Article: The establishment climate science experts have long pushed their favored policy of fossil fuel energy production being replaced by renewable energy sources. The indisputable result has been a literal green energy fiasco in many countries as political leaders fall all over themselves to make taxpayers massively subsidize the green energy projects of billionaires and powerful corporations.
Yet when informed high-tech analysis is applied to an objective review of renewable green energy, it becomes readily apparent that current renewable energy options are abject failures on all counts, including the goal of reducing global warming.
Article: The consensus quackery that medical dogma, experts, politicians and mainstream media have promulgated over 3 decades has proven to be a health disaster.
In America and other other industrialized countries, government bureaucrats and health research elites relying on non-validated science have essentially ruined the public's health with growing epidemics: obesity, diabetes and multiple related chronic diseases.
Similar to today's popular "consensus" obsessionjihad science against CO2, the anti-fat and anti-cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease was embraced by all the right-thinking experts, special interest groups and politicos.
This was a mandated politically-correct consensus: fat and cholesterol were the enemy and needed to be eliminated - an enemy that turns out was never supported by the actual empirical evidence.
Now after 30+ years of literally wreaking havoc on the health of millions with bad medical science and absurd advice, the experts are finally being forced to admit they were stupendously wrong and skeptics were right.
In the meantime, people's lives have been shortened and healthcare costs have been increased by trillions due to an unbelievable surge of chronic diseases tied directly to government diet nutrition quackery.
But a tipping point has now been reached, with objective scientists and the public finally rejecting the quacks who remain possessed by the irrational fears of saturated fat and cholesterol.
The EU elites and bureaucrats continue to beclown themselves...they are now going to pursue CO2 emission reductions that will accomplish zilch for the climate....
(click on image to enlarge)
The EU members have just agreed to reducing, by 2030AD, their own CO2 emissions by 40% based on 1990 levels (4.5 billion CO2 tonnes in 1990), for the next 17 years (including 2014, until the end of 2030).
That would simply average out to a 106 million tonne reduction per year. The result by end of 2030 would be 1.8 billion less tonnes emitted by EU countries, per year - assuming they can force every single EU country to comply (stop it! no laughing).
For context, the EU since 1990 has reduced their annual CO2 emissions by 598 million tonnes, total. That is an average of 26 million tonnes per year of reduction success since the end of 1990 - a fraction of the 106 million tonne per year reduction average needed for the next 17 years.
What would be the impact on global temperatures if the EU could wave a wand and immediately reduce their current emissions by 1.8 billion tonnes/year?
Absolutely NOTHING....their reduction plans essentially have an unmeasurable yearly impact of global temperatures (i.e. 'unmeasurable' not being at least a 2 decimal point degree (C) decrease/increase, for example, -0.01, -0.02, +0.01, +0.01 and etc.).
The basic arithmetic of CO2's past impact on global temperatures can be determined utilizing the standard 3rd party estimates of total global temperature increase and total CO2 emissions from 1850 on.
Using the historical CO2 emission and temp records, since 1850 global temperatures have increased by 0.00000000000061°C per CO2 tonne emitted (assuming the climate-doomsday alarmists' claims that all warming is due to CO2 and that all human emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years).
As can be seen with the above depiction of the 'C3' CO2/temperature estimator, the total reduction of 1.8 billions tonnes of CO2 emissions will have absolutely no yearly measurable impact on global temperatures (top panel of depiction).
(The various arithmetic calculations are not difficult, however they are tedious. So instead, one can use this simple 'C3' estimation tool to broadly estimate the impact of CO2 reductions/avoidance (or additions) on global temps.)
Since an immediate 1.8 billion tonne annual reduction is not possible, but a 106 million tonne reduction/year over the next 37 years (including 2014 through the end of 2050) could possibly be accomplished, what is the temperature impact with that scenario?
Again, absolutely no measurable impact on global temperatures (bottom panel of depiction). That's zero impact after 37 years of avoiding 106 million emission tonnes/year.
And by now you are probably asking yourself just how many years the EU has to reduce their CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year for a measurable impact to be produced (i.e. -0.01 degree change)?
Approximately 165 years from end of 2013! But wait...there's more absurdity...if they're reducing CO2 emissions by 106 million tonnes per year, the EU finally gets to zero CO2 emissions by year 2056 (43 years from end of 2013 - currently, the EU emissions per year are about 3.9 billion tonnes per year).
Well, it means the EU won't ever reach the 165 year mark in CO2 reductions to achieve a -0.01 degree impact. And two, over the next 43 years, despite the 106 million tonnes/year reduction, the EU will still emit another 74.5 billion tonnes in total. That translates into a global temperature impact of +0.04.
On top of this obvious futility from the EU's newest CO2 moral posturing, the other countries of the world will just keep emitting CO2, completely wiping out any reduction the EU achieves. Simply put, no one gives a flying f*#k what the EU does any longer - not Russia, not China, not India, not Brazil nor any other nation on the cusp of climbing out of economic poverty.
Even if other major emitters were to go along with the EU's preening, they will simply ignore their CO2 promises to protect their economies and their citizens. And what will the EU do do enforce their moral superiority? Hmmm...think Russia's wars with the Ukraine and Georgia or think Iran and nuclear weapons - yep, you're right, in diplomatic-speak, the EU can't and won't do squat.
The EU's latest CO2 self-righteousness is as worthless as used toilet paper and everyone knows it.
Update: Another way to view the proposed 2030 impact of the new EU's CO2 reduction scheme.
If the EU's existing CO2 reduction achievements since 1990 continued through 2030, total EU emissions would be 63.1 giga-tonnes.That would produce a global temp increase of +0.039.
If the proposed 40% CO2 emission reduction by 2030 can be achieved, total emissions from 2014 through 2030 would 50.3 giga-tonnes. And that would produce a +0.031 increase.
It would seem the EU's plans to spend directly/indirectly billions-to-trillions of Euros to reduce global temps, by maybe only 8-thousandths of a degree, is tantamount to collective insanity by the elites.
Note: Global temperature source; historical and modern CO2 emission tonnes used by the 'C3' estimator tool. This tool is a quick and dirty means to calculate CO2's impact on temperatures. More information here.
It has become an embarrassing national embarrassment regarding the Obama administration's allergic reaction to truth and facts...and climate science has not been spared from the White House dishonesty...a very recent example is the Obama claim that U.S. wildfires are worse...even NPR points out the inevitable Pinocchio.....
(click image for source)
As this NPR article documents (click on image), modern U.S. western region wildfire occurrence (and severity), despite the huge increase atmospheric CO2, is below what took place during historical and ancient times.
The latest research, including the three new studies cited by NPR, is unequivocal about this.
Yet the Obama White House and its science "advisor" tout recent wildfire anecdotal stories without a single reference to the actual empirical evidence of the past - and even no mention of the modern wildfire evidence.
Ahem...that for most people is known as 'lying,' plain and simple. Surprised?
As the world's populace nutrition improves, according tothe experts at Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the IPCC with its built-in political agenda to demonize CO2 and global warming, reports the opposite...lying is no longer even an art form for the fear-mongers of global warming and climate change catastrophe fantasies...it's blatant and brazen.....
(click on to enlarge)
The experts now estimate that the number of undernourished has decreased some 17%, from 1990 to 2103 - approximately 165 million less. Yet for the IPCC's 2014 AR5 report, they report an increase of 75 million.
There is no scientific reason, nor objective rationale for the IPCC misleading policymakers and the public so egregiously.
"Rather than using up-to-date FAO data showing a steady decline in undernourishment during a period of increasing temperatures (which they either were aware of or ought to have been aware of), the IPCC chose to feature an increase in an obsolete data set that had been previously highlighted in an “policy-relevant monograph” cited by IPCC. IPCC coyly described this earlier dataset as “provisional”...Why didn’t IPCC clearly report the long-term decline in undernourishment during a period of temperature increase. This is information that is relevant to policy-makers. And, in particular, why did IPCC highlight a supposed increase in “provisional” data (more precisely now long obsolete data) when the increase changed to a decrease in the up-to-date version of the data?...It’s hard to think of a good reason."
There's a dirty little secret about the major CO2 emission reductions Obama's EPA is proposing...cutting CO2 emissions will have an impact of just about squat on global temperatures and the EPA is hiding that inconvenient factoid.....
(click image to enlarge)
To the numbers:
===> The EPA is proposing a 30% reduction of power plant CO2 emissions from 2005 levels
===> The reductions are expected to reduce U.S. economic growth by some $2 trillion
===> Consumers of electricity can expect their rates to increase by 10% per year
===> The CO2 regulations will likely reduce employment by 600,000, plus make U.S. manufacturing (huge consumers of electricity) even less competitive
===> Finally, per an expert computer analysis of the CO2 reductions, based on the known physics of climate science, the expected global temperature increase by 2100AD will be smaller, by an immeasurable, undetectable, trivial 0.02 degree, and that's rounded up.
The chart tells the factual story.
The IPCC is predicting global temperatures to be about 16°C by 2100. And with the EPA reductions? They still expect global temperatures to be about 16 degrees (15.98°).
And if global temperatures exceed the IPCC prediction and climb to 18 or 20 degrees by 2100, what then will be the EPA reduction impact? Still squat, since the global temperature averted will not change from 0.02°C.
What could make this 'squat' result even more embarrassingly bad for Americans? The evil CO2 twins, China and India.
While the U.S. has reduced its emissions by 7% over the last 5 years, China and India have increased theirs a combined 32%. The EPA enforced CO2 reduction will not only make Americans poorer, any global warming reduction will be completely wiped out and vastly exceeded by other nation's (America's global competitors) huge CO2 increases.
Talk about freaking and amazingly stupid bureaucrats gone wild.
Even the progressive liberal New Republic recognizes the non-existent temperature impact of the Democrats' CO2 regulations on global warming:
"The goal of these regulations is not to stop global warming, but to prove to the international community that the U.S. is ready to pay additional costs to combat climate change."
To summarize: The Democratic Party and Obama are using EPA bureaucrats to deliver a meaningless symbolic "climate change" message to foreign elites, purposefully sacrificing and harming American labor, consumers and businesses. To top it off, Obama's regulations ultimately produces no climate benefit or global warming reduction.
Quack anti-science runs rampant among progressives and Democrats...a recent classic example was their 'cash-for-clunker' program.....
(click on image to enlarge)
The Democrats' 2009 plan to stop global warming, and stimulate the economy at the same time, turned out to be a major flop on all fronts.
This article provides a synopsis of the failed "clunkers" economic stimulation; this PDF provides a detailed 41-pages of analysis.
Regarding the impact on global warming, we need to turn to the math to assess the infamous "clunker" program.
First, from Wikipedia we know there are an estimated 270 million U.S. passenger vehicles as of the end of 2013.
Next, from the EPA we know the average U.S. vehicle emits some 4.75 metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
Using these two factoids, we can do the multiplication and determine that a year's worth of auto CO2 emissions would weigh-in at approximately 1,282,500,000 tonnes.
That's a lot (1.3 billion tonnes 'a lot'). But would it affect global warming if the U.S. were to ban all passenger vehicle driving for a year and elimanate all those tonnes in one fell swoop?
The simple 'C3' estimating tool provides the answer to that. Observe the global warming impact that has a green square drawn around it in the above image - the temperature impact is zero.
Yes, that's right, banning all car and light truck driving for a year in the U.S. will have zilch impact on global temperatures. (Btw, if U.S. vehicle emissions were double, the impact would still be nothing - try 2.6 billion in the 'C3' estimator to check it out.)
Regarding the 'cash-for-clunkers' program, there were a total of 660,000 clunkers disposed of, and for our math, we assume that they spewed twice the amount of CO2 - 9.5 metric tonnes per year instead of 4.75. When the multiplication is completed, it means the "clunkers" total CO2 emissions removed from the road came to 6,270,000 tonnes (millions, not billions).
What would happen to global warming if the Democrats ran the 'ClunkerCare' program each of the next 20 years and never allowed a single replacement of the junked, CO2 belching jalopies with newer, more efficient cars?
Again, the 'C3' estimating tool provides the answers, which are the resulting numbers with a cyan circle around them on the above image. Whoo-wee...it's zero impact again, even after 20 years of ClunkerCare.
Hey, did we mention progressive quacks yet? Democratic anti-science?
Since the Congressional staged testimony by NASA in the summer of 1988, anti-growth Democrats and greens have made it their primary purpose to spread climate fear-mongering.
And the liberal/left mainstream press reporters, and those renowned Hollywood (delusional?) "scientists," have gleefully cooperated by pushing non-scientific claptrap, such as CO2 emissions will turn Earth's atmosphere into Venus-like temperatures; oceans will soon be boiling; winter snow will disappear; Manhattan Island will be submerged by the seas; and let's not forget this latest Democrat Party, bizarro, anti-science, climate hysteria - women will be forced into prostitution. (My god, these people are either incredibly stupid or unrepentant pathological liars...take your pick.)
Despite Americans being punished with this continuous onslaught of climate change over-the-top fabrications and global warming lies, they're not buying the blatantly bogus B.S. As a testament to the gross failure of the Democrats' fear-based propaganda, the above 2013 Pew poll (click on to enlarge) depicts what Americans think of the priority and importance of climate change - dead last.
Now compound this massive propaganda failure by the anti-growth Democrats with this week's latest climate science news from the world's premier science journal and a leading global warming alarmist scientist: natural ocean oscillations are responsible for Earth's modern temperature changes, not human CO2.
What does all this mean in the context of politics? There is an incredible GOP opportunity to win 2014 elections.....a lot!
The green/left/liberal progressive Democrats' anti-science propaganda does not work. The global warming unicorn science they still rely on has failed all empirical validation, according to leading climate experts. American voters and their common sense understand this.
The GOP elites need to seize the day - they have been handed a huge opportunity by the Democrats that is theirs for the keeping. And the EU governments are even providing the GOP candidates with magnificent air cover.
The public during 2014 should be reminded on a daily basis that Democrats were wrong, again and again, and that the pro-growth, safe-environment Republicans were right. The actual empirical science and the polls provide a firm platform to steamroll the Democrats in November 2014.
And when you combine the climate lies with the backlash regarding the over-the-top Obamacare lies, a GOP-majority in the U.S. Senate becomes a very achievable goal.
In a nutshell, the "policymaker community" is the bureaucracy-engine that is responsible for all the lies designed to mislead the public, journalists and elected officials. To accomplish this, the IPCC bureaucracy utilizes "decision-based evidence making", which is explained in this short video. (video source)
To the folks whose livelihoods are based on coal and power generation: Don't worry! Obama's long-term economic strategy is just now being teed-up.
As the new EPA administrator explains.
"Administrator McCarthy told Harvard law students that EPA regulations
to control greenhouse gas emissions have a purpose altogether distinct
from global warming. “The truth,” she said,
“is we need to embrace cutting carbon pollution as a way to spark
business innovation. We need to cut carbon pollution to grow jobs. We
need to cut carbon pollution to strengthen the economy.
OK….Climate regulations aren’t about the climate; rather, they’re
about “growing jobs” and “strengthening the economy.” Which makes sense
only in newspeak."
Obama EPA puts 13 Illinois coal plants on verge of closure — 2000 jobs to disappear
"Workers at the state’s coal-fired power plants are all worried about the same thing: whether they will lose their jobs.
Owners of the plants have been squeezed by regulations forcing expensive pollution control upgrades at the same time cheaper sources of fuel have rendered the plants unprofitable. In the next two years, legal decisions affecting roughly two-thirds of the state’s coal-fired power plants are expected to determine whether those plants have any future…"
Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi wanted to force the U.S. economy to a regulated 'cap and trade' straitjacket policy for CO2 emissions. This was the failed scheme that Australia and the EU actively pursued, and the U.S Democrats wanted to mimic.
The American public, and most Republicans, wanted nothing to do with 'cap & trade' straitjacket regulations, but instead desired a free market approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
And, as it now turns out, the American public and Republicans were a lot smarter than Obama, Pelosi and the incredibly dull leaders of Australia and the EU. Since 2006, the U.S. has led the world in reducing CO2 emissions and did it without bureaucratic mandates that politicians across the globe love.
Conclusion: The amazing and flexible free market in the U.S. has been responsible for the impressive and global-leading CO2 reductions, not the U.S. government and its stifling bureaucracy.
Hey, with that said about the wrong-way Democrats, Nancy sure does look great though, eh?
The global warming debate is over, not - this debate will never end but the latest polls show that empirical evidence the skeptics utilize wins the debate, and the alarmists, with their never-ending hysterical catastrophic claims, lose the public debate (and the public)
Adding to the malaise and misery of the advocates of Climategate doom and gloom science, the alarmists' climate models have proven to be consistently and robustly wrong.
The continuing preponderance of evidence that proves the alarmist chicken-little to be wrong has taken its toll, as the polls document. Indeed, the public at large is thumbing its collective noses at the hysterical claims proven to be without empirical merit.
Poll #1:"According to a paper published in the April 2012 edition of Nature Climate Change, the results of 74 different opinion surveys from 2002-2010 show US public concern about climate change reached a high point of 54% in 2007 and declined to about 44% in 2010."
Poll #2: "Swedish politicos ‘don’t buy climate change’...Six of ten local politicians in Sweden doubt whether human activity is to blame for global warming, a new study has found."
Poll #3: "Gallup asked Americans to say how much they worry about each of seven environmental problems. All show significantly less worry today than in 2000, when worry was at or near its high point for each item...Concern about global warming is lowest of the seven environmental issues tested..."
Poll #4:"'Fewer Americans today believe there is a scientific consensus than did so during the 2000s... after peaking in 2010, public skepticism about global warming softened slightly in 2011, and remains at lower level this year...Today's level of belief that global warming is similar to what Gallup found in 1997 & from 2001-2005' -- 42% say media exaggerate the seriousness, a higher amount than it was for much of the past decade'"
Poll #5: "According to the Lowy Institute's annual poll, Australians are losing their conviction on climate change. The last poll, published in June 2011 showed that just 41 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement, "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs" down from a whopping 68 per cent in 2006."
Conclusion: The alarmist claim that the global warming debate is over dies on the jagged shoals of empirical evidence and public opinion. The continuous stream of catastrophic climate change scenarios and gross misinformation has proven to be non-effective. Thus, expect more of the same.
The ever growing global warming science facts continue to make a shambles of the IPCC's and MSM's case that catastrophic global warming is ravaging Earth and humanity - the lies, myths and hysteria crumble under evidentiary weight
(click on images to enlarge)
The UN's IPCC's Climategate scientists and the mainstream media have been at the forefront of a concerted effort to both mislead and frighten policymakers and the public about CO2 emissions and hypothetical catastrophic results from modern global warming.
The perversion of climate science and the past complicity of the MSM in global warming alarmism propaganda is not only stunning but amazingly continues, despite all empirical evidence contrary to the fabricated alarmism.
Click on the rightmost image and read what the mainstream press recently wrote, in reference to hysterical alarmism. Now read what really happened. The simple facts are, one cannot trust any science "reporting" done by the MSM, let alone its coverage of global warming. For actual global warming and climate change facts and objective analysis, the higher quality information sources are here.
The leftmost image reveals the current condition of the modern "accelerating" global warming that both the IPCC and MSM claim is happening. This objective empirical evidence (from NASA / GISS - James Hansen's - climate research unit clearly indicates that over the last 15 years, through April 2012, that global warming is basically non-existent and that human CO2 has had little impact.
Finally, the damning revelations grow in the case of the bogus 'hockey stick' science that was perpetrated by the IPCC and the MSM - that science being that modern warming was "unprecedented" versus prior historical periods. The middle chart now confirms that the perversion of climate science for the glory of global warming alarmism was recklessly pursued, which is unequivocally corroborated by this newest evidence. Past historical temperature charts.
Conclusion: Global warming science facts have completely demolished the lies, myths and hysteria of the IPCC and the MSM. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, these "institutions" don't falter in their pursuit of a political agenda based on falsehoods. For an expanding cornucopia of reasons, no longer does either institution deserve the belief or trust of the public.
The electric car advantages that the Obama administration touts turns out to be a giant scam perpetrated by the EPA bureaucrats - you know, the same bureaucrats 'crucifying' the fossil fuel energy industry in order to make energy costs skyrocket
Read here. Numerous persons, from a wide variety of political persuasions, are making it clear they are not happy with the miles-per-gallon fraud that Obama's EPA is foisting on the public. Simply put, if an all electric vehicle has an EPA mileage rating of 99 mpg (MPGe), such as the Nissan Leaf, in reality it is only getting 36 mpg.
The EPA fraud is the improper accounting of all the fossil fuels used to produce the electricity to power an all electric car. There is a correct accounting method readily available but the Obama EPA team chose an inferior method that allows electric car firms to claim huge fraudulent mileage statistics. For the details of how the EPA fraud is done, check out these articles: here, here and here.
And btw, don't expect any of Obama's consumer protection agencies to bring the EPA up on consumer fraud charges or criminally crucify the bureaucrat scum culprits.
Conclusion: The electric car advantages are mostly illusionary, which the EPA and Obama administration knows. Instead of being honest and transparent, the EPA decided to put lipstick on the EV pig, which is not flying well with consumer advocates, so-to-speak. To determine the true MPG of an EV, divide the EPA's MPGe published figure for any electric car and then divide by 3 - voila, that gives you close to the legit MPG.
Read here. The Tesla electric car is produced by a company run by a whiny corporate billionaire and taxpayer welfare mooch - to the tune of $450 million in U.S. taxpayer loans provided by Obama. What did Obama see in the company? Great question, and btw, don't expect the loan to be repaid, ever.
Tesla introduced their EV Roadster back in 2008 with much fanfare but in 2011 announced they would quit producing it - lackluster sales did the car in. And now the Roadster owners are finding out that if the car is parked too long the batteries go dead, for good.
The batteries represent about one-fifth the EV's sticker price, which comes out to approximately $40,000.00. Ouch!
"DON'T leave your electric car parked for too long - by the time you get back it could have turned into a $200,000 brick. Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "bricks" that could not be re-charged...Electric car maker Tesla is defending claims its cars become immobilised if the battery ever becomes completely discharged. This results in a battery replacement cost of about one-fifth the car's $206,000 sticker price...Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "BRICKS" that could not be re-charged."
Unfortunately, Tesla's electric car advanatges, known as batteries, are not the only expensive ones on the market. To replace battereis in any of the current EV's on the market is incredibly expensive, especially if they frequently catch fire. The good news? When it's time for resale or trade-in, the wealthy owners of these vehicles will receive just karma for leeching off the average taxpayer.
Read here. The rash of Volt fires during early 2012 put the kibosh on sales of the electric 4-wheel barbeques, but during March 2012 they became red-hot (ooops) again. March sales figures were...ahem...'on fire' as each Chevy dealer sold at least three-quarters of a Volt each for the entire month...hot damn!
That March sales figure represents a huuuge 277% increase over the previous month sales figure! That translates to Volt sales taking a giant leap of...well...er...from 0.27 Volts per dealer to that red-hot figure of 0.76 volts per dealer. Woooweee....now we're cookin with gas batteries!
This 'Government Motors' (Uncle Sam owns 26% of GM) electric vehicle sales fiasco has been a overdone turkey for the taxpayer since Day 1. But for the wealthy who purchase this rolling $40,000+ Weber grill, they get subsidized by all the rest of us to the tune of $7,500, which Obama now wants increased to $10,000, per wealthy consumer. OMG, thank you Obamamama.
Now that is some really ugly Volt arithmetic for the average person to swallow, but wait.....it gets worse:
"The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle...GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized."
Conclusion: The electric car advantages are real for Obama's cronies and really, really ugly for taxpayers. We are paying Government Motors between $50,000-$250,000 per Volt that GM sells for $41,000.00. Damn that car is hot!
Electric car advantages disappear for the Obama-funded Fisker EV - Consumer Reports can't complete tests of Fisker due to its failing after only 180 miles
(click on image to pleasantly enlarge)
Read here. Good looking car, better looking battery charger - does she do maintenance too?
The electric vehicle initiative from the Obama team has been a colossal example of failed leadership and the incompetence of a Democrat / liberal government. The inept Obama loaned Fisker, a Finnish company, tax-payer multi-millions to build a $100,000 plus vehicle in Finland, not in the U.S.
Obama crony capitalism at its worst
Sooo.....what could go wrong? Well, Consumer Reports discovered the real electric car "advantages" when its test Fisker EV went kaput after only 180 miles. Like all of Obama's green expenditures (billions of dollars over past three years) this was another failure that reveals why governments should not be wasting tax-payer dollars subsidizing Al Gore and wealthy consumers.
p.s. Hey, can I keep the charger if my "Fisker" fails?
Within the realm of climate change / global warming alarmism, there are scientists who practice admitted fraud, such as Peter Gleick, then there are those who practice incompetence - meet the extraordinarily "incompetent" Jeff Masters of wunderground.com
The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.
Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.
Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.
The final word on the "incompetent" Jeff Masters: obviously, ignorant of severe weather history and also appears to be a serial exaggerator to boot.
The NAS has issued a report that confirms the obvious climate science disaster: billions wasted on climate models - they still can't predict squat
(click image to enlarge)
Willis Eschenbach reviews a recent National Academy of Science report on climate change and reveals nothing new has been learned - the depressing outcome remains unchanged: billions wasted on climate models.
After decades of of government bureaucrat scientists' effort, and billions invested on massive hardware and software improvements, the IPCC, NASA and NOAA climate models still predict that a doubling of CO2 levels will produce a 1.5°C to a 3.0°C global temperature change.
That's the same prediction that the climate models and ancient computer technology produced back in the 80's and here's how bad that "expert" prediction is looking now.
"And after the millions of hours of human effort, after the millions and millions of dollars gone into research, after all of those million-fold increases in computer speed and size, and after the phenomenal increase in model sophistication and detail … the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn’t narrowed in any significant fashion. It’s still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979."
Conclusion:Climate models are worthless as climate change prediction tools. Literally, billions wasted on climate models without any noteworthy prognostication benefit.
Left / Progressive politically correct anti-science claims more scientific scalps as Purdue researcher declares the walnut tree is endangered by global warming
Read here. Most U.S. colleges, are controlled by liberal / left-wing oriented faculty and administrators that wholeheartedly embrace politically correct science. To put it another way, non-empirical, anti-science results, driven by Democrat / progressive political agendas, are the cat's pajamas for academia. Purdue University is no exception.
"I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive."
For most scientists at Purdue, human-induced global warming is the villain that causes almost all known and future ills of civilization. The list is long but there is always room for one more. And now, oh thank goodness!, a scientist has found a new climate change threat that Purdue can take credit for. To paraphrase the Purdue scientist: "climate change will kill the walnut tree."
He declares this outcome as a testament to his anti-science AGW faith. He declares this yet this same tree species has survived many extreme climate changes (warming and cooling) over millions of years. How extreme?
Well, just over the last 10,000 years, said walnut trees have existed through the major climate changes the adjacent chart reveals.
At the bottom is a pink bar that represents an approximate 1 degree increase in climate since the trough of the Little Ice Age. In contrast, the bars above the pink one represent much greater swings in climate over prior periods.
Clearly, the walnut tree species is a survivor of extreme change. It remains a hearty and enduring specimen today (read the linked article) that will weather well any changes that the climate over the next few centuries throws at it.
Regarding this Purdue scientist though, history is not likely to treat him well. He sacrificed his and Purdue's credibility to the anti-science god of political correctness, which anyone with an internet connection can quickly eviscerate and prove to be bogus.
Read here. The United Nations and European Union elites and bureaucrats must possess that unique combination of being idiot-savants and pathological liars. The people that continue to massively mismanage the global economy and financial markets, also claim that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol for CO2 emissions was a resounding success. It was sooooo successful that they now want a Kyoto II.
In fact, the empirical evidence clearly shows the Kyoto Protocol to be an abysmal failure. Instead of reducing CO2 emissions by 5.2% of the 1990 base year, actual 2010 CO2 emissions were some 46% higher and 2011 emissions are likely to be even higher. The UN and EU experts predicted the 5.2% reduction by year 2012.
Did we say abysmal failure yet? (click on any above chart to enlarge)
The leftmost chart at top is total global CO2 emissions starting in 1965. Despite the UN and EU forcing the majority of countries to become Kyoto signatories, the CO2 emissions just kept on growing.
The middle chart reveals that the U.S., without signing or agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, reduced per capita emissions the most. The EU, the principal Kyoto promoter, failed to match the U.S. accomplishments - completely opposite of what the UN experts predicted.
The final chart on the right documents the vast superiority of the U.S. free market approach to CO2 emissions: over the 2-year period ending 2010, the U.S. has robustly led the world in reducing emissions, without the penalty of the failed Kyoto regulations.
However, this incredible failure of a predicted outcome by the EU/UN elites is not admitted to. Instead, their mass stupidity, self-delusion and arrogance has pushed them to propose the Kyoto II protocols. Simply amazing.
This gross failure of the Kyoto has an additional twist. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, one of today's infamous Climategate's scientist estimated that if all countries signed and actually reduced emissions by 5.2% the impact on global warming would be an almost immeasurable 0.05 degree reduction.
"There has been some discussion over the years regarding Tom Wigley’s 1998 estimate that even if Kyoto were to be 100% successful in meeting its targets, it would only have reduced temperatures by an estimated 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050. Since Wigley was and is a strong supporter of Kyoto, this was a significant admission. Kyoto has been a crazy waste of money, Kyoto nations have spent billions and billions of dollars on the off-chance of cooling the earth by an amount too small to be measured..."
Conclusion: All the EU elites have managed to accomplish is to waste their taxpayer billions on regulations that don't work, destroyed multiple EU economies and the EU currency in the process, while making sure to enrich wealthy investors and corrupt friends in bogus green energy scams. Simply brilliant, no?
The UN's Climategate scientists and bureaucrats continue pushing the "severe weather" lies at Durban IPCC climate conference
Since time immemorial, humans have been talking about how bad the weather has been over the 'past year' or over the 'past growing season.' This uniquely human trait is often exhibited throughout the ancient text of the Bible. Yet the corrupt United Nations and its Climategate perpetrators continue to claim that recent bad weather is actually only due to "global warming" and human CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately for the UN 'liars of Durban,' the world's previous severe weather incidents includes a gigantic list of bad weather events happening well before dangerous CO2 levels.
In addition, the immense preponderance of modern climate peer-reviewed studies can find no connection between human CO2 emissions and modern severe weather.
And now, adding further empirical evidence misery to the UN's Climategate liars' claims, comes this startling factoid: severe hurricane landfalls in the U.S. have plummeted over the last 6 years!
Combine these type of actual facts with the recent extreme weather science report that is being suppressed at Durban ("Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability"), and it is no wonder that public and policymaker support for global warming and climate change policies has crumbled over the last few years - bureaucracy lies and science corruption usually have that sort of outcome, thankfully.
The 'Yale 360' body allergic to empirical data and objective science regarding ocean acidification and climate change
Read here. Green fraud is endemic within the academic community and is a major reason why the public now view science with less esteem. The Yale 360 forum provides further proof that the academia realm is less interested in honest science than in perpetuating the green fraud hysteria of climate change.
Case in point. A green propagandist, Elizabeth Grossman, had her hysterical ocean acidification article published by Yale 360. The article claims that a massive oyster die-off was caused by ocean acidification, which is supposedly caused by human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the public, this Yale 360 article is another "gross" misrepresentation of scientific truth and the actual empirical evidence.
Sooo...why did the oysters at the oyster farm really die? Here are the real science reasons that Yale 360 and Grossman decided the public really did not want to know:
Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low
Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 – 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone
When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 – 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated
Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions
A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment
High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks
There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings
In essence, natural climate change, in the form of ENSO, causes cold water of the Pacific to rise to the surface during certain periods. This colder water has a higher concentration of CO2 gas. The fish hatchery pumps the cold water into the farm tanks and then heats the water. This act of heating the cold water then causes it to become CO2 super-saturated. In addition, the freshly pumped sea water contains higher levels of bacteria (associated with a specific natural ENSO climate mode) dangerous to the oyster larvae/juveniles.
Voila, a perfect storm of predictable factors cause a die-off of farm oysters, robustly a result of natural climatic conditions. Atmospheric CO2 levels and human CO2 emissions had nothing to do with this incident.
Conclusion: The academic-oriented Yale 360 environmental forum is not to be believed on any climate change or ocean acidification issue, as it is more a forum of green hysteria that is incredibly vulnerable to perpetuating scary green myths and anti-science fraud B.S.
Read here and here. The below cartoon by Josh is perfect. The prominent and famous climate alarmist scientists are just besides themselves in their attempts to deal with the disappearance of the hypothetical CO2-induced global warming.
The growth of infighting among the UN's favored climate scientists confirms the obvious - human CO2 emissions are not producing the alarmists' infamous "accelerating" warming, and CO2 is not the cause of whatever climate change that they believe is actually taking place.
More importantly, a major, well known climate scientist's comments regarding her reflections about famous alarmist scientists is simply stunning. Dr. Judith Curry (JC) has her say......(let's hope she has irrevocable tenure)
Kevin Trenberth: "The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected." JC question for Kevin Trenberth: "Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming."
Susan Solomon: “What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,”. JC message to Susan Solomon: "maybe you should have been listening to what the skeptics have been saying for the last several decades."
John Daniel: “We make a mistake, anytime the temperature goes up, you imply this is due to global warming,” he said. “If you make a big deal about every time it goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.” JC comment: "Well somebody had to finally say this, thank you John Daniel."
Ben Santer: “This no-warming-since-1998 discussion has prompted people to think about the why and try to understand the why,” Santer said. “But it’s also prompted people to correct these incorrect claims.” JC comment: "Too bad this didn’t prompt Santer and others to wonder how much further along we would all be in understanding this if they had paid some attention to the skeptics."
Judith Lean: Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and “that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player,” Lean said. “And that they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.” JC summary: "Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling. The light bulbs seem to be just turning on in your heads over the last two years. Think about all the wasted energy fighting the “deniers” when they could have been listening, trying to understand their arguments, and making progress to increase our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change."
As they say, read the whole thing(s), here and here.
How does the BEST temperature dataset relate to the datasets of the major climate agencies? Using the BEST monthly anomaly data and the handy Excel correlation function, since 2001 the BEST dataset matches up quite well with the NCDC and CRU data, as the adjacent chart shows.
In essence, when NCDC and CRU temperatures 'zig,' the BEST temps are probably doing the same.
And GISS temps? Not so well. In fact, it's the worst. In contrast, when BEST and the other agency anomalies are 'zigging,' GISS is likely to be 'zagging.' This GISS divergence problem also extends to its performance versus the RSS and UAH satellite datasets, as previously pointed out by skeptics.
Why doesn't the GISS dataset comport with climate reality as documented by other sources and experts? Hmmm...one thinks global warming fame and fortune is not likely to visit those who report modest or little warming.
Since it is now clear that GISS isn't up to the "BEST" standards of science, and there is no good reason for NASA to be in the temperature reporting business in the first place, it's time to fold the GISS tent and save taxpayers some money - outsource the GISS efforts to BEST and be done with it.
Now that BEST has shown GISS to be a wasteful, error-prone (remember the Y2K error) redundancy, maybe it's time to shine a bright light on the idiocy emanating from NOAA's NCDC - their temperature dataset should also be on the hot seat of scrutiny also.
Here is an agency that seemingly has the bizarre mission to change historical temperature anomalies on a monthly basis - literally, every single month. Take the very first month of the NCDC temperature dataset, January 1880. Over the past six months, NCDC has changed the January 1880 anomaly six (6) times.
Sept. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0443
Aug. 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0474
July 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0468
June 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0444
May 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0439
April 2011 version of January 1880: -0.0428
And it's not just a single month they perform this type of climate science magic on. When NCDC reported the anomalies dataset for the September 2011 reporting period, NCDC had changed every single historical month's anomaly as reported in the August 2011 dataset. They changed all 1,580 months of past temperature reporting, adding in a cumulative warming of +0.0966 in a single stroke! Did we say bizarre yet?
The folks at HadCRU don't practice this blatant monthly form of "global warming" revisionism. The folks at GISS aren't constantly revising historical temperature reporting on a monthly basis. And it's hard to imagine that BEST research team would condone, let alone practice, this style of empirical climate evidence tampering.
If BEST plays their cards right and performs in an upright, objective manner, it's not hard imagining that all of the GISS and NCDC temperature measurement/reporting efforts (not necessarily climate analysis and modeling) being on the chopping block. This would likely result in the U.S. finally having a 'BEST'-of-breed global surface temperature reporting system that could be taken seriously by all sides of the debate.
The actual quotes of those proposing massive reductions in CO2 emissions are most revealing, and pretty damning as to their true motivations.
Words alone do not suffice, though. Below are new visual depictions of the forced taxpayer/consumer funding of "green" lobby/activists - literally, billions funneled into anti-democratic organizations with the clear intention of clamping a yoke on the necks of humanity. No doubt about it, the pseudo-green alarmists making up the "green" machine are truly evil.
Click to enlarge images. Source of image one; image two; image three.
Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."
Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.
The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.
Read here. The climate science peer review journal process has become just a total joke, with editors and reviewers constantly embarrassing themselves and their respective publications. The latest examples of biased hackdom include Eric Calais of Purdue University and Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford, editors for the AGU's Geophysical Research Letters.
The AGU treatment of scientist Roger Pielke Jr. by its minions should come as no surprise though, since these editors are likely the useful idiots of AGU board members pushing non-scientific political agendas.
How bad is the process at the Geophysical Research Letters? Read the whole thing, then weep and/or laugh - it's really that bad at this publication.
"So you have two reviews that find the paper publishable, one recommending publication and the other coming down on the side of finding the paper "publishable" but certainly not enthusiastically...As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor's judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL."
Thank you, Chris Mooney and the useful idiots of the academic world - destroying science and the journals with political correctness one step at a time.
Read here. The Worldwide Wildlife Federation (WWF) is a major green, anti-growth and anti-prosperity entity that appears to have unleashed an effective means to corrupt (ruin?) the IPCC process, its climate scientists and even a concerned public.
Step 1: Bribe the public with domestic and international travel reimbursement to report their own perceptions/reality of climate change - e.g. "I believe it now rains more in York".
Step 2: Bribe climate scientists with travel, leading conferences and hob-knobing amongst the wealthy and government elites by joining the WWF's "Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel".
Step 3: Then have these same pliable IPCC "climate scientists" take the publics reported perceptions and re-package them as supposed empirical evidence from actual scientific endeavors, with a persona of scientific gravitas.
Step 4: The WWF then sponsors or produces "scientific" reports using the results of steps 1 through 3 as the basis for the reports.
Step 5: The WWF compromised IPCC climate scientists then accept these WWF contrived-science reports as scientific gospel, positioning them as peer reviewed papers, when in fact they're the worst form of grey literature.
Literally, the strong stink of corrupted science is hard to ignore or dismiss with these new revelations.
"It is difficult to believe that any self-respecting scientist would have anything to do with the Climate Witness Panel after reading those eight pages. The WWF states baldly, right up front, that the purpose of the panel is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency. That particular phrase is used four times on the final page...In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to:
"inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat."
No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement."
Because the UN and governing elites did not fix the IPCC's Pachauri-problem, this type of climate science debasement by global warming alarmism proponents will also robustly taint the IPCC's 2013 report, as it destroyed the credibility of the 2007 report.
Read here. The violence-prone and globally discredited Ben Santer has Climategate friends (Kevin Trenberth and Andy Dessler) who recently claimed that the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study is invalid because it did not include prior research to their liking.
Now we have Ben Santer, Carl A. Mears, C. Doutriaux, Peter Martin Caldwell, Peter J. Gleckler, Tom M.L. Wigley, Susan Solomon, Nathan Gillett, Detelina P. Ivanova, Thomas R. Karl, John R. Lanzante, Gerald A. Meehl, Peter A. Stott, Karl E Taylor, Peter Thorne, Michael F. Wehner, Frank J. Wentz publishing a study that totally ignores the challenge of previous, pivotal research by Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010.
Hmmmm.....pot meet kettle, eh?
"Santer et al ignored an important paper...Trends are computed for different time periods (e.g. see figure 2 in Christy et al 2010), and should have been compared with the model predictions...The failure of Santer et al to include a very relevant paper with respect to their analysis is one of the justifications for Wolfgang Wagner to resign from Remote Sensing in response to claims that Spencer and Braswell (S&B) ignored relevant papers that disagreed with S&B."
Fair is fair.....Santer et al. is simply discredited due to this lack of respect for the new era of Climategate-style research. Santer needs to apologize to the previous research authors for this gross lack of scientific research rigor, and he could also finally apologize for threatening another climate scientist with violent harm while off his meds. ;-)
Read here. New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work's shoddiness.
Supposedly, Dessler's new research was to be a refutation of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study that revealed clouds were likely to be a negative climate feedback. Instead of doing an apple-to-apple comparison though, Dessler chose a different temperature dataset (a non-consensus dataset avoided by the IPCC) than the Spencer research.
Unfortunately, the choice of non-HadCRUT, non-IPCC dataset, reflects the unbridled cherry-picking temptation that the Dessler research fell victim to. If the HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC benchmark that Spencer research followed, then Dessler should have met the scientific challenge by using the same best-of-breed data that the IPCC demands.
It now seems obvious that Dessler knew his research would falter if based on the gold-standard of the IPCC. If this wasn't the case, why not use the gold-standard?
Even with his cherry-picking of the dataset, Dessler research does not hold up to the statistical scrutiny that Steve McIntyre brings to the table. It didn't take long for Steve to ascertain that the positive cloud feedback that Dessler claims might not be so "positive."
"Doing the same regression with 4-month lagged relationships (which both Dessler and SB agree to be more significant than the instantaneous relationship), the sign of the slope is reversed. Whereas Dessler 2010 had reported a slope of 0.54 +- 0.72 (2σ) W/m2/K, the regression with lagged variables is -0.90 +- 0.95 w/m2/K and has better diagnostics...Given that the even the lagged relationship is weak, I’m reluctant to say that analysis using the methods of Dessler 2010 established a negative feedback, but it does seem to me that they cannot be said to have established the claimed positive feedback...Perhaps the editor of Science will send a written apology to Kevin Trenberth."
Objectively, if the Dessler rushed peer reviewed research is the best that mainstream climate scientists can deliver against the Spencer and Braswell study, then it's a case closed. Clouds do appear to be a negative feedback mechanism within the climate system as the Spencer 2011 work suggests.
That great climate "scientist," whose political hack and anti-science behavior is widely condoned by the scientific "elite" establishment, is at it again. Kevin Trenberth has forced the editor of a science journal not only to resign his position, but to personally write Trenberth a humiliating apology note. Why?
Read here and here. Trenberth, and his IPCC Climategate comrades, did not like the fact that said editor allowed an article to be published in the Remote Sensing journal without his approval.
Of course, we've written about Trenberth before, not in the kindest terms. To our way of thinking, he is the epitome of a political hack scientist performing mediocre science, using his position of power to destroy reputations and lives of those who challenge his scientific opinions - hey, his most recent actions are living proof of that and are robustly indisputable.
Read here. To be fair, in terms of CO2-climate science how good is Trenberth? Does the benefit of his CO2-climate science skill/capabilities outweigh the costs of his poisonous, unprofessional and ugly behavior in the realm of science?
Well, he's the one, long on record, saying additional CO2 emissions would increase the frequency and intensity of severe weather events. And, as with almost all his climate predictions and speculation, Trenberth has been wrong (as shown in the below charts - click on images to enlarge). Ergo, his climate science skill is at best mediocre.
All images from JoNova site. Arrows added by 'C3'.As clearly shown, the increase of CO2 emissions has not caused Trenberth's predicted increase in severe weather frequency and intensity.
Trenberth even confirmed the bogosity of his brand of IPCC "climate science" with his infamous "travesty" comment in the Climategate emails regarding the lack of global warming. His mediocrity as a climate scientist is readily apparent, from even his own lips.
Speaking of resignations, reflecting back on the last few years, is it time for Trenberth to resign his American taxpayer funded position because of his personal vendettas against those he disagrees with? Is it time for Trenberth to resign because of the irreparable harm he is doing to the general science community's reputation with his bizarre, ego-driven behavior?
Is it finally time for Trenberth to apologize to the American taxpayer for being such an incompetent climate scientist? (In all honesty, a freaking Ouija board would produce better results than Trenberth et al., without a hint of the viciousness and ugliness.)
Read here. Is it any wonder that the liberal/left/progressive/Democrat political spectrum is falling out of favor with the public when there are clowns like Nye, Masters, McKibben, Gore and others pushing their anti-science and anti-prosperity agendas.
Dr. Ryan Maue does an excellent fisking of Bill Nye's TV performance/science regarding Hurricane Irene. It's not pretty.
"But Bill Nye takes the “anti-science” crusade to a new level by showing up on Fox Business...and embarrassing the hell out of himself. Once you watch the video and read the transcript, you will be left in amazement at his utter lack of comprehension of the topic at hand on national television!...The left actually thinks Bill Nye is a brilliant ambassador for their brand of global warming alarmism — a legitimate guy that understands the science and can articulate an explanation. However, Nye has no credentials or expertise with respect to global warming and hurricanes, at all. Not one iota."
Read here. Why is GM producing an ultra-expensive electric vehicle (an engineering marvel) that lacks a big market and is essentially a sales flop? Did we say massive taxpayer subsidies that guarantee profits for GM, yet?
Thanks, Obama! Just what the average American needs during an economic depression - a green "Edsel" by GM.
"This is so obvious that you’d think it might have also occurred to the people running GM. It probably did – but the reason it doesn’t matter to them is that the Volt (like the Tesla) is a taxpayer-funded money machine for GM. Even if they never sell enough cars to make an honest profit, there’s already been a huge profit to GM in the form of massive federal subsidies and of course, the massive bailout of GM itself back in 2008...Why not throw money at the electric car boondoggle? After all, it’s not GM’s money...we have a billion-dollar electric car boondoggle. And not only won’t they (GM and Tesla) take the hint and quit, they’ll keep at it – demanding more tax dollars, more subsidies, more rebates to “encourage” sales of these otherwise unsalable electric Edsels."
Read here. The mega-rich, Republican or Democrat, have a high propensity to be fantastically hypocritical about a wide variety of issues, especially those concerning the climate and the environment. The classic case is the super-rich talking about their concern about "global warming" and then proceed to walk a lifestyle that is diametrically opposed to their talk.
It's bad enough when we are lectured by the likes of super-hypocrites such as Ted Turner, Richard Branson, Oprah, Bill Gates and etc., but it becomes insufferable when a billionaire candidate for president talks about his "global warming" concerns and then blatantly acts in accordance with his internal compass that is stuck on massive material greed.
Mitt Romney is such a mega-rich presidential candidate:
"Mitt Romney is looking to quadruple the size of his $12 million California home, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports...The GOP presidential candidate has filed an application with the San Diego government to bulldoze the 3,009-square-foot beachfront house in La Jolla and replace it with a 11,062-square-foot property...In addition to the California house and a townhouse outside of Boston, which is their official primary residence, the Romneys own a $10 million vacation home on the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, N.H."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) The green hysteria movement led by such shrill and depressing personalities as Al Gore, Joe Romm and Bill McKibben would make any young person feel pathologically hopeless, irritably moody and very angry. And as prisoners of government run education propaganda institutions these young people get a double, and sometimes triple, dose of daily hysteria about the world dying off because of global warming. The end result?
A young generation that doesn't give a crap since life will soon end for them because almost certainly Gaia is going to kill them off at a early age - as they were made to believe. With that attitude instilled by the lunatic greens, is it any wonder that they go off and riot against the establishment?
Maybe it's time to start holding each and every green organization legally responsible for the needless hysteria and over-the-top fearmongering they publish and proselytize, no?
"Got kids? Watched as they've been indoctrinated - sorry, I mean educated - about global warming over the last decade? Then you'll know what I mean. They come home from school moodily depressed about the future of our planet and, of course, what that means for their own lives. What's the point? We're all doomed! Why study? Why bother getting an education? It's futile. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are soaring. Soon we'll all be living in a polluted hell-hole constantly battling the equivalent of the Queensland floods or the Victorian bushfires year upon year. And you want me to waste what precious time I have left studying accountancy?...It's called nihilism, and it's even more terrifying to witness in your teenage children than hickeys, drunkenness, truancy, insolence, idleness, bad marks or bullying. Nihilism, or the conviction that life on Earth is totally pointless, saps the young of their energy, their ambition, and their will to strive, struggle and triumph."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Welcome to the wacky world of "consensus" science where anything and everything is tied to global warming. A new study, if interpreted literally, would mean the world could reduce global warming potential if rain forests were reduced in size instead of encouraging their growth in size, which was the original desired outcome.
The key to this study's findings is that a growing forest has increased leaf and twig litter that decomposes into additional CO2 emissions.
Soooooo....if we had left the world pristine and never cut any trees/forests down, the world would be a lot warmer because of all the leaf and twig litter that had decomposed. Ergo, to keep future warming from happening, we need to reduce leaf and twig litter in the rain forests, which dictates the pace of deforestation should accelerate. Got that?
"A new study shows that as climate change enhances tree growth in tropical forests, the resulting increase in litterfall could stimulate soil micro-organisms leading to a release of stored soil carbon..."Most estimates of the carbon sequestration capacity of tropical forests are based on measurements of tree growth. Our study demonstrates that interactions between plants and soil can have a massive impact on carbon cycling. Models of climate change must take these feedbacks into account to predict future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels." The study concludes that a large proportion of the carbon sequestered by greater tree growth in tropical forests could be lost from the soil."
Makes one wonder if this study was funded by some crazed biofuel investors in an attempt to increase needed acreage dedicated to industrial biofuel agriculture, no?
Read here. Despite the U.S. economy being in the tank and millions yearning for high growth that will produce jobs, John Bryson favors imposing a carbon tax that will penalize commerce growth and hurt employment prospects.
Who's John Bryson? He is Obama's choice for U.S. Commerce Secretary - a choice who favors taxes to punish commerce but is appointed to a position that supposedly represents commerce interests. Unbelievable.
Seriously, Obama has to be completely brain-dead regarding business and economic growth.
"Should energy consumers pay extra taxes to fund government-mandated and subsidized renewable energy technologies? "Absolutely yes," says John Bryson, President Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary. He made the remark at a meeting of the Commonwealth Club of California in 2009 and went on to extol the virtues of hidden rates in California, a state encumbered with some of the nation's highest electricity and unemployment rates."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) Enron alumni Jim Rogers is another "green" cap and trade lover who seems committed to destroying local environments for the sake of making a profit. If companies like Duke, and wealthy investors like Gore and Soros have their way, the world will be a barren wasteland because of the deranged profit incentive of anti-CO2 policies.
"Last year Duke sought permission from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to classify two of its coal-fired power plants as renewable facilities, because the company wants to burn a combination of wood chips and coal at the plants. NCUC determined the renewables statute allowed that “wood derived from whole trees in primary harvest is a ‘biomass resource’ and thus a ‘renewable energy resource,’” and therefore approved Duke’s application. Environmental Defense Fund and the NC Sustainable Energy Association – with Southern Environmental Law Center providing legal help – challenged the ruling, and the Court of Appeals sided with NCUC and Duke"
Read here. The massive hypocrisy of wealthy and political greens is universally known. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's top "climate scientist" is supposedly a man devoted to Gaia, putting Mother Earth first. Unfortunately though, the material-man seems prone to being a proponent of actual environmental destruction, which is the ultimate green hypocrisy.
Is he an international environmental criminal against humanity and Gaia?
"[India's] Environment minister Jairam Ramesh…expressed regret over the construction of the Commonwealth Games Village on the ecologically-sensitive Yamuna bank…”The Games village should not have been given clearance. It stands right on the riverbed,”..."An oversight body, called the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), has been auditing the 2010 Commonwealth Games that were held in Delhi...it is being alleged that the government failed to ensure that “specific environmental concerns” were addressed during the construction of the Games Village near the Yamuna river...Indian environmentalists were opposed to that particular building site. But their initial High Court victory was overturned by the Supreme Court.
According to a news article published last week, the Supreme court apparently allowed the Games Village construction to proceed after it received assurance from a government minister that a committee “would ensure that flagged environmental issues would be addressed.”...Pachauri was a member of said committee. But the auditors now say there’s no evidence it ever met."
"...environmentalists in his own country have…launched their own attacks on a man they claim is harming endangered forests, depleting scarce water reserves and promoting power companies which emit the carbon gases that cause global warming."
Read here. (h/t Tom Nelson) The amazing stupidity and ignorance of the green mentality is truly frightening. Unfortunately, green politicians offer the public a frequent double-dose of this mentally-challenged idiocy. A recent example is that of an Australian 'green' politician:
"Stopping the expansion of Newcastle Port and NSW’s coal industry is essential if we are to ward off similar human tragedies such as that being experienced by Somalians today."
Just for the record, thousands of years before the mass burning, let alone shipping, of coal, droughts and famines plagued the world. In addition, peer-reviewed research has proven there is no relationship between CO2 emissions and drought (or floods for that matter).
The pathetic opportunism of politicians, combined with the green agenda idiocy, will seemingly never end - next thing you know, they will be blaming CO2 for deaths by polar bear attacks!
Read here. The IPCC objectives are not climate science but instead political objectives of its green creators and fanatics. The UN's IPCC is infected by the Big Green machine's activist personnel and alumni. To make it so, Pachauri keeps defending the fringe green elements (and their non-scientific techniques) involved in the IPCC's climate reporting.
"Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case...He has boasted that his organization is utterly transparent – but an InterAcademy Council committee that took a close look at the IPCC last year concluded otherwise – before recommending that Pachauri should step down...Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling “diversity” quotas...In yesterday’s article Pachauri dismissed concerns that a lead author of a recent IPCC report is a Greenpeace activist..."
Read here and here. The anti-democratic forces unleashed by the green/left/liberal/progressive collaboration has been well documented by their own unequivocal and unprecedented statements. It appears, though, the talking is done, and the time for legally and physically suppressing catastrophic- climate skeptics is the now preferred means being implemented by the ruling class and "elites."
"The tactic of suing critics of AGW theory to silence them isn’t Mann’s alone, and it isn’t the only extracurricular means the global warmists use in attempts to shut up dissenters. The BBC recently announced that in an effort to be more attuned to the scientific “consensus,” it would no longer strive to provide balanced coverage of climate issues."
As the "consensus" science that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming has utterly failed (as the skeptics predicted), the green/left climate alarmist community is now turning to techniques honed by Stalin himself.
The hate, terrorization and censorship techniques utilized by Stalin against his critics and opponents started small, but ultimately grew to the point of complete control of all information and thinking - literally, skeptics of the communists and Stalin were stifled, shot or thrown in the Gulag.
A fascinating series of videos describing the machinations of Stalin can be found here: part1, part2, part3, part4, part5 and part6. Once viewed, one can understand why the Michael Manns of the world, the BBC and major science lobbying associations are so enamored with many of the Stalin-esque tactics.
In order to institutionalize this approach at major government agencies (ie, EPA, NOAA, NASA), Obama chose agency/cabinet heads who would bring the fringe Big Green's politicized science to bear. No better example of this approach is the Obama appointment of a Big Green zealot, the anti-growth Environmental Defense Fund's own Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who is actively putting in place the Orwellian ministry called the "Climate Service Office," where the green's fictional science becomes truth.
"She followed the EDF party line with the fisheries and can be anticipated to follow it on cap and trade. In both cases, the EDF stances are the extreme environmentalist positions...EDF's fisheries position: "Fisheries are depleted and fishermen are losing their jobs. Catch shares are the way forward." Once given the power of NOAA, Dr. Lubchenco wasted little time in implementing the EDF tool of choice for fisheries, Catch Shares Management, sometimes derisively termed cap and trade of the fisheries...EDF's global warming position: the science is settled, global warming is "accelerating at an alarming rate," and the answer is cap and trade. I have little doubt that Dr. Lubchenco and her henchmen will adopt and endorse the EDF posture, with all the sociological and economic disruptions it entails."
Read here. The IPCC and most Climate alarmist scientists long ago devoted their efforts to supporting the extremist/radical green political agenda. There is plenty of documentation of this support and the lengths to which climate scientists pursue their ideologue agenda.
The most obvious way to show support is to become lapdogs of the fringe green organizations advocating energy and economic policies that are anti-business, anti-consumer and anti-growth. Globally, Canadian scientists are some of the best lapdogs embracing this leftist/progressive, non-scientific utopia:
"I stumbled across a document the other day that rendered me speechless. ‘This can’t be right,’ I said to myself. ‘You’ve been parked in front of this computer so long you’ve begun to hallucinate.’...But my eyes were not, in fact, deceiving me. In December 2009 hundreds of Canadian scientists really did choose to publicly align themselves with a left-leaning advocacy organization. They actually thought this was a smart strategy – that this is how you persuade a Tory national government to take action on climate change."
Read here (h/t Climate Depot). The EPA and the Environmental Defense Fund are promulgating quack green statistics, such as the over-the-top lie that 17,000 annual deaths are due to electric utilities pollution. Plain and simple, it's fabricated, quack statistics - totally fraudulent, with not a shred of empirical evidence in support of it.
This environmental lie is reminiscent of other leftie/greenie lies, say the infamous 50 million climate refugees or Kofi Annan's global warming's 300,000 deaths per year bogosity, which have been throughly debunked.
Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com puts it this way:
"“Show me the bodies.”...The EPA says air pollution kills tens of thousands of people annually. This is on a par with traffic accident fatalities. While we can identify traffic accident victims, air pollution victims are unknown, unidentified and as far as anyone can tell, figments of EPA’s statistical imagination."
"Consider that the EPA and its enviro-buddies are essentially accusing coal-fired utilities of killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people annually. Have you ever wondered why there are no class-action lawsuits against utilities for billions of dollars in damages?...Apparently, even trial lawyers have no confidence that EPA science holds up to scrutiny."
Read here. Timothy Wirth, a UN sponsor of climate-lies and political partisan extraordinaire, is a big government, global governance type who is upset that a majority of the IPCC's "consensus science" has been found to be bogus or suffering from extreme exaggerations. This has led Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, to level threats towards AGW skeptics, those inconvenient messengers of the failed IPCC science.
“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it."
So what do Romney and Huntsman have to do with a UN, big government, climate-lies raconteur, green-fascist like Wirth? Well...these two spineless GOP hopefuls won't stand up and demand a stop to this level of rhetoric and implied threats. Don't hold your breath because you're not likely to hear them diss the UN's IPCC and an apparatchik like Wirth.
Why? Is it because, Romney and Huntsman are big government, liberal Republicans who both favor a stronger bureaucracy, more spending, increased taxes, and greater micro-management over the economy? Or is it due to their complete lack of spines and courage to face down the liberal establishment, like a Reagan or even a Palin could effectively do?
These two GOP hopefuls are no Reagan or Palin, for sure. More likely, the simple facts are that Romney and Huntsman agree with Wirth and other green-fascists and global governance types; plus, they don't want to upset their potential presidential campaign contributors, such as Soros and Gore.
And by the way, does anyone remember Romney and Huntsman speaking out and condemning this type of green-fascist threats that was widely circulated via YouTube and strongly criticized by conservatives, libertarians and independents at the time? Nope, didn't think so. With no backbone, these two GOP contenders always go AWOL when faced with left/liberal/progressive totalitarian instincts.
Read here. Senator Lieberman, a Democrat from the state of Connecticut, has for years been a hysterical global warming alarmist, constantly pushing CO2 emissions legislation, regulation and taxes. His latest "climate science" idiocy is that human CO2-induced global warming is causing this year's extreme weather (ie, tornadoes, floods, etc.) in the U.S., thus we need "climate change" legislation.
Honestly, are liberals really this incredibly stupid? Is it just science ignorance?
The chart to the left shows that U.S. temperatures for the January-May 2011, year-to-date period was the coldest over the last 15 years. And literally, the U.S. has actually been cooling at a (minus) -10.08°F per century trend since 1997 for the January-May period, not CO2-warming as predicted by big government advocates and politicians. [Ed: typo corrected to -10.08, not -11.08; thanks, Bill] (source of chart here; click chart to enlarge)
Even despite NOAA's forensic climate scientists stating there is no connection between AGW and recent weather events, and despite multiple peer-reviewed studies categorically stating there is no connection between CO2 emissions and disaster losses, the liberal/leftists/progressives, like Sen. Lieberman, keep pushing blatant climate lies that will hopefully justify the cause of greater government control and more tax revenues, aka 'climate change legislation.'
Or, are Sen. Lieberman's climate/weather claims just another indication of the natural progressive/liberal mindset, a true disdain for empirical science no matter how monstrously stupid it appears to the rest of us?