available $7,500 federal tax credit, would "about even out the premium (charged) for an electric car" versus a car with a traditional gasoline engine.....Taxpayers will subsidize this car to about one-third of its sale price. Every time you see a Leaf drive by, you'll know someone else is driving it thanks to you. Once again, a technology and product that has no natural market is being favored by the political class at the expense of the rest of us."
Read here. Global warming alarmists, Big-Government money (BGM) scientists, leftist/liberal/Democrats, MSM reporters, and the IPCC climate models all predicted (claimed) that global warming (climate change) caused more intense and more frequent hurricanes. Based on the scientific evidence from peer-reviewed research, it appears these predictions were pure fabrications solely designed to alarm the public, in an attempt to advance the UN's and elites' political agenda.
Analyzing sediment cores that revealed evidence of hurricane strikes in the Caribbean region, scientists clearly determine that hurricanes were not influenced by continuous climate change over 5,000 years.
"...they were able to construct a detailed history of intense hurricane strikes from 5300 to 900 years before present (BP)......Based on their analyses, Wallace and Anderson report "there has been no notable variation in intense storm impacts across the northwestern Gulf of Mexico coast during this time interval," i.e., 5300-900 yr BP, "implying no direct link between changing climate conditions and annual hurricane impact probability." In addition, they say "there have been no significant differences in the landfall probabilities of storms between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico during the late Holocene, suggesting that storm steering mechanisms have not varied during this time.".....the two Rice University (Houston, Texas) researchers say that current rates of intense hurricane impacts "do not seem unprecedented when compared to intense strikes over the past 5000 years,""
Read here. Based on the data crunching by the good folks at Digging In The Clay, we can now visualize what global temperatures have done throughout the world since 1880. What is striking about their data representation (see below) is that "global warming" has been a non-existent phenomenon over large swaths of the globe. In fact, as the 130 year data clearly shows, major portions of the world have cooled, which is entirely inconsistent with the AGW CO2-based hypothesis.
Soooo, the next time your zombie-like eco-child, or a government paid stooge scientist, or your favorite new pagan religion (dis)order, or the sex-crazedpoodle celebrities start spouting off about how much the globe has warmed since the beginning of the industrial age, just point them to this chart, and then very gently whisper in their ear, "...please, would you just STFU about the global warming BS..." (click on image to enlarge)
The climate science field, as represented by Michael Mann and Rajendra Pachauri, is in tatters this August as renowned experts weighed in on the current climate science techniques of the Climategate scientist and theprocessbywhich the current IPCC management reports the climate science findings.
It's fairly obvious at this point that if climate science is to regain the public's trust, these two individuals need to be removed from the public face of climate science as soon as possible. The damage they've done has become cancerous and is spreading, which means these twin tumors need to be excised soon, without pity.
Read here - a peer-reviewed paper recently published in AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. The production of biofuels requires staggering amounts of fresh water, several times more than fossil-fuel energy production. Al Gore has pushed politicians and the UN towards policies favoring biofuel renewable energy as a solution to reducing human CO2 emissions, using the rationale that climate change (human CO2 "caused") will create climate refugees and climate conflict. It is highly speculative though that global warming will cause "refugees" and "conflict." In contrast, if regional shortages of fresh water develop due to biofuel production, water refugees and water conflict will most definitely occur.
"The three U.S. researchers say their results suggest that "the most water-efficient, fossil-based technologies have an EROWI one to two orders of magnitude greater [ed: better] than the most water-efficient biomass technologies, implying that the development of biomass energy technologies in scale sufficient to be a significant source of energy may produce or exacerbate water shortages around the globe and be limited by the availability of fresh water."...These findings will not be welcomed by those who promote biofuel production as a means of combating what they call "the threats posed by 'climate refugees' and 'climate conflict' to international security,"..... she identifies some of the principals in the spreading of what she calls this "alarmist rhetoric" to be various United Nations agencies, NGOs, national governments, security pundits, the popular media and -- quite specifically -- the Norwegian Nobel Committee of 2007, which, as she describes it, "warned that climate-induced migration and resource scarcity could cause violent conflict and war within and between states when it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, Jr. and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.".....Hartmann goes on to suggest that "this beating of the climate conflict drums has to be viewed in the context of larger orchestrations in U.S. national security policy." And in this regard it doesn't take a genius to realize that the promotion of biofuels to help resolve these concerns will only exacerbate them in one of the worst ways imaginable, providing a "cure" [ed: water shortages] that is worse than the disease [ed: human CO2 emissions]."
Read here. For the period of 2000 to 2008, deaths from all causes averaged 58 million per year. And those from severe weather events? 32,000 per year. This was a during a period when global climate change was supposedly dramatic and unprecedented, causing untold extreme death and destruction.
Yet, as a contrast, severe weather deaths averaged 485,000 per year during the 1920's, over 10 times higher than the present.
Why would the world's politicians of the left and the left/liberal biased media present the case that the world, in recent decades, has suffered untold misery at the hands of climate change when the facts are just the opposite. Why do they focus attention on only 32,000 deaths when over 58 million are dying from other major causes (starvation, malaria, cancer, etc.)?
As has been discussedbefore, the left-liberal-progressive-socialist agenda is one of enrichment and empowerment, for themselves. These people do not care about climate change nor global warming nor global cooling nor any actual facts. They are habitual liars about climate change because they feel that the truth will stop their momentum. That is why climate change has been blown totally out of proportion when viewed against the world's other major issues.
The severe issues that the world faces will never be solved until the left quits trying to enrich themselves via power grabs for world government control. Don't think that's a reasonable assessment of what the left is trying to accomplish? Well, read their own words and then you may finally understand the rationale behind the "climate change" farce.
Read here. Keeping track of the Climategate fiascoes has been a challenge but an unofficial gate"keeper" has now come forward. The climate science endeavor has become such a travesty, the entire field is being mocked, and to a lesser degree, all of science. And, FWIW, deservedly so since the science establishment refuses to clean house and get climate science back on sound footing.
Read here. Obama and Democrats continue to propose and maintain energy regulations/legislation that suck big money out of taxpayers' wallet to enrich the Dem-Left's renewable energy, big corporate supporters and lobbyists.
$1.78 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Corn ethanol
$2.55 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Celluosic ethanol
$3.00 per gallon corporate subsidy by taxpayers: Biodiesel
So far, renewable energy schemes (scams?) from large corporations are mostly environmental disasters, funded by the gigantic annual expense to individual taxpayers.
The UK is a shell of its former "superpower" self. Sadly, the country that stood up to Hitler has evolved into a nation of pathetic, weak, frightened souls. This once great nation is now solely led by a small group of elitists who casually propagate melodramatic fears with the objectives of asserting greater control and self-enrichment for themselves. In essence, the UK ruling class has become their country's own worst enemy.
The current events of the UK read like some third world banana republic where Monty Python-crazed despots are institutionalizing irrational policies of self-destruction. Literally, the former superpower has become the world's super joke - and it's all self-inflicted.
Read a few recent UK headlines and weep, not only for the UK, but for the U.S. as Obama and Democrats try their damnedest to out-stupid the UK ruling class:
Read here and here. As most sentient beings have finally come to realize over the past twelve months, the IPCC is a political organization, with a political agenda, using non-scientific means to mislead, misinform and misrepresent. Or, to put it in more colorful terms, the United Nation's IPCC is a non-repentant agency of climate science bullshit, and any "scientific" claim emanating from this agency should be intently scrutinized and parsed to determine its veracity and objectivity (lack thereof).
The latest evidence that the IPCC is guilty of non-scientific, political propaganda at the minimum, with the IPCC potentially being an accessory to science incompetence (malfeasance?)? One word answer: Amazongate.
1. [Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr] "The bottom line here? The IPCC did indeed make a claim in its report that is unsubstantiated in the literature that it cited in support of the claim. Further, the specific claim being made also appears to be unsubstantiable -- that is, there is nothing in the literature to support the specific claims being made.....For the IPCC this degree of sloppiness and lack of attention to accuracy is troubling. Those claiming that there is nothing to see here are simply wrong -- the IPCC botched this one. The various defenses of this issue are an embarrassment.....Pretending that it did not cannot help either the IPCC or the cause for action, and will likely have the opposite effect, as anyone who takes a moment to look at the issue, as I did, will see the same evidence that I did."
2. [Nasa funded peer-reviewed study] "A new study, funded by Nasa, has found that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little impact on the rainforest's vegetation. The findings appear to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical grassland. The IPCC has already faced intense criticism for using a report by environmental lobby group WWF as the basis for its claim, which in turn had failed to cite the original source of the research. Scientists have now spoken out against the 40% figure contained in the IPCC report and say that recent research is suggesting that the rainforest may be more resilient to climate change than had been previously thought.....senior researcher in the new study, criticised the IPCC’s claim that a “even a slight reduction in precipitation” would cause drastic changes in the rainforest.....He said: “There was more than a slight reduction in precipitation during the drought of 2005. It is that particular claim of the IPCC that our analysis rejects.”"
The UN's IPCC has become a global climate science joke that is definitely controlled and managed by political, ideological hacks. The harm to science credibility that the IPCC has perpetrated is immeasurable and will continue for the foreseeable future. In terms of objective, honest climate science, the IPCC is not to be trusted, ever.
Read here. Big government loves renewable energy mandates and projects. Why? These projects require huge government handouts and subsidies that empower politicians and enrich their friends/lobbyists.
Most governments are now discovering that renewable energy initiatives are a sure path to uncontrolled government spending in the name of huge "renewable" corporate welfare. The Obama administration heartily embraces this form of corporate welfare to the painful detriment of the individual taxpayer and small businessperson.
"Renewable energy has proved an expensive and unreliable source of energy everywhere it has been tried on a significant scale. And now there is a big divide among the major European economies that have enthusiastically adopted wind, solar and the other renewables.....While the UK ploughs ahead by throwing good money after bad, Italy, Spain and Germany are cutting back on their taxpayer/ratepayer-funded generosity toward politically correct energies. France, meanwhile, with its abundant nuclear power, has smartly stayed out of the game.....Some countries are waking up to the disaster of extravagant subsidies to renewable energy. But Britain isn’t. The lesson for Americans is simply that throwing money at renewable energy tends to be an economic disaster, but that politicians buttressed by expensive lobbyists can keep the racket going regardless."
Read here, here, here, here, and here. Democrats and the Obama administration will attempt just about every falsehood and any misrepresentation in efforts to pass some form of the global warming, cap and trade, energy legislation. As long as the mainstream media refuses to do any fact checking, the global warming B.S. will continue.
A recent example of the propensity to mislead and falsely claim is the Democrat's web site pushing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation. On that site, they misleadingly state what global warming is supposedly doing to areas of the world, including the Northeast region of the U.S.:
"If the current rate of heat-trapping emissions continues, by 2070 summers in Boston will feel like those of South Carolina today. By the end of the century, temperatures could rise up to 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the region. Cities across New England, which historically experience only one or two days per year above 100 degrees each summer, could average 20 such days per summer, while more southern cities such as Hartford could average nearly 30 days. The character of the seasons will change significantly. Spring could arrive three weeks earlier, with summer lengthening by about three weeks, autumn becoming warmer and drier, and winter becoming shorter and milder."
Okay, based on actual empirical evidence, are any of the above GW claims likely to happen within the next 60 to 100 years. In a word, NO. The linked postings above clearly document the global warming lies (or, if you prefer, the wildly speculative, irresponsible predictions
with no basis in reality) on the Democrat's site. An example is the statement that the Northeast region's temperatures may rise 14 degrees by 2100. That claim is so outlandishly bogus it becomes synonymous with an outright lie.
In a further examination of the data, the charts below show the impact of the huge amounts of global CO2 emissions on U.S. Northeast regional summer and winter temperatures since 1895. How big was that impact? Well, as the charts depict, just about squat. And whatever squat Northeast warming has occurred is most likely explained by a combination of natural forces and land-use forcings, not human CO2 emissions. And by the way, note both charts reveal 10-year average temperatures (red curve) being higher prior to the 1970's.
Why do politicians get away with the bullstuff lying like this? Easy. One, because the mainstream media isn't doing their job; and two, the politicians have basically bought the silence of the majority of climate scientists - one can't bite Uncle Sugar Daddy's hand and expect to prosper. (click on images to enlarge)
Read here. Despite Obama's complete lack of management and executive experience (sorry, being a community "organizer" doesn't count), it's hard to believe he and his administration are this incredibly incompetent - here's a list of no-brainer to-do items that Obama should execute on, now. (Frankly, the numerous management failures of the Obama Gulf cleanup project makes Bush look like a management consultant guru for his actions regarding Katrina.)
So, what then is Obama's problem in the Gulf? It's looking more like Obama and his team are willing to sacrifice the coastal environment and people's livelihoods as a means to enhance the Democrat's position on the cap and trade, energy, global warming legislation, known as the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act. At the end of the day, Obama always puts partisan politics ahead of what's best for America.Ahem....worst president ever?
"Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act. Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act. To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle."
Read here. Long before the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act legislation was introduced, Spain's economy was reeling from the disastrous energy decisions that government made in the name of clean and secure power. Now Obama and Democrat leaders want to pass and enforce similar legislation/regulations that has literally strangled the Spanish economy. Despite the disaster of Spanish energy policies, Obama embraces the big government intrusion into the energy market.
It's fairly obvious the leftists/liberals are intent on creating another man-made disaster (when you're anti-growth and anti-capitalism jihadists, producing man-made disasters is of second nature).
"We’ve now got two places strongly pushing a Green Agenda that are going down in flames. Spain and California (with our own version of Cap and Tax…). It is not just a side effect of the recession. Other places, like China, Texas, and Brazil are doing much better.....And at this point it is pretty clear that “Green Jobs” and “Cap and Tax” are a clear path to wealth destruction and poverty. It’s called an existence proof, and we have more of them staking up every day."
Read here and here.The fanatics' hysterical fears of CO2-induced warming, especially from Europeans, produce some truly awful, bizarre global-harming solutions that should have never have been implemented. Besides the self-induced global-harm of burning corn for fuel, the Europeans are now pursuing forest deforestation policies for energy production reasons. Simply put, because the burning of tree biomass is considered a "renewable energy" source, they conveniently justify the destruction of forests to feed their wood burning energy facilities.
"Deforestation is already a big problem globally without the biofuels boom. Promoting the use of wood material for biofuel will only accelerate deforestation.....We have an enormous deforestation problem already, there is no way massive increases in wood to feed bioenergy furnaces could ever be sustainable.....Wood biomass energy is twice as crazy an idea as maize ethanol was.....potential for disaster is absolutely enormous if this takes off in Europe and America"
If the UN and International Criminal Court ever decide to process ecocide cases, the first that should be charged are those politicians who enabled wood-burning energy policies, which facilitate and justify forest destruction.
Let's say you're a climate scientist whose livelihood depends on government funding for global warming. What would you do to assure the global warming funding continues, so that you attain a secure future, financially and emotionally, in your chosen climate science field?
Well, if you wanted to convince U.S. senators to keep the monies flowing towards global warming research, one needs to do the following:
1. Convince the senators the global warming is unprecedented 2. Convince the senators that global warming is accelerating 3. Convince the senators that recent years are the warmest, evaaar.
How to do so? Amazingly, it's not been so hard to accomplish. Just adjust the actual temperature data to reflect "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming, and the "warmest" result just tags along. Then use this "improved" temperature data in presentations to convince the senators to deliver more money.
Are U.S. climate scientists actually this self-centered, sleazy and desperate to keep the monies flowing? Yep. And here's their most recent record of temperature data manipulation since 2008 - if you need global warming, just go back in time and fabricate it (some would call this data fraud, science malfeasance or hey, just flat-out lying). What's scary is that a lot of Democrats (progressives/liberal/leftists) condone and encourage this obvious "science" scam.
(click on image to enlarge)
By aggressively adjusting temperatures down prior to 1930's and by aggressively adjusting post-1930 temperatures up, the climate scientists are able to spoof the global warming trifecta: "unprecedented," "accelerating," and "warmest."
View here. Because the UN, through its IPCC agency, is promoting a hypothesis that states global warming is the world's preeminent problem, national bureaucrats, like those in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are pushing trillion dollar global solutions to cut CO2 emissions. But economists from across the world point out that there are multiple, severe world issues with realistic solutions that are far superior than trying to cut human CO2 emissions, which would be similar to pouring trillions down a rat-hole resulting in zero rats being killed.
The world's best economists basically conclude that mitigating CO2 emissions is a costly, worthless, strictly symbolic exercise that will detract from solving major world problems with real solutions.