Every day I write a new blog about the latest developments in the global warming/climate change debate and I also take a look at the important weather events and the forecast. After you have read what I have to say, there is a comment section for you to have your say. If you stir my interest, I will respond in the comment section. Conversation and debate is a good thing.
MY MOST RECENT BLOG
Blog for Thursday, July 24th:
There is a new survey that shows that Americans are more skeptical of man-made global warming/climate change than the citizens of other countries.
This is a strong tribute to the tireless work of some key organizations and a team of qualified scientist climate skeptics in the United States. Hooray for Heartland and CFACT, and the strong team of hero Ph.D. scientists who presented their latest scientific reports the 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas earlier this month.
Videos of all of their presentations are at the Heartland website:
You have to scroll way down get to the video links.
The entire survey included several questions and the results were very interesting. Here is the link to complete survey:
However, as usual, the U.S. Mainstream media takes a negative slant in it’s coverage. For instance the CBS News story By Michael Roppolo
“A new international survey shows that Americans are more divided and doubtful about climate change than people in other leading countries, even as the scientific evidence supporting it keeps piling up.”
Then when it is time to quote an expert he turns to Keith Gaby, communications director for climate and air at the Environmental Defense Fund and quotes him as saying “While American opinion is divided, there is some common ground.” And lets him explain away the entire matter.
He then turns to Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, lead author of the U.N. report who he quotes as saying “Climate change is happening, the signs of it, the impacts, are detectible already. If you live in a city, if you live along the coast, or if you eat to live, this is a problem you have to worry about.”
Nowhere in his story does he quote a skeptic expert or common citizen. He seems to simply dismissing them as people not worth talking to or thinking about.
I didn’t see any other mainstream media coverage, but google news pulls up this Mother Jones article by Chris Mooney. He begins “Here in the United States, we fret a lot about global warming denial. Not only is it a dangerous delusion, it’s an incredibly prevalent one. Depending on your survey instrument of choice, we regularly learn that substantial minorities of Americans deny, or are skeptical of, the science of climate change.”
He then comes up with his expert:
“I do not find these results surprising,” says Riley Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University who has extensively studied the climate denial movement. “It’s the countries where neo-liberalism is most hegemonic and with strong neo-liberal regimes (both in power and lurking on the sidelines to retake power) that have bred the most active denial campaigns—US, UK, Australia and now Canada.”
Mooney concludes his coverage with “Whatever the precise concatenation of causes, the evidence seems clear. We English speakers have a special problem when it comes to understanding and accepting climate science. In language, we’re Anglophones; but in climate science, we’re a bunch of Anglophonies.”
Meanwhile, the media as done a series of articles this week on the latest releases, claims, manufactured records and “sky is falling” predictions by Federal government scientist bureaucrats who are doing the build-up for the Administration on it’s coming climate change regulations. I thought about writing point by point rebuttals, but that is simply going over the same old stuff one more time.
Sometimes I think I should simply drop my efforts because there seems like so little hope of being heard. Then a survey like this new one emerges and I feel there is hope. Hooray.
Blog for Saturday, July 19th
When I lived in Texas, Illinois, Nebraska and Wisconsin statistics would indicate that I the greatest weather related risk to my life and property was from a tornado.
But in 48 years in that region I never even saw or heard one. The nearest tornado to me was at least 10 miles away. I finally saw a small F-0 tornado in Atlanta. It did no damage and hurt no one.
While living in California for the last 21 years, I suppose I should have worried about being caught in an earthquake.
But, I never have given it much thought and certainly no worry. I have felt a half dozen weak quakes. No big deal.
Wild fires have been far away the most important weather/climate/natural danger and problem in years in California and have twice led to my evacuation and once resulted in some smoke damage to my home and a tarnishing of the roof tiles. When Santa Ana winds blow I worry about fire.
How about the current California Drought?
Am I worried about it? Not really. Droughts come and go and there is always lots of screaming, but still I just can’t get excited. Here is what I know for sure. Droughts are a very regular event in California. They occur on a regular basis as rainfall fades out in La Nina periods and then return in abundance during El Ninos. The “normal” climate of California is semi-arid to desert. The idea that nature will supply adequate water for our farms and cities wih almost 40 million people living in this climate is silly. The harnessing of the Sierra snow melt and Rockies snow melt via the Colorado river has brought the available to water to almost adequate in our best years, but is far short of making water plentiful. Desalination is a promising answer as technology improves. Meanwhile I keep looking at the very ample rains that regularly fall just to the north of California in Oregon where millions and millions of gallons of rainwater is allowed to run off into the Pacific Ocean every year. Why haven’t we harnessed some of that for California? Let’s make a deal.
Consider the history of droughts:
The worst droughts in the history of the United States occurred during the 1930s and 1950s, periods of time known as ‘Dust Bowl’ years in which droughts lead to significant economic damages and social changes. In particular, relief and health agencies became overburdened and many local community banks had to close.
When California suffered a severe drought from 1985 to 1991, a California company, Sun Belt Water Inc. was established for the purpose importing water from Canada in marine transport vessels formerly used for oil transport and converted to water carriers.
Drought apparently struck what is now the American Southwest back in the 13th century, which may have affected the Pueblo cities, and tree rings also document drought in the lower and central Mississippi River basin between the 14th and 16th century. The droughts of that period may have contributed to the decline and fall of the Mississippian cultures
The 1870-1877 drought brought with it a major swarm of Rocky Mountain Locusts, as droughts benefit locusts, making plants more nutritious and edible to locusts and reducing diseases that harm locusts.
Drought began in the Southwestern United States in 1944 and continued through the entire rest of the decade; one of the longest recorded droughts observed there. This drought continued into the 1950s
Short term droughts hit particular spots of the United States during 1976 and 1977. California’s statewide snowpack reached an all-time low in 1977. Water resources and agriculture (especially livestock) suffered; negatively impacting the nation’s economy. This drought reversed itself completely the following year.
The Western United States experienced a lengthy drought in the late 1980s. California endured one of its longest droughts ever observed, from late 1986 through early 1991.
But, you may ask, is this current drought the new normal as a result of global warming/climate change? No, I answer with total confidence. There is no know/provable causation between the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and our dry/hot weather. Let me point out that they put of a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere in Chicago and New York, yet flooding rains and record setting cold July temperatures have been occurring in both of those major eastern cities.
Meanwhile, the media has been busy today trying to stir up concern about the consequences that someday will spread across Washington state as a result of an eruption of Mount Rainier. I will write about that tomorrow.
Blog for Friday, July 18th:
I am not moving to Australia, but I gave it serious consideration several times the last couple of days. Why am I so excited? The reason is simple and its huge. Australia on Thursday became the first country in the world to abolish a price on carbon, with the Senate passing the government’s repeal bills 39 votes to 32.
After two weeks of negotiations, and several false starts, the government of the new Prime Minister Tony Abbott achieved its long-held ambition to axe the tax, to applause from government senators. Speaking after the vote in the Senate, Mr. Abbott rejoiced at the passage of the repeal bills, declaring “today the Parliament finally listened. Today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone.” But Prime Minister Abbott and Environment Minister Greg Hunt have repeatedly refused to rule out a return to a price on carbon in the future, as Mr. Abbott described his government as “conservationist”.
The “carbon thing” is the long and the short of it to me; the entire basis of my skeptical position on the global warming/climate change issue. There is no doubt about it, some activities of man-kind are having some impact on the weather and climate. The main one at this point is the urban heat island effect. But that is not creating a crisis and does not in any way threaten our civilization. But the key, basic issue on which the Climate Change scare campaign is based is the so called impact of carbon on the atmosphere. The theory is that the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in the exhaust from our cars and planes, power plants and industrial smoke stacks is a powerful greenhouse gas that will cause our temperatures to rise out of control. Well, that theory has failed to verify over and over again. Carbon Dioxide is, in fact, essential to life on Earth. It is odorless, colorless and tasteless. It is a minor greenhouse gas and is having no significant impact on our temperatures. That is the entire climate change issue with me. So hooray for Aussies. They have accepted reality.
Yes, they will work for clean air and clean water and work to eventually come up with a replacement for the fossil fuels which are absolutely essential to our civilization today. But for now, we can relax.
Hooray, for Australia. Is there any chance of the United States or California coming to their senses on the carbon dioxide issue? Not a chance, I fear. But, none the less, I am not moving. I am a Californian and an American for life; better or worse.
Blog for Thursday, July 17th
‘Do we believe there is life beyond Earth?’ asks the Administrator of NASA Charles Bolden. And, yesterday his agency answered that question: “We’ll find alien life in 20 years.”
.” Here’s how it will be done: NASA will launch the Transiting Exoplanet Surveying Satellite in 2017 followed by the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018. With them they will see into space with enough detail to find planets with water and atmosphere and that means life.
Hopefully then we will be able to communicate with a civilization more advanced and smarter than ours and they can convince our Earth based media that there is no significant man-made global warming here on Earth. Up until then, I have little hope we will ever succeed in penetrating so-called “main stream media”; they have made up their minds that we climate skeptics are weirdo, dummies and we can be ignored along with flat-earthers, flying saucer promoters and chem-trail believers.
Last week at the International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas I was interviewed by Bill Weir, a smart mouthed reporter from CNN who is producing those hour long documentaries that CNN is now running in prime time. It was clear from his first question that his mission was to make me look stupid and a weirdo. I begged him to interview the dozens of Ph.D. scientists at the conference who have produced the research that debunks the global warming scare. He laughed at me and said that if a reporter could blow the lid off of the global warming theory and scare, he would be famous, as famous as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. But he dismissed that as something that would never happen and he made it clear he was not going to embarrass himself by trying. He then proceeded the challenge and dismiss everything I had to say with a smirk. He had his program already planned and perhaps already written. He said he going to travel around the World gathering the story.
I can see it now. He will claim the poles are melting, the polar bears are dying, the oceans are rising, drought and heat waves are sweeping the Earth all because of our burning of fossil fuels. And he will display me as a stupid old man who doesn’t get it. I know it coming and I know there is nothing I can do but wait for NASA to find intelligent life elsewhere. LOL
In the meantime, even if Bill Weir is not willing to talk with a Ph.D. expert, William Jasper, the reporter from the New American, was there to get the story the conference had to tell. Look at his interview with Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace who now says “CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth.”
But Weir was so agenda driven that he probably totally ignored Dr. John Christy and Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Fred Singer and all the rest of the scientists who were presenting papers at the conference and undoubtedly will at some point in his hour long presentation say that 97% of climate scientists support the theory that our civilization is creating a climate crisis by burning fossil fuels.
The only good news about all of this by my assessment is that CNN has sunk to its lowest evening ratings in history with Weir’s prime time documentaries. LOL.
Mediaite reports that in 15 years, only once did CNN achieve fewer total viewers at the 9 p.m. hour, back in 2000 when Larry King brought only 196K viewers. The lowest demo viewership was earned by Piers Morgan in 2012 — just 39k viewers. Other than that it is all Weir.
Blog for Wednesday, July 16th
What a totally invigorating and satisfying time it was; my three days at the 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas last week.
More than three dozen Ph.D. climate scientists were there to present their research that proves beyond a doubt that there is no significant man-made climate change. More than 600 people were in attendance and about 4 thousand or more were watching via live streaming video as the presentations unfolded one after another. For a climate skeptic such as me, the experience was very gratifying.
It was very complimentary to be selected to present a keynote speech at this event, but when I was introduced I had been totally humbled by the outstanding presentation that preceded me.
The speaker was Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the early members of Greenpeace, who was an environmental activist for over 30 years before he realized that Greenpeace has lost contact with scientific reality. He left the organization and now is an active global warming/climate change skeptic. His presentation was powerful. You can now go to the U-stream website and see the entire Tuesday morning breakfast session including Dr. Moore’s speech and then mine and then he is presented a well-deserved honor. Here I the link:
You might be interested in watching the entire conference. The video is all posted at:
I am greatly indebted to the Heartland Institute, a Chicago based Libertarian think tank organization that sponsored this conference and the eight others that have proceeded it over the last decade. This organization managed to raise the 600 plus thousand dollars it costs to put on a conference of this magnitude. That is no small task
Joseph Bast, the President of Heartland is one of my heroes. It would be great if you could make a donation to them. Here is the link http://giving.heartland.org/online-giving/
The OAS is an international membership society for the purpose of studying, discussing, and publishing about topics in atmospheric related earth sciences, including but not limited to meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, and climatology. It is open to anyone with an interest at the associate level, but student and full memberships also are offered. You can learn about it at: http://theoas.wildapricot.org/
Following the Climate Change conference I attended the Coleman family reunion in Florida. There were 48 of us this time or which I am the youngest of the three brothers who remain of the original family. After most had returned home, my Son and I went to the
Ringling Circus Museum in Sarasota, Florida. What a place: http://www.ringling.org/history-circus-museum.
I arrived home with some serious
dental problems and worn out, but by tomorrow, I can probably get it together and write a real blog.
Blog for this week:
This week I will be attending and speaking at the 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas. You can learn about the conference on the link on this website. You can watch the conference video streaming on-line at http://climateconference.heartland.org/watch-live/
My speech is at the Tuesday morning breakfast session around 8 AM Las Vegas time.
I love these conferences because I get to visit with the outstanding scientists who are my heroes because they state their skeptical position on global warming despite the high price they pay among their peers and within their professional societies. I always also hear new scientific reports that further prove that there is no significant man-made global warming.
Blog for Tuesday, July 2nd:
Pearson Sharp shared a link and asked:
Hey John, just noticed this, thought you might find it interesting! I’d love to hear your thoughts.
This is from an internet news site called Quartz. It is written by experienced reporter Gwynn Guilford.
Here is the headline and the thrust of the news story:
The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about…
The usual US partisan divisions over climate change were absent today in the state of Virginia, where Republican and Democratic officials met to discuss what to do about the threat of rising sea levels to the state. The proposals include the launch of a climate-change task force, which Virginia’s Democratic governor will announce tomorrow. Christina DeConcini, government affairs director at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, told Quartz this is the first time to her knowledge that Republican leaders (very few of whom accept global warming is both real and man-made) and Democratic ones have come together to craft a policy on global warming.
That’s probably because Virginia is more vulnerable to storm-surge destruction than anywhere else on the US’s east coast. Problems are particularly acute in Norfolk, Virginia’s second-biggest city and home to the world’s largest naval base; sea levels there are now 14.5 inches (37 cm) higher than they were in 1930—so high that parts of Norfolk flood when the moon is full. Sea levels are rising faster there than anywhere else along the coast, due to the vagaries of ocean currents:
The article goes on and on with charts and scare materials. Wow, you may be saying, they really are being hit hard by climate change in Virginia. But if you look carefully at the data, this is more of the same Global Warming alarmism propaganda.
I don’t doubt that the report about the actions of the political leaders in Virginia must have some degree of accuracy, but I still had to wonder what and who was behind this. The source credits on the charts give it away. The charts are the work of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists. These organizations are well known global warming scare promoters and the key members in each organization are funded by global warming research grants from the Federal Government.
The chart from the article above shows the rise in the ocean in Virginia is nearly 4.5 millimeters a year. Do you know how much that is? It is about one tenth of an inch. Hold your thumb and finger up in front of your face and make a one inch gap between them. The rise in the ocean is about one tenth of that. And, that is being touted a crisis. I doubt that small amount in a turbulent ocean with waves and tides and beach erosion can be measured to any accuracy in that tiny amount. Hello, Virginia officialsand reporter Gwynn Guilford. Are you being manipulated a bit?
Later one the article says, “scientists expect sea levels in southern Virginia to rise at least a foot (30 cm) and perhaps as much as three feet by 2060.” It doesn’t tell us who these scientists are and what is the basis for their conclusion. And, wait a minute they are predicting a one foot rise in 46 years. We will mostly be dead by then and so who is going to be around to tell them they got it wrong? Those scientists probably won’t be here either.
The article does a lot of scare talk using storm surges. Well, let’s understand something: The Outer Banks of Virginia are a big ole sand bar around a point in the U.S. Coast line. It is naturally the most vulnerable populated place on the American shore. It will be raked by Hurricane Arthur in the coming few days. It has been hit over and over again through the years. That is way it is and has been and has nothing to do with our use of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide exhaust.
So in the end, Pearson, I find this article just one more in the never ending series that I combat every day. It isn’t even close to being a big deal. LOL
Tropical Storm Arthur statement as of 6 PM Tuesday:
TROPICAL STORM ARTHUR INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY NUMBER 4A
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL AL012014
800 PM EDT TUE JUL 01 2014
…CENTER OF ARTHUR MEANDERING EAST OF THE COAST OF FLORIDA…
SUMMARY OF 800 PM EDT…0000 UTC…INFORMATION
ABOUT 90 MI…145 KM ESE OF CAPE CANAVERAL FLORIDA
ABOUT 95 MI…155 KM NNW OF FREEPORT GRAND BAHAMA ISLAND
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS…50 MPH…85 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE…1003 MB…29.62 INCHES
WATCHES AND WARNINGS
CHANGES WITH THIS ADVISORY…
SUMMARY OF WATCHES AND WARNINGS IN EFFECT…
A TROPICAL STORM WATCH IS IN EFFECT FOR…
* EAST COAST OF FLORIDA FROM FORT PIERCE TO FLAGLER BEACH
A TROPICAL STORM WATCH MEANS THAT TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS ARE
POSSIBLE WITHIN THE WATCH AREA…IN THIS CASE WITHIN THE NEXT 24
INTERESTS ALONG THE UNITED STATES EAST COAST NORTH OF THE WATCH
AREA THROUGH SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA SHOULD MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF
TROPICAL STORM ARTHUR. TROPICAL STORM AND HURRICANE WATCHES WILL
LIKELY BE REQUIRED THIS EVENING FOR PORTIONS OF THIS AREA.
FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA IN THE UNITED
STATES…INCLUDING POSSIBLE INLAND WATCHES AND WARNINGS…PLEASE
MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED BY YOUR LOCAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
FORECAST OFFICE. FOR STORM INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO YOUR AREA OUTSIDE
THE UNITED STATES…PLEASE MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED BY YOUR NATIONAL
DISCUSSION AND 48-HOUR OUTLOOK
AT 800 PM EDT…0000 UTC…THE CENTER OF TROPICAL STORM ARTHUR WAS
LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 27.8 NORTH…LONGITUDE 79.3 WEST. ARTHUR HAS
MOVED LITTLE DURING THE LAST FEW HOURS. A DRIFT TOWARD THE
NORTHWEST NEAR 2 MPH…4 KM/H…IS EXPECTED LATER TONIGHT…FOLLOWED
BY A TURN TOWARD THE NORTH ON WEDNESDAY. ON THE FORECAST TRACK…THE
CENTER OF THE TROPICAL CYCLONE IS EXPECTED TO REMAIN JUST OFFSHORE
AND MOVE EAST OF THE EAST-CENTRAL COAST OF FLORIDA DURING THE NEXT
DAY OR SO. THE SYSTEM IS FORECAST TO PASS EAST OF NORTHEASTERN
FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY AND WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS REMAIN NEAR 50 MPH…85 KM/H…WITH HIGHER
GUSTS. STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS….AND
ARTHUR IS EXPECTED TO BECOME A HURRICANE BY THURSDAY.
TROPICAL-STORM-FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 70 MILES…110 KM
FROM THE CENTER. DURING THE PAST HOUR…THE NOAA AUTOMATED STATION
AT SETTLEMENT POINT ON GRAND BAHAMA ISLAND REPORTED SUSTAINED WINDS
OF 47 MPH…76 KM/H…AND A WIND GUST TO 61 MPH… 98 KM/H.
THE ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE IS 1003 MB…29.62 INCHES.
HAZARDS AFFECTING LAND
WIND…TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS ARE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE WATCH
AREA OVERNIGHT. IN ADDITION…WINDS TO TROPICAL STORM FORCE ARE
OCCURRING INTERMITTENTLY ON THE WESTERN END OF GRAND BAHAMA
ISLAND…AND ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE THERE THIS EVENING.
RAINFALL…ARTHUR IS EXPECTED TO PRODUCE TOTAL RAINFALL
ACCUMULATIONS OF 1 TO 3 INCHES…MAINLY ACROSS THE EASTERN FLORIDA
PENINSULA. ISOLATED MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF 5 INCHES ARE POSSIBLE THROUGH
WEDNESDAY. RAINFALL AMOUNTS OF 2 TO 4 INCHES WITH ISOLATED MAXIMUM
AMOUNTS OF 6 INCHES ARE POSSIBLE OVER THE NORTHWESTERN BAHAMAS
SURF…SWELLS GENERATED BY ARTHUR ARE AFFECTING PORTIONS OF THE
EAST-CENTRAL COAST OF FLORIDA. THESE SWELLS ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE
LIFE-THREATENING SURF AND RIP CURRENTS…ESPECIALLY ALONG PIERS AND
JETTIES. THESE HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS WILL GRADUALLY SPREAD NORTHWARD
ALONG THE COASTS OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA AND GEORGIA THROUGH WEDNESDAY.
FOR MORE INFORMATION…PLEASE MONITOR PRODUCTS ISSUED BY YOUR LOCAL
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORECAST OFFICE.
Blog for Tuesday, July 1st:
What a day for my main topic, the great global warming scare. The on-line media was just loaded with reports on the topic, most of them in “the sky is falling” category. But on a few of the websites, mostly those that only conservatives and Republicans would visit, the global warming coverage was great for skeptics.
If you read far enough in this blog you find out who this lady is who said, “Global Warming is not real, because Al Gore, who made the whole thing up himself, is a big lying doodyhead who hates the petroleum industry.”
But let me begin with this item from The New American website titled:
Confab of Climate Experts to Challenge Global Warming “Consensus”
Written by William F. Jasper
Climate scientists and noted researchers from a variety of disciplines and all parts of the world will be converging on Las Vegas, Nevada, July 7-9 to receive awards and present their latest findings at the Heartland Institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change.
Among the renowned experts who will be speaking are:
• Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Team Leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite;
• Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Sweden, one of the world’s leading experts on sea level changes;
• Lord Christopher Monckton, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute;
• Dr. Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, former president of Greenpeace Canada, and former director of Greenpeace International;
• John Coleman, veteran meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel;
• Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen of the University of Hull, England, and a former expert reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
• and many more.
Don’t expect President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, or the climate apocalypse choir in the mainstream media to pay any attention to the assembled experts, since they won’t be dispensing the usual end-of-the-world predictions and the attendant we-must-empower-government-to-save-us prescriptions.
The article then goes on with the global warming debate and a lot more about the conference. If you are interesting in the conference check this website: http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Here is another positive article that showed up today on the Daily Caller News Foundation website:
Poll: 53 Percent Of Americans Don’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
According to a Pew Research Center poll, 35 percent of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the earth while another 18 percent says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns” and not human activity.
That’s a 53 percent majority against the president’s position.
Of the 35 percent who cite lacking evidence for their disbelief, half say it’s because man-made global warming is “just not happening”. The other half say that we “don’t know enough yet” about the issue to tell. Pew says that “business conservatives” and “steadfast conservatives” have the largest majorities that don’t believe in man-made global warming, with 75 percent and 71 percent, respectively.
Forty percent of Americans believe that mankind is causing the planet to warm. So-called “solid liberals” are the most likely to say human activity is warming the Earth — 78 percent of this group believes this to be true.
There is one more positive report, thanks to the work of my friend and hero Anthony Watts:
This is from the Daily Caller website:
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.
According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”
“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.
This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”
Watts had data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, which shows that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit. July 1936 is only at 77.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
Watts ran the same data plot again on Sunday and found that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936. The average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, once again, July 1936 is the hottest year on record. [Annotations in the graph are from Watts]
You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”
“In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why,” Watts continued. “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”
“When you take those first steps, even if they’re hard, even if they’re halting sometimes, you start building momentum and you start mobilizing larger and larger communities,” he said. “Every step makes a difference.”
But it looks like Obama may have more convincing to do when it comes to global warming if more than half the public is skeptical of the idea that mankind is warming the planet.
Then starts the barrage of “the sky is falling reports” all of them accepting without question that the IPCC theory that carbon dioxide is a serious greenhouse gas that is going to cause runaway Global Warming. I will give you a little of each of these items:
Climate Change Is Risky Business: Report
June 30th, 2014 by Adam Johnston
Climate change is Risky Business, according to a bi-partisan report released recently.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, billionaire renewable energy advocate Tom Steyer, and George W. Bush’s former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson commissioned the report. Risky Business is similar to Nicholas Stern’s groundbreaking analysis in 2006, which discussed the economics of climate change, but this has more focus on the US. Its conclusions provide stark warnings for various regions and sectors.
“Our economy is vulnerable to an overwhelming number of risks from climate change,” said Paulson in a statement. “These risks include the potential for significant federal budget liabilities, since many businesses and property owners turn to the federal government as the insurer of last resort.”
Coastal areas will feel the financial sting. Storm costs will increase $2 billion to $3.5 billion annually within the next 15 years. Add annual hurricane costs of up to $7.3 billion, and the yearly bill would go up to $35 billion. By 2050, current coastal property value of $66 to $106 billion could be under water, if emissions continue unchecked. By the end of the century, the analysis projects it to cost the US $238 to $507 billion.
Agriculture will see steep losses, too. Midwestern and southern areas will see sharp losses in crop yields of 10% within 5–25 years. These include: corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. There is also a one-in-twenty chance these crops will see a 20% decline in yields, without making any adaptation plans. By the end of the century, yield losses could reach 50% to 70%.
It’s anticipated by mid-century that Americans will see 27–50 more 95°F days then in the past thirty years. Also Risky Business expects the Southeast, Southwest, and upper Midwest to see many months of 95°F days annually.
Extreme heat will impact outdoor labor industries. Some regions could see a labor productivity loss of 3%, namely the Southeast. Agriculture, utility maintenance, and landscaping are the industries most vulnerable, the report said.
As deniers continue to battle the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are contributing to climate change, attempts to understand climate change through risk management is now being used more often.
Economic reports on climate change, including The Stern Report, and now Risky Business, offer governments and businesses the tools necessary to not only better understand the science through economics, but offer guidance in mitigation and adaptation action plans. For example, insurance agencies know a warming world will have dramatic impacts on their pocketbooks, which will get passed on to consumers.
From the Huffington Post:
The biggest threat to emperor penguins may not be leopard seals or even killer whales, but a much larger predator: global warming.
Climate change, which is quickly melting the sea ice this species depends on for survival, could cause dramatic drops in the number of emperor penguins across Antarctica by the end of the century, a new study finds. Specifically, more than two-thirds of Antarctica’s emperor penguin colonies will decline by more than 50 percent by the end of the century under future climate change scenarios.
The researchers, from France, the Netherlands and the United States, are pushing to have this iconic species listed as endangered before its numbers hit critical lows. Doing so, the researchers said, may establish “a new global conservation paradigm for species threatened by future climate change.” [See Photos of Antarctica's Amazing Penguin Chicks]
The research, detailed yesterday (June 29) in the journal Climate Change, is based in part on a 50-year intensive study — supported by the French Polar Institute (IPEV) and Zone Atelier Antarctique (LTER France) — of an emperor penguin colony in Terre Adélie, East Antarctica. Researchers have been closely monitoring the Terre Adélie population each year, collecting biological measurements of the penguins there and charting the population’s growth and decline.
“Long-term studies like this are invaluable for measuring the response of survival and breeding to changes in sea ice,” said Hal Caswell, a scientist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and the University of Amsterdam. “They provide our understanding of the role sea ice plays in the emperor penguin’s life cycle.”
Emperor penguins breed and raise their offspring almost exclusively on sea ice. And changes in sea ice concentration (SIC), or the relative area of water covered by sea ice, affect not only penguins, but also the entire Antarctic food web, down to the smallest of species, the researchers noted.
Now about the quote at the beginning of this blog. It came from this lady.
Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney (R) is accusing liberals, such as former Vice President Al Gore, of advancing “the greatest deception in the history of mankind” — man-made climate change — in a scheme to empower the executive branch and increase taxes.
“A specter is haunting America,” Whitney, who is running for Congress in Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, warned in a campaign video released Wednesday. “It is perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind.”
Mocking Gore’s 2006 Academy Award–winning climate change documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Whitney claimed that the planet “has done nothing but get colder each year since the film’s release.”
“Quite inconveniently for Al Gore, and for the rest of the politicians who continue to advance this delusion, any 10-year-old can invalidate their thesis with one of the simplest scientific devices known to man: a thermometer,” Whitney said, citing record sea ice in the Antarctic sector.
Numerous GOP lawmakers and climate change contrarians have pointed to below-zero temperatures and seasonal snowfall as evidence against the legitimacy of human-induced climate change, despite numerous scientific reports debunking their claims.
Although many parts of the U.S. witnessed record-low temperatures this past winter, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are still rising, winters have become increasingly warmer over the past century and Arctic sea ice is still melting.
Whitney’s own state is one of the most vulnerable regions in the country to climate change, with rising coastal sea levels estimated to submerge the Louisiana coastline by 2100.
Then this news item from California where the Court gave Global Warming advocates another win today:
An attempt to block one of California’s key climate change regulations, designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fuel, failed Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. California-Greenhouse Gases.
The regulation, known as the low carbon fuel standard, requires oil companies to reduce the emissions associated with the fuels they sell in California, lowering emissions 10 percent by 2020. It has provoked fierce opposition from an unlikely alliance — the oil industry and Midwestern ethanol producers.
The alliance sprang from the regulation’s own unusual rules, crafted by the California Air Resources Board. The board assigns different “carbon intensity” rankings to different fuels based on the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by their production, delivery and use. Oil companies can lower the carbon intensity of their gasoline and diesel by blending more biofuels into those products.
The standard should be a boon to biofuel companies. But ethanol makers in the Midwest say the rules unfairly discriminate against them. The simple act of shipping their fuel to California, usually by train, boosts its carbon intensity. That places Midwestern companies at a disadvantage to anyone making ethanol within the Golden State, even if they use the same raw materials and the same equipment.
Oil companies, meanwhile, argue that there aren’t enough low-carbon biofuels available to meet the mandate. They say the standard could send gasoline prices soaring.
So ethanol and oil companies sued to stop the standard, saying California was trying to regulate interstate commerce. In December of 2011, a federal judge issued an injunction that blocked the state from enforcing the standard. But that injunction was overturned by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision.
That won’t end the fuel-standard fight. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Fresno, is still weighing whether the rules have the practical effect of unfairly discriminating against some companies. But advocates of the regulation still greeted Monday’s news with relief.
“It’s a lawsuit so there’s always another step,” said Erica Morehouse, attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. “We can move forward with a lot of confidence that this policy is on strong legal footing.”
Now back to the positive side:
This is from News Max:
The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.
The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning.
It’s not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking About the Weather.
Ambler is a journalist and author of the book “Don’t Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change.”
“The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007,” said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.
While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.
“A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice during the period of satellite measurement,” said Ambler.
However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.
According to Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between years, and it’s less significant to the Earth’s climate than is the ice around the Arctic.
Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing “a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace.”
During the past 18 months, global sea ice “has seen its most robust 18-month period of the last 13 years, maintaining, on average, a positive anomaly for an 18-month period for the first time since 2001,” he wrote.
In addition, Ambler said, the South Pole’s temperature has been dropping over the past 40 years.
There were several other articles on both sides of the issue today, but enough is enough for one day. LOL
What an interesting day. Let the debate continue. I am confident that in the end it will be clear that there is no significant man-made global warming now, has not been any in the past and there is no threat of any in the future.
Blog for Monday, June 30th:
The headline reads “NASA to launch global warming satellite”. The story details how NASA is set to use a new powerful rocket on Monday to blast a Carbon Dioxide Observatory satellite into orbit. This is a 485 million dollar mission to study the gas the EPA has labeled a pollutant and which global warming scientists claim is causing dramatic and uncontrollable climate disruption, global warming, polar ice melt, coastal flooding and so on. I am sure we should be prepared for a whole series of news releases, NASA videos, scientific papers and dire warnings based on the data this satellite will send back to Earth in the coming years. I am likewise certain that there will be no balance and no reports that indicate the carbon dioxide problem is not as climate shattering as those alarmists have been predicting for the last twenty years. I am bracing myself for a full powered assault.
Here are 10 facts the alarmists don’t want you to hear:
- There has been no warming for at least 19 years and 9 months
- The Antarctic Ice cover has just reached an all-time high
- The Arctic Ice cover is holding its own
- The Earth is 20 percent greener than it was 40 years ago
- After 140 years of burning fossil fuels and releasing an exhaust of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the percent of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is just four tenths of one percent. It is a tiny trace gas.
- Carbon Dioxide is tasteless, invisible, odorless and is essential to life on Earth
- The computer models that predict significant and harmful global warming as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere have totally failed to verify.
- The Polar Bear population of Earth is increasing
- More and more scientists are speaking out stating that carbon dioxide is not causing significant warming.
- The studies behind the claim that 97% of scientists agree that global warming/climate change is settled science have been totally debunked as inaccurate and contrived.
So taxpayers, be prepared to hear all the details of mankind’s release of tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and how it is increasing around the Planet. It should be quite a show.
Blog for Sunday, June 29th:
People who live on the Atlantic and Gulf coast are always watching for hurricanes to develop and are constantly aware that someday a hurricane may disturb their lives. People who live in the Midwest are constantly alert for severe thunderstorms and know that there is a possibility that someday a tornado may mess up their lives. I lived a portion of my life in both of these regions and know how aware everybody is to these natural threats to their peaceful lives.
Now I have lived 20 years in Southern California. No threat from tornadoes and hurricanes, so what’s to worry about?
Earthquakes, seems like a reasonable answer. But, I have an admission to make. I am not in the slightest worried about earthquakes. I am aware that this irritates Seismologists. They say that significant earthquakes with wide spread damage and deaths are certain to hit this area; we simply don’t know exactly when the big one will hit and precisely where. But, I just plain don’t worry and my conversations with others indicates to me 99.9% of Southern Californians don’t worry about earthquakes at all.
My Son Scott and I recently took a day trip in which we drove over a hundred miles right along the San Andreas Fault. There were railroads, the California aqueduct, highways and lots of homes along the fault. Even full-fledged towns straddle the fault. I kept wondering if the people who live there are aware they live on a fault, how banks deal with mortgages and insurance companies handle policies for these people. It is pretty darn clear the level of concern is not very great. I wonder, are we are all nuts?
The earthquake map of California shows the network of faults that meander all through the State. And the map shows the almost constant series of minor quakes. But they are so weak they generally are not felt and certainly do no damage and make no threat to life. Note that there are very few of these little quakes on the portion of the San Andreas from just north of Los Angles to about route 41 between San Robles and Bakersfield. Seismologists tell us that while the mini quakes are relieving stress from LA southward, this quiet area to the north is the most likely section of the fault for a major earthquake to occur because the stress between the two tectonic plates has been building and unrelieved for about 150 years. (That, by the way, is also the least populated and developed part of the path of the fault.)
One the most interesting aspects of the bevy of mini quakes in the Southland is that most are on the San Jacinto Fault, not the San Andreas. There is general feeling that the southern part of San Andreas from the San Gorgonio Pass down into the Coachella Valley and down to the Sultan Sea is no longer the main fault. The expert opinion is that the primary point of slippage between the Continental and Pacific Plates is transferring to the San Jacinto Fault. This raises the earthquake danger from Beaumont to Hemet to Anza to Borrego Springs. That puts the mountains and coastal areas of extreme southern SoCal closer to main fault.
I don’t see anybody else worrying and nether am I.
After the super quake gets us all, you friends in tornado and hurricane country please dig up this blog from my website and have some laughs.
In the meantime here is my best for another quiet hurricane season and no more significant tornadoes.
Blog for Friday, June 27th:
Contact. Here at am a few months from turning 80 and I am still waiting for contact. And I am a lot less hopeful than I used to be. Darn.
For 20 years or so I have said that I hoped that during my lifetime we Earthlings would make contact with intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. I feel that will be about the most enormous event that will happen during the history of our Civilization and I wanted to be alive for that big event. Contact will change everything. I root for NASA or SETI to call a news conference and make the big announcement. But, alas, I am now very doubtful; I am not very hopeful of contact.
But I am more certain that ever than the Universe virtually teems with intelligent life. NASA keeps finding planets that seem just right for life. They call them Cinderella Planets. (A cute term.) And, they advanced telescopes are able more and more to detect details about the armosphere of these planets. There has absolutely got to be life out there; lots of it.
For many years the movie “CONTACT” was one of my absolute favorites. (Not far behind “Ground Hog Day”.) It seemed logical to me that the powerful (300 thousand to a million watts) television transmissions we are Earth were generating would be strong enough for an advanced civilization elsewhere in the Universe to detect and they would certainly respond to bring Earth into the family of Civilized Planets. Well, several things might be wrong with my thinking. For instance, why would an advanced civilization want to contact a clearly comparatively primitive civilization? You see I now realize our strong TV signals were very primitive television technically and the content was a long way from advanced.
An interesting step forward is now occurring technically; our powerful signals are being turned off. While our High Definition television transmissions are still fairly powerful, the strongest of the transmitters have now been replaced by transmissions of about half or less of the power. And as video transmission moves more and more to the internet, these over the air transmissions will end. Meanwhile, Wi-fi, Bluetooth and cell phone transmissions are all very low power transmissions. Within a decade or so, we will not be transmitting easily detectable signals into the Universe. And, so the period of high power transmissions will be only about 50 years long, a very short period in space time.
And, I think it is reasonable to assume that other civilizations would have also followed the same pattern more or less and our quest to intercept high powered transmissions from elsewhere in the Universe might be very futile.
So now I conclude that the move “Contact” is not likely to be an accurate prediction of the manner in which contact will occur. I fear it awaits an entirely new level of space surveillance not yet developed.
In the meantime, I must tell you I dismiss all of the flying saucer and alien contact reports that have flooded our popular media in my lifetime. I wanted them to be true. But, scientific examination of event after event has produced a non-alien explanation. And, believe me I have spent a thousand hours or even more of serious study of these events. At one point I did a five part special report on close encounters and all of that for ABC News. The bosses really wanted me to come up with a story that was supportive of contact. I tied up with Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who was a professor of astronomy at Ohio State University, and later, chairman of the astronomy department at Northwestern University and had run project Blue Book for the U.S. Air Force and then founded the Center For UFO Studies in Chicago and was the man behind the movie “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”. He supplied me with the full data on what he considered the most valid cases. They all fell apart when given non-biased scientific examination. It was a sad experience for me. Darn. None of those great stories is for real. Trust me, none of them. Art Bell and all that overnight radio stuff is simply fairy tales and myths and the product of twisted minds and non-scientific study. I hate this. But it is the bottom line.
There is no contact and the there is little reason to expect any in the foreseeable future. Darn. Darn. Darn
Blog for Wednesday, June 25th:
There is a warming of the climate as a result of the activities of man-kind. I will give you a few examples. Wait a minute you are undoubtedly saying. I am reading John Coleman’s blog and he is the one who always says:
“There is no significant man-made global warming now, there has not been any in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.”
Well, here is the answer. Those two statements can co-exist without being a contradiction. And, I want to take a few minutes of your time to explain.
The urban heat island effect is very real and documented. It is a case of LOCAL Climate change as a result of the activities of man-kind and his civilization. But it is not significant on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Here is a classic example from an item by my friend Anthony Watts about Las Vegas.
The chart above shows the temperatures at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas have been on a steady warming trend, particularly since the late 1970’s. Well, think about it. McCarran was in the desert well away from the city up until the Las Vegas Strip boomed in the 1970’s. And, a bit by a bit, civilization spread up to the airport and eventually surrounded it. That created an urban heat island. I would bet a thousand bucks that in the desert around Las Vegas there has been no significant warming during this period. And the following two charts add credibility to heat island. Urban heat islands result in a lot less cooling at night and have only a small impact on daytime temperatures.
So there it is. That is heating caused by the activities of man-kind. It is not global warming and not a significant problem. I first became aware of the urban heat island event when I was a Weathercaster for the ABC station in Chicago in the 1970’s. Daytime temperatures were generally a little warmer in the heart of the city. But night times in the winter were a big darn deal. The low in The Loop might be 40, while the fringes of the city dropped to 30, and the way out suburbs would drop to 25 and the surrounding farmland might hit as low as 20 by dawn. This was a dramatic heat island effect. So I predicted temperatures for the city, the boonies and super boonies. I prepared maps showing the regions. This was man-kind having a dramatic impact on the climate, but it was not regional, national, worldwide and not a problem.
Then I moved to Southern California. Here the impact of mankind is a bit less easy to measure but it’s there; I know it is. We have 40 million people living in what naturally ranges from Mediterranian to semi-arid to desert. So what has mankind done? Our civilization has imported millions of gallons water from the Sierra Mountains and the Rocky Mountains used it to turn arid areas into farmland and to create vegitationally lush cities. The humidity in the cities is greatly increased as a result and that means nights are warmer and days are cooler. It creates more cloudiness than normal and perhaps has increased rainfall marginally in those areas. Another dramatic part of this was when the Los Angeles Water District bought all of the water from the runoff from the eastern side of Sierra Mountains into the Owens River and from a resulting huge auqifer under the Owens Valley and pumped all that water to LA. The previously lush farmlands and fields of the Owens Valley dried up into a hot desert. Mankind had greatly impacted the regional climate. It is not a significant event in the climate worldwide. It is not a problem for we scientists.
One more story. Forty years ago a State Climatologist I knew said that mankind had caused the great dust bowl of the 1930’s. Now that would have been a truly significant man-made climate change event. I don’t know if he was correct, but I found it a plausible, fascinating theory. He said that in the Indian years the southern great plains of the central United States were covered with thousands of square miles of rangeland covered in high, deep green perennial grass on which the Buffalo and Deer and Antelope grazed.
He says that when the European emigrants came into the region they established farms. They burned off the grass and plowed the fields and planted their crops. At first everything went well with nice Spring and Summer showers. But as the grass lands were almost all cleared, that changed the climate. The dark colored grasses which had absorbed the sun’s warmed, created updrafts and showers eventually all disappeared and when the Spring plowing was done a rather light colored clay-like soil (far different than the dark, almost black, soil in the heart of the farmbelt from Iowa, through Illinois and Indiana into Ohio) reflexed the Sun’s warmed back into the sky immediately and no warming occurred and the updrafts and showers failed and a dust bowl developed.
His theory has never been widely published or generally accepted. But, I think it well might be a case of significant man-made regional warming. But it was not worldwide.
There are lots of other cases somewhat like these, but enough is enough for today, so I will not take more of your attention.
So when I state my case as a skeptic of the current global warming frenzy, please understand I have a real experience and interest in climate and have studied many cases. And, I have seriously considered the case of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” and “greenhouse gas” and if carbon dioxide was a climate problem, I would see it and understand and join Al Gore and the IPCC in sounding the alarm. But, trust me they are wrong; dead wrong and their campaign is a case of science gone bad. So I repeat
There is no significant man-made global warming or climate change, there has not been any in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.
Blog for Tuesday, June 24th:
The latest analysis of the El Nino development from Meteorologist Bob Tisdale raises questions about whether the El Nino is going to actually happen. After an extensive discussion he concludes:
“Without more westerly wind bursts and a weakening of the trade winds in the western equatorial Pacific, the warm water in the eastern equatorial Pacific will continue to decline, and we could very possibly have another ENSO-neutral year.”
On the other hand two of the charts he presents make it seem as though the development this year might produce a real El Nino. Here are the charts:
To see his detailed analysis go to WattsUpWithThat at:
Meanwhile, I will show just how unpredictable the weather is. Ten days ago the AVN computer model, the one I regard as the most accurate, predicted a significant tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico off of the west coast of Florida. Well look the Sat/rad for today. There is not even a weather system in the Gulf.
Wow, even in 2014, after 40 years of computer model development major flaws still pop up. If you have heard of the butterfly effect, this might be a good example of it.
Now here is the wildest idea for today. A Professor Rongjia Tao of the department of Physics at Temple University recently had a paper published in the International Journal of Modern Physics in which he suggests that we Americans build three great walls in Tornado Alley to eliminate our nation’s major tornado threat there forever. These walls can be built locally at high tornado risk areas to eliminate tornado threat there first, then gradually extended.
Here is the typical Spring tornado weather pattern.
Here is how the weather system can spin up a tornado according to his paper.
And, here the idea for the three tornado killer, 900 foot high walls. Wall one blocks the dry air from the desert pouring into tornado alley.
Wall two blocks the flow of very warm, very humid Gulf of Mexico air from spreading into tornado alley. Wall three blocks the cold polar air masses from spreading into the Midwest.
You can read this entire proposal on WattsUpWithThat at
This may just about the wackiest idea to actually be published as a professional paper in my life time. Now think about this: We have this big old panicky movement to stop man-kind from having an impact on our climate via the carbon dioxide released in burning fossil fuels to power our civilization. But here is a proposal to intentionally change the weather dramatically. Yes, as weird as it is, this might well greatly reduce the number of tornadoes. But it would also have a huge impact on the amount of rainfall, the temperatures, the winds, the length of the growing season; essentially dramatically alter the climate of the United States farm belt. Hello, Professor Toa, you are playing with fire.
By the way if we built such a wall in the San Gorgonio Pass (around Beaumont and Banning) where I-10 crosses from the LA basin to the Coachella Valley we could eliminate the winds from the Palm Springs desert area and make the weather there much more pleasant.
But if we start manipulating the weather, heaven knows what the final unintended consequences might be. Talk about the butterfly effect.
Blog for Monday, June 23rd:
It’s a big night. The climate skeptics side of the debate was given a solid link at the top of The Drudge Report home page. This is the big deal.
The link was, however, not to CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox, or to the New York Times on the AP. Oh no. It was a link to the website of The Telegraph, an English Newspaper. The article by Christopher Booker includes this line a couple of paragraphs in…
“…s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”
I then went to Steven Goddard’s website where I found the moving image above. What it shows is the NOAA people changed the historic temperature records to cool the past and warm the present. What an outrages manipulation of science.
Here are the links:
Steven Goddard’s website: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
While I was very pleased to see this skeptical science linked by Drudge and like Goddard’s write up very much, this is not news to me at all. It you go to the video’s here on my website you will see an interview and a section of my second TV documentary that reveals this information for the first time. I aired this four years ago and it simply went unnoticed by the rest of the world. It is so hard to get attention.
Two of my heroes Joe D’Aleo and E. M. Smith did the digging into the NOAA data to uncover this amazing manipulation. You can watch the interview with D’Aleo at http://johncolemanweather.com/vidoes/
and the full report in the my documentary at http://johncolemanweather.com/vidoes/
You can skip through it to about half way to the part where I cover D’Aleo and Smith’s investigation of the Data Climate Center’s manipulations.
You might think that something as truly shocking as this would have been picked up my the major media in the United States. Come to think about it you are too in touch with reality to think our major media would cover this; they regard us as kooks and Al Gore, et al, as the Disciples of the settled science. Thanks to Drudge, at least we reached a few thousand more people today.
I continue to hope that the coming big Conference in Las Vegas next month will get some media coverage. If you want to know more about the conference go to http://johncolemanweather.com/las-vegas-conference/.
Blog for Thursday, June 19th:
A couple people who read my comments on Facebook today replied with vigorous opposition to my skeptical position on global warming/climate change. I shouldn’t be surprised by this because opinion surveys indicate that more American’s believe in global warming than are skeptical and Democrats are very committed to backing global warming for political reasons (never mind the science) because they support President Obama and Al Gore and their party platform. Actually I should expect more frequent opposing comments than I actually receive. Of course I would have more respect for the those who challenge me if they could do it without derogatory personal putdowns. Believe me, my position is strictly scientific and has no political basis and I have no personal animosity with those who are on the other side on the issue (this includes numerous relatives and personal friends.)
So I guess I need to go through the points they bring up with my responses.
First of all, they talk about carbon dioxide being a pollutant that is causing warming. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant in the classic scene what so ever. It is invisible (Not black smoke as it is often depicted), it is tasteless and odorless. It is not solely the result of our use of fossil fuels. It has been a natural trace gas in the atmosphere throughout history. It is essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants then use it for Photosynthesis. Without carbon dioxide there would be on life on Earth.
Carbon Dioxide is produced by natural processes and particularly large quantities are emitted in volcanic eruptions. Through the history of Earth far has more comes from the volcanoes than from the exhaust of our use of fossil fuels. It is a minor trace gas in the atmosphere, .04 percent (That is four one hundreds of one percent). It causes so little warming it is virtually undetectable. It is not a super greenhouse gas. Natural warming and cooling cycles far overwhelm its impact. Remember there has been any warming in almost 20 years even though we have continued to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the use of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels our civilization would collapse; no cell phones, no computers, no TVs and so on. The new green energy is 30 years away from replacing fossil fuels. We must be patient. We won’t destroy our environment in the meantime.
The polar ice is not rapidly melting as they claim. Remember at the end of the last ice age 13 thousand years ago the Earth was 60 percent covered in a thick sheet of ice. It has been steadily melting ever since and now retreated to the poles where the ice is now essential stable with some ups and downs. But there absolutely is not a rapid melt as a result of the activities of mankind and his civilization. Relax.
The Polar Bears are not endangered despite our Governmental silliness. The Polar Bear populations have been increasing in recent years; after all it is now illegal for the Eskimos to hunt them.
The Oceans are not rising. We have some islands that are sinking into the Ocean but the rise of the oceans in general is an at tiny increase and in no way threatens our coastal cities with flooding.
And, the critics today wrote as though the Polar Vortex that created the coldest winter in the United States in 30 years was a result of our global warming. Nonsense. From Wikipedia: The polar vortex was first described as early as 1853. The phenomenon’s sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) appears during the wintertime in the Northern Hemisphere and was discovered in 1952 with radiosonde observations at altitudes higher than 20 km. There is no connection between the activities of mankind and our use of fossil fuels and the polar vortex.
You, my detractors, also are very critical of the Heartland Institute, the Chicago based Libertarian Think Tank based in Chicago, that is sponsoring the International Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas next month where I will be speaking. They deny that they are funded by the fossil fuel companies. I don’t know where they get their funding but I know they have been honorable and nice people in all of my dealings. They do not pay me but do cover some of my expenses when I am a speaker at their functions. I do not know it they pay others. It is none of my business. I do know that throughout the political word millions of dollars changes hands. Greenpeace, the Wildlife Federation, The Sierra Club and thousands of research organizations and others receive Federal Grants (our tax dollars) by the millions. We global warming skeptics don’t get a nickel.
I think this covers the points brought up by my detractors today. Let the debate continue.
Blog for Wednesday, June 18th:
Are heavy rains hitting San Diego and the rest of California in your dreams these days?
A new survey finds that Californians now regard drought as a more or less normal state of their climate. I find that great news because clearly it is reality. Forty million people living in a semi-arid region, farming, watering lawns and gardens, taking showers and all the rest like washing their cars. What do you expect? Drought seems like the most likely result. Importing water from the mountain snow melt near and far is all that makes our civilization work at all and accepting drought as normal seems like a good step in dealing with reality. Eventually, I hope and think, desalination of Pacific Ocean water will become economically practical and save the day. In the meantime, Californians keep hoping for an occasional El Nino to fire up some heavier rainfall and keep us perking. So the reports that an El Nino seems to be forming has created a lot of interest.
Here is the latest map of surface water temperature Anomalies for the Oceans of the World. You can see a bit of an orange smudge I the Equatorial Eastern Pacific Ocean off of the coast of Peru.
That bit of orange is the beginning of the formation of an El Nino. Frankly it is not much yet, but it keeps the hope alive.
The head guy at the U.S. Climate Prediction Center says, “We slightly favor a moderate strength event, although all possible solutions, from a strong event, to this not even developing, are still on the table.” (His name is Mike Halpert and he is the acting director of the Climate Prediction Center.
In March, the forecaster there had issued an “El Nino watch” and set the chances of it developing this summer at 50 percent. On June 5, when the latest forecast was issued, the chances went up to 70 percent.
This forecast is based on their computer models that factor in Pacific Ocean temperatures and other variables, but so far those models aren’t in agreement when it comes to severity.
“I’m hoping that the model runs we see in early July will begin to converge,” Halpert said.
As for me I expect a moderate El Nino late this Fall and through the Winter with an moderate increase in rainfall in California, particularly in the northern part of the state. It appears less likely than it did a few months ago that a “super El Nino” will develop.
“Earlier, people thought it might be a giant event,” said Tony Barnston, an expert at Columbia University. “Now it doesn’t look that way.”
“A moderate strength event appears somewhat more likely than a weak or strong event, and a weak event slightly more likely than a strong event,” Barnston said.
By the way this should still be enough to have limit the number and strength of hurricanes in the Atlantic this season. I note the water temperatures there are normal to cooler than normal and that bodes well for a minor hurricane eason. an impact on hurricanes this year.
“The biggest unknown,” he said, is whether El Nino rains will help drought areas in the Southwest and West, especially California.
We older Californians remember the super El Nino of 1997-98. I don’t think we should hold out any expectation of that sort of event repeating this year.
By the way I am told the Global Warming Alarmist crowd is cheering the El Nino and counting on it to start temperatures rising again after this long period of steady temperatures. They will be screaming “the sky is falling” by January. Just you wait and see. LOL
Blog for Monday, June 16th:
This is a picture of the devastating, twin tornadoes that hit in Northeastern Nebraska on Monday afternoon devastating the town of Pilger.
If you don’t mind sitting through the commercial you can see a fine video of these tornadoes at
The media is making a very big deal that these were twin tornadoes. I suspect some diehard global warming alarmist will soon made a big deal out of it claiming this rare event is a sure sign of global warming. Before that happens, please have a look at the album of pictures I am posting here that is made up of pictures of twin tornadoes from my photo file compiled over the last few years. Twin tornadoes happen numerous times each year and since cell phones put a camera in everybody’s pocket the pictures have come flooding in.
And, tornado alley has been busy with tornado outbreaks almost every year in recorded history. I worked in TV in Omaha for about three years and my Springs were very busy putting tornado warnings on the air and covering the consequences. One year, I think it was 1964, we had tornado warnings within the Omaha area 31 days in a row. I worked so long and hard and intensely I was near a breakdown and I was just a very young man only a few years out of college.
It was that year that the town of Yorktown, Iowa, in our Omaha TV coverage area was devastated by one of these tornadoes. I found my name (which I have emboldened) in the town history website which takes its name from the name of the TV documentary we produced. (By the way, that was the first documentary I ever did). Here is the story from the Yorktown website:
On Sunday, April 12, 1964, at approximately 4:30 P.M. a devastating tornado hit the town. That evening the town looked hopeless with loss of building set at 8O% and close to one and one-half million dollar damage. Nine family homes completely destroyed, the rest looking almost hopeless. Both churches and Parochial school all damaged. The Special Education School completely destroyed as well as the school bus and barn. The locker and Post Office, Eichhorst Cafe and Grocery and Garage completely destroyed. Mrs. Flora Eichhorst was the only fatality.
However, on the Monday following, the outlook was not quite so bleak. Help came from all over, including friends, relatives, Page County employees and trucks, laborers, including the skilled Mennonite. The Salvation Army was here within one hour after with their canteen truck. The Red Cross followed shortly after with their aid for those who needed it and food for the workers. They also picked up the bills for the Mennonite’s room and food. Clarinda Fire Department came with portable generators and lights to help deter the looting. Within hours Governor Hughes ordered in the National Guard to help guard and patrol the area. The Salvation Army remained a week or more providing warm meals for the workers. After they left the St. Paul’s Lutheran Ladies furnished the noon meal to all residents and workers who cared to come.
The Post Office was set up across the street from the demolished building in Tom Whitney’s front porch. Not one incoming or outgoing dispatch was missed. Postmaster McElhiney received help from Postmaster Bunting of Shambaugh and Postal worker Don Runyon from the Clarinda Postal Department.
KETV Television men, John Coleman and Lee Terry, and crew came to film the thirteen-mile area for a thirty minute program to be aired on their station.
The title of the show: YORKTOWN, A TOWN TOO TOUGH TO DIE
Needless to say, I am happy to be spending my retirement years in San Diego. We have no plans to move.
Blog for Sunday, June 15th
The President is not my enemy. I never get personal in discussing the matter of Global Warming/Climate Change. I also not political on the topic and stay away from the Republican/Democrat thing. All am I trying to do is correct the bad science that links the increase in the essential trace gas of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels with a “greenhouse effect” effect global warming crisis. That makes it very frustrating when the President gets personal in his global warming comments. That is what happened Saturday at the University of California, Irvine, where the President was delivering the Commencement speech. He certainly selected a valid location for the topic since the Meteorology group at UCI is very active in the Global Warming research using tens of millions of Federal Research Grants to write and run Climate prediction computer models.
Here is how the media characterized the President’s talk:
President Obama, apparently frustrated at opposition to his proposals to combat climate, resorted to ridicule Saturday.
“It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist,” Obama said during commencement exercises Saturday at the University of California-Irvine.
When President Kennedy vowed to send astronauts to the moon during the 1960s, Obama said by way of example, critics said the mission might be too long or expensive.
“But nobody ignored the science,” Obama said. “I don’t remember anybody saying that the moon wasn’t there, or that it was made of cheese.”
Criticizing lawmakers — mostly Republicans — who deny climate change, Obama said “there was one member of Congress who mentioned a theory involving ‘dinosaur flatulence’ — which I won’t get into.”
At another point, Obama called their view “a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future.”
Obama also criticized Washington lawmakers who are in fact concerned about climate change, but are afraid that, “if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot.”
Republican critics do say that Obama’s various proposals will hurt businesses, slow economic growth, and do little if anything to impact a global climate in which other nations are major polluters.
In blew my mind that the President also criticized the media on the topic, saying it “doesn’t spend a lot of time covering climate change and letting average Americans know how it could impact our future.” I think most of you would agree with me that the media spews out a steady stream of global warming/climate change “the sky is falling” stories. The media never, ever reports the skeptical point of view. So I really couldn’t image what the President was talking about when he picked on the media.
Well here is what was bugging him. He said “When we introduced those new anti-pollution standards a couple weeks ago, the instant reaction from the Washington’s political press wasn’t about what it would mean for our planet; it was what would it mean for an election six months from now.”
This is all very frustrating to me but I am not going to get personal or political in return. I simply will say again (with great confidence) that there is no significant man-made global warming now, has not been any in the past and there is no scientific reason to expect any in the future. And the evidence continues to be on my side.
Blog for Saturday, June 14th:
It has happened again. Another Scientist with a Doctorate has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubt about man-made global warming. And he is plenty mad and has a lot to say. Dr. Caleb Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University, who has taught courses in climate statistics and holds a PhD in policy analysis and a Master’s Degree in mathematics.
“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It is so well-meaning, and so misguided’ – ‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue”, says Dr. Rossiter.
He wrote an Op-ed article that was published by the Wall Street Journal in which he expressed doubt about global warming which he described as an “unproved science” and complained the limits on carbon dioxide emissions would have a devastating impact on the economy of African nations and the lives of the African people. And whamo, he was fired.
In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published (this piece in the Wall Street Journal), the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”
To read all about this and it’s repercussions go to Climate Depot at http://www.climatedepot.com/
Blog for Friday, June 13th:
I have just suffered a near knockout blow to stomach. I am withering in deep pain all curled up here on the floor moaning and wondering when I will feel well enough to get back on my feet and back into the fight. It was not a friendly punch I took, it was not a solid boxing jab. It was a massive blow that I didn’t see coming. Wow. It hurts.
For the past year I have been very upbeat and truly felt that we climate change skeptics were making great progress in our battle to correct the bad science behind the global warming scare. I have heard from seemingly thousands of supportive people with only an occasional negative comment. I have felt secure as one of thousands of foot soldiers marching behind the leadership of hundreds of notable Ph.D. Scientists. This was it; we were on the march to victory. The tide of public opinion was rising rapidly behind us as we worked tirelessly to correct the bad science that had led to the global warming/climate change frenzy. Then came the near knockout blow in the form a new public opinion survey.
A majority of Americans see climate change as a threat, with 46 percent classifying it as a “major” threat and 27 percent as a “minor threat.” Half would like the federal government to adopt policies to combat it in the next decade.
Americans are willing to bear the costs of combating climate change, and most are more likely to support a candidate seeking to address the issue.
By an almost two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 33 percent, Americans say they would pay more for energy if it would mean a reduction in pollution from carbon emissions, according to the Bloomberg National Poll.
This is no small time trick survey by a global warming nutso. This is the real scientific McCoy, as best I can tell. The survey was done by the Des Moines, Iowa-based survey firm, Selzer & Company which has an impressive client list among a wide range of companies and media organizations. I see no hint it is biased or manipulated.
“It is a rare poll where people responding will stand up and say ‘tax me,’” said J. Ann Selzer, founder of Selzer & Company. The poll was conducted June 6th through the 9th. It covered 1,005 U.S. adults and is said to have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
More than half of all Americans and majorities of female, young, and independent respondents who plan to vote in the midterm elections say candidates who support measures to curb climate change are more likely to win their backing.
As I absorb the painful bad news and try to get back on my feet, I think about it. I was foolish not to realize how things really are. After all we climate skeptics have totally failed to reach most Americans.
Every day thousands of us write papers, articles, essays and blogs. We read and study each other’s work. We flood the internet with our work. I’m afraid it is “so what?”. The major media still rules. ABC, NBC, CBS, television stations in large markets and small (with one or two exceptions), CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The Weather Channel, PBS, The Associated Press, The New York Times and all the others (except FNC) all send out a steady stream of Climate Change alarmism reports with no counter position coverage. They take the position that “the science is settled”, “97% of scientists” and so on and dismiss us skeptics as “deniers”, “flat Earthers”, “Chem-trail wierdos”, etc. who are not worthy of airtime or coverage.
I am afraid we skeptics were “preaching to the choir” and simply “talking to ourselves”.
So now as I try to wish away the pain I feel and climb back to my feet, I wonder what can we do to stop being losers and get into the spotlight.
I greatly honor my friend Joseph Bast of Heartland Institute who has organized, funded and conducted 8 big time International Conferences on Climate Change bringing together more than a thousand scientist global warming skeptics. He works very hard to get media coverage. Let me ask a question, have you ever seen a video report or read a news story about any aspect of any of those conferences? As hard as they have tried and what coverage the Heartland team has been able to garner, I will bet money, none of it ever reached you. The media simply shuts us out.
The 9th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by Heartland is in Las Vegas next month (I have a page on my website with all the information). All of us participating will try hard to merit media coverage. Let me know if any coverage reaches you.
In the meantime, I am still curled up in pain here on the floor, wondering what stunt we might do to get positive media coverage. It is absolutely required if we are going to change public opinion. And, woo is our economy, woo is our way of life, woo is our civilization if we don’t being a halt to this climate change panic.
Blog for Thursday, June 12th:
While the United States Government pushes ahead with its highly aggressive campaign to cut “greenhouse gas pollution from carbon dioxide” (Which is sheer nonsense based on bad science) the Australian And Canadian governments have formed a Climate Realist Alliance according to the Ottawa Citizen. Writer Mark Kennedy reports that the political leaders of Canada and Australia declared on Monday they won’t take any action to battle climate change that harms their national economies and threatens jobs.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Australian counterpart, Tony Abbott, made the statements following a meeting on Parliament Hill.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper both say there is no need for carbon pricing to combat climate change. Both leaders stressed that they won’t be pushed into taking steps on climate change they deem unwise.
I am not going to move to Canada or Australia because of this, but instead am going to keep on, keeping on in the battle to wake up our United States leaders to the reality that there is no significant global warming.
Here are the temperature latest charts:
The cooling continued last month in the United States.
And it has been almost 18 years since we have had any warming nationally through May.
The satellite data does detect a minor increase in world-wide temperatures in May.
Despite all of this the abuse of my heroes, the skeptical Ph.D. scientists who have had the strength of character to publicly state that there is no climate crisis continues every day. One of them, Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. over the University of Alabama (Huntsville) and NASA recently wrote about the case of Lennart Bengtsson, the noted and highly accomplished Swedish Climatologist who recently became a public skeptic of global warming and then was hit with a barrage of abuse by Global Warming scientists. Spencer says that the Bengtsson case of him being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. He writes “They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers. I predict history will not treat them kindly, and the reputation of all climate scientists will be tarnished in the process. As it is, the public who pays our salaries are already laughing at us.”
This is an amazingly strong statement. He continues, “Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues who stopped our papers from being published or proposals from being funded, sometimes for the weakest of reasons, sometimes for entirely made-up reasons.”
It is because of these fine scientists whose careers have been so damaged by the “Climate Change Team” and so frustrated by a Federal Government that powers the global warming bandwagon that I continue my daily efforts. I am very old and retired, but I just cannot stop fighting to good fight to overcome the runaway bad science behind the Climate Change. I will not give up as long as I am vertical.
Blog for Wednesday, June 11th:
My website is essentially devoted to correcting the bad science of carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas that is causing uncontrollable global warming. But tonight, now that I am no longer working for a TV News Department and can write about issues that are on my mind, I am writing a blog about something else.
By my quick calculation the United States is 238 years old. I would not expect a 238 year old car to be any good by today’s standards. The same goes for everything else that is part of our life. Science and engineering has produced generation after generation of improvements in everything. That is the great news about our civilization.
Now, I am going to ask a question that is going to make most everyone who reads this very uncomfortable. Isn’t it rather foolish to assume that 238 year old constitution and way of government is still the best possible model when everything else has been updated a hundred times on the over 2 centuries since our government was formed? Before you get angry at me, read a little more.
Let me make it very clear I am not in any way suggesting an overthrow of the government. I am not a suggesting treason; even a slight bit.
However when I observe the operation of our government at all levels today, I am horrified. Clearly our current system has become terribly outdated. Allow me to give a few examples.
The current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives has a campaign fund of 3.3 million dollars to run for a two year term in a position that pays 235,000 a year. The current Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate has a campaign fund of over 19 million to run for a six year term in a position that pays 193,00 a year. The Governor of California has a campaign fund of 17 million to run for a four year term that pays about 174.000 a year. The successful candidate for Mayor of San Diego had campaign funds of 1.3 million dollars for a four year term in a position that pays just over 100,000 a year. Do you doubt for a minute that the people who make these donations are not obtaining access and positive consideration for their agendas from the person to whom they are donating. The power of money is paramount and just as it has perpetuated the bad science of global warming, I am certain is greatly distorting the function of our government at all levels.
When our Federal Government was formed the State governments that were yielding power demanded special considerations in order to join the Nation. This resulted in the absolute distortion of power. This demands correction. Think about it. The State of Wyoming has a total population of only 544 thousand people and the two U.S. Senators from Wyoming represent 227,000 people each. In contrast, California has a population of 38 million people, so each Senator from California represents 16,000,000 people.
The United States Income Tax Code has been modified endlessly in response the demands of the special interests who donate money to their candidates. It is now 73,954 pages long. About 43 percent of Americans pay no income tax at all.
Under NAFTA a United States company can have its products manufactured in Mexico by workers who make about $4.40 a DAY, or about 55 cents per hour and then transport that product duty free to the United States.
We now have 93,000,000 Americas who are not part of the work force, most of them because they cannot find a job.
In tonight’s blog, I am not going to suggest any changes. I have plenty in my mind but will let them stay private for now.
What do you think?
Blog for Tuesday, June 10th:
I know you have heard it a lot:
That awful pollutant gas carbon dioxide is creating catastrophic global warming through a greatly increased greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. I have always thought this was not an accurate claim since our atmosphere is not a greenhouse. This is why I thought it was neat when I came across an article by Walter Starck via the Canadian website Quadrant. He writes:
“To call the warming induced by CO2 a greenhouse effect is highly misleading. A greenhouse affects its warming by enclosing the air inside with walls and a roof. Without a roof only very limited warming is possible before convection wafts away heated air like a hot air balloon. A greenhouse with no roof or walls, where the warm air is free to blow away with the wind or drift into the sky is something only an academic could imagine. (Note to climate experts: a greenhouse without a roof does not work.) … The so called greenhouse effect is limited. No heat is being “trapped” by a greenhouse with no walls or roof. The real world effect of more CO2 is much more like that of a shade house equipped with evaporative cooling. The prime physical evidence for AGW is the global temperature record.” And as of now “the amount of warming being claimed is less than the margin of uncertainty. Not only is the purported amount not alarming, we have no idea how much of it is due to CO2 and how much may be attributable to measurement error, the urban heat island effect, ‘adjustments’ to the record, natural cycles or other natural causes of variability. Even more absurd is that the only global effect of increased CO2 about which we are reasonably certain is that there has been a significant and very beneficial greening of arid regions, plus an enhancement of food production.
Although the danger from climate change itself appears to have been greatly exaggerated the economic impact of ill-conceived measures to control it are already real, substantial and on-going. These include significant increases in the cost of energy and food, job losses, large scale environmental degradation from wind farms and bio-fuel production as well as the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars from other far more real and urgent needs.”
That’s pretty powerful stuff and I love it.
After editing this, I got to thinking about another thing that really bugs me: calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. So I looked at what the global warming alarmists have to say about that. Interestingly, after a slam on the agreed pollutant, sulphur dioxide, they acknowledge that CO2 is a natural minor gas in our atmosphere and that it is essential for life on Earth. Here is what they say:
“We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occurring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. … How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?” (Then with a bit of slam on the fossil fuel companies they continue…) The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster’s dictionary is “to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty.” By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. “
Then they start the twist to try to turn this trace gas into a pollutant. Remember CO2 is invisible, odorless and tasteless. Carbon dioxide is about .04 of one percent of the atmosphere. How can they turn it into an evil pollutant? Here is their try:
“However, Webster’s also has the definition: “to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste.” Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life.”
They then go into the usual scare stuff about ocean acidification, which is unproven and highly questionable. Then they say:
“The fossil fuel industry’s slogan, “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!” could just as truthfully be phrased, “Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death.” One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much “life” can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There’s not too much life there!”
Somehow they think what is going at Venus proves carbon dioxide is bad stuff. It is a super stretch and does not compute. But they then conclude by admitting that fossil fuels make our advanced civilization possible:
“The fossil fuel industry ads point out that the burning of fossil fuels has brought dramatic increases in wealth and prosperity to the world. This is a good point, and we should not seriously damage the basis of the world economy through reckless efforts to cut CO2 emissions. We can credit a good portion of the marvels of modern civilization to the availability of cheap fossil fuels to power our technological revolution.”
When it is all said, I feel very secure in my position that the essential gas carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and not creating a runaway greenhouse effect here on Earth.
It is nice to be back from vacation and back into the debate.
A special blog on Monday, June 9th:
This is a special blog for the sole purpose of plugging the big International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas starting on July 7th. I will be a speaker at breakfast on July 8th. All the information is on the Heartland website linked below:
Make your reservations by calling 877-632-9001 or 702-632-9000 or online here.
In order to receive the group rate, callers must identify their affiliation with the 9th International Conference on Climate Change.
About the Conference
Come to fabulous Las Vegas to meet leading scientists from around the world who question whether “man-made global warming” will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. Learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop global warming.
Meet the leaders of think tanks and grassroots organizations who are speaking out against global warming alarmism. Don’t just wonder about global warming… understand it!
The event will start Monday, July 7, 2014 with a cocktail reception followed by dinner. On Tuesday and Wednesday, July 8�9, we will start with breakfasts featuring keynote speakers and awards ceremonies followed by sessions, lunch, more keynote speakers and more sessions. A preliminary schedule for the event is here.
An amazing line-up of speakers! Play the speakers matching game and win a free admission ticket.
Speakers already confirmed include Marita Noon, Anthony Watts, John Coleman, Lord Monckton, Joe Bastardi, David Kreutzer, Joseph D’Aleo, and Walter Cunningham. For more speakers and their bios click here.
The past eight International Conferences on Climate Change were unqualified successes. The conferences were extensively covered by the international media and allowed more than 1,000 experts to share information and ideas regarding the latest science, economics, and politics regarding global warming. More than 4,000 people have attended an ICCC; videos of the presentations are available online at http://climateconferences.heartland.org/.
DON’T MISS THE 9th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Registration is now open!
General registration is just $129 and includes all conference meals and sessions.
Register for the event here, or call 312/377-4000 and ask for Ms. McElrath or reach her via email at email@example.com.
The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
312/377-4000 phone *312/377-5000 fax
Blog for Tuesday, June 3rd
I am an old man. I was born in 1934. The world has changed constantly in the 79 years since. And I think almost all of the changes are very much for the better. Central heating and air conditioning had not yet been established when I was born. I am so glad they came along. Radio was in its infancy and bad, bad, bad. When I listen to those old shows, I am amazed at how primitive they are. Phones were big old awkward devices on the wall or on a table with dials and cranks. Often the party line was busy and you had to wait to make a call. Dish washers were people not appliances. Washers had wringers on them and clothes lines were in every backyard. Television had not yet been invented. Computers, satellites and radar were not yet on the horizon. Doctors had limited ability to cure you and few medicines were available. People died in their forties and early fifties. Wow, we have come a long, long way. And, I love it.
Yes, I love 99.9% of the new modern world. But there is one thing where I prefer the old to the new. I just have not learned to appreciate the changes in MUSIC. Are you nice enough to listen to a few minutes of my music. Here it is:
And here is one of the classic moments:
Having said this, I now leave on vacation. See you in a week or two. This retirement thing is wonderful
Blog for Monday, June 2nd
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the direction of President Barack Obama will propose cutting the carbon dioxide (“greenhouse-gas”) emissions from the nation’s power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 today (according to all advance information flowing out of Washington DC). This represents one of the boldest steps the U.S. has taken to fight global warming/climate change.
Saturday the President signaled both the importance of the rule to his legacy on environmental protection and the bruising fight ahead by joining a conference call with congressional Democrats, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House counselor John Podesta to rally support.
Obama dismissed complaints that the rule will hurt the economy by driving up electricity prices, and told the Democrats listening: “Please go on offense” to promote the plan’s benefits. The president suggested that rather than having an adverse effect on the economy — as critics say — his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion.
The proposed regulation will permit states to achieve the reductions in climate-warming pollutants by promoting renewable energy, encouraging greater use of natural gas, embracing energy efficiency technologies or joining carbon trading markets.
The 30 percent reduction represents an average. Individual states may be directed to cut carbon emissions at levels that are greater or less than that overall figure.
I am certain you know by now that this action “drives me nuts”. Here’s why:
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is naturally occurring trace gas in the atmosphere that is essential to life on Earth. A living creatures emit CO2 when we brief out. All flora (from vegetables to weeds to trees) must haveCO2 for photosynthesis. It is invisible, and odorless.
- Carbon Dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas. It does result in slight warming of the atmosphere but because it is only a trace gas the impact is totally insignificant. The theory that CO2 is a super greenhouse gas that triggers radiative forcing through interaction with water vapor to cause highly significant warming has totally failed to verify and has been totally debunked by many well qualified scientists.
- Even if the United States reduces its emissions of CO2 it will have little or no impact since developing nations, particularly in Asia, are greatly increasing their emissions of CO2.
The president’s plan will destroy jobs and raise costs for families across America, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in a statement Sunday. And, he said he will introduce legislation to block the emissions rules.
The proposal may be Obama’s last best chance at strengthening his position with environmentalists who were disappointed in his failure in his first term to create a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions.
It will also give him evidence of America leading by example as he tries to persuade other nations to cut back on their carbon emissions.
The EPA is counting on coal plants being operated more efficiently and states shifting to natural gas from coal to get modest cuts in the next four or five years.
The President thinks his plan will “boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion”. His opponents say he’s living in a fantasy world.
These rules threaten to suppress average annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030, relative to baseline economic forecasts.
And this action threatens to lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030, relative to baseline economic forecasts.
Fossil fuel-fired power stations comprise almost 75% of the generating capacity and nearly 66% of the electricity generated in the United States.
Here’s the bottom line: This Policy Case will cause U.S. consumers to pay nearly $290 billion more for electricity between 2014 and 2030.
And it appears the entire debate is now political, not about the bad science.
Blog for Sunday, June 1st
The internet, Google and Wikipedia. These are the three most powerful forces on Earth today. If the young people of today are not a thousand times better informed that I was at their age, they have no excuse but super laziness. Compared to dark ages of the 1940s-50s and 60s when I was young and trying to learn about life, money and particularly meteorology, this is a golden age of information.
I took correspondence courses. That meant getting a text book via the mail and study guides in manila envelopes. Then I studied and submitted my papers and texts via mail. In a week or two I’d get the results and start the next unit. If I needed more information, I could go to the library across town, finger through index cards in a file drawer to find the book I wanted, request it, wait and then check it out. I would study it and then go back to the library.
Compare that to Googling my topic, instantly getting the paper via Wikipedia. Sign-up for a course on-line, study and take texts and get results all on an instant basis. Watch videos covering my topic on You Tube. Ask the Professor questions on a chat page, etc., etc. What a difference.
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger had dinner in Ocean Beach one evening and hatched the idea of Wikipedia and launched the service on January 15, 2001. And a new age of information was born. As of May 2014, Wikipedia is the world’s sixth-most-popular website and is the largest general-knowledge encyclopedia in history, with a combined total of over 31.6 million articles. On average, Wikipedia receives a total of 10 billion global page-views from around 495 million unique visitors every month, including 85 million visitors from the United States alone, where it is the sixth-most-popular site. On average, the Main Page of the English Wikipedia alone receives approximately 8 million global page-views every day. Over 50 million people have written and edited articles.
I have looked at a wide range of meteorological topics on Wikipedia and found them all amazingly complete, correct and well presented. You can learn everything you need to know to obtain a degree in Meteorology by studying and learning the over 160 articles on various weather related topics.
But when it comes to controversial topics from politics to the global warming debate, lots of problems emerge. People with biases and agendas are constantly editing topics to present their point of view. And, others are then re-editing. There is a detailed system of administrators now that tries to police all of this but it is not totally successful.
There is an English Engineer named Green Party activist named William Connolley who is has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles mostly on global warming/climate change totally demeaning and/or eliminating the skeptical viewpoint. Recently, the Administrators and put some limits on him and things are a little better, but far from perfect.
Some people are very negative about Wikipedia and college professors seem to particularly warn of its short comings, but I say never mind Wikipedia is power force mostly for good in our society.
Google began in March 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Ph.D. students at Stanford University. The domain google.com is registered on September 15, 1997. The name “Google” originated from a misspelling of “googol”, which refers to the number represented by a 1 followed by one-hundred zeroes. Page and Brin write “We chose our systems name, Google, because it is a common spelling of googol, or 10100 and fits well with our goal of building very large-scale search engines.” By the end of 1998, Google had an index of about 60 million pages. As of September 2013, Google operates 70 offices in more than 40 countries. The most recent figures I can find show that Google is used for 114.7 billion searches in a month. You can find out anything within a split second.
All of this depends on the internet which began in the 1960s when the US Department of Defense awarded contracts for packet network systems, including the development of the ARPANET (which would become the first network to use the Internet Protocol.) The first message was sent over the ARPANET from computer science Professor Leonard Kleinrock’s laboratory at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to the second network node at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). I saw my first internet computer at the University of Wisconsin in 1975 and had the first weather computer in my “Good Morning, America” weather office in 1975. It changed everything. The weather data of the entire world was suddenly at my finger tips.
I am amazed by the world I live in. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that the Internet, Google and Wikipedia are the most power forces on Earth today.
Blog for Saturday, May 31st
Another prominent scientist….
Dr. Daniel Botkin Ph.D, an emeritus Professor from the University of California, Santa Barbara has publicly disputed the apocalyptic global warming/climate change mantra of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Obama Administration’s Climate Report, the many scientific organizations in the United States, environmentalists and the Democrat Party. As has become a pattern in recent years, Dr. Botkin waited until was retired and his views would no longer impact funding for the University to make his public statement.
The entire testimony is now available on WattsUpWithThat at this link
If you have time (It is quite long) please read it. After reading it Posted this comment:
Dr. Botkin delivers a truly reasoned presentation that respects the scientists involved while refuting the alarmism that headlines their documents, shows great care in considering and presenting the detail of each event, region and species and reaches reasonable conclusions. Thank you, Thank you, thank you.
We all must remember or learn that in this forever changing environment in which we live flora and fauna will be forever changing as it adapts and species will forever be fading away as new ones emerge.
It is my fervent hope that other reasonable scientists will pull back from the alarmism campaign and join Dr. Botkin’s effort to have a calm, reasonable discussion in place of the loud, exaggerated claims and non-reasoned extremist positions that dominate the media today.
Now back to summary of his statement:
He submitted written testimony to U.S. House Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology this past week and then answered the Congressmen’s questions. Here is some of what he said: ‘I have been concerned about global warming since 1968 and in the 1980s, it looked like the weight of evidence lent towards human induced climate change, to a significant extant, and since then it’s moved against it. I was concerned that there was a human induced climate warning and I gave talks and TV interviews that said that, but since the middle of the 1990s, there is evidence that is running against that. For example the temperature change is not tracking carbon dioxide very well. Then there is the information from the long term Antarctic ice core and some from recent paper in the arctic, that suggest that carbon dioxide does not lead temperature change, it may actually lag it significantly or may not lead it at all, and if that is the case that is still an open but important scientific evidence. So there are several lines of evidence that are suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case.’
My internet friend Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics) wrote about all this saying, “The significant thing here is that UC Santa Barbara Professor Botkin is from their Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology. Those people are usually fanatical about Global Warming, because they typically know little about the physical sciences and are big on the presumed ‘consensus’ and Left-Wing politics. Botkin has a PhD in Plant Ecology, an MA in English Literature and Journalism, and a BA in Physics. So, he does know something about the physical sciences.
Note that he understands that the lack of global warming for the last 15 plus years limits the possible CO2 effect relative to other effects. He also understands that the lag of CO2 behind temperature in the ice cores suggests that CO2 is a product of climate change not a cause. These are arguments that every scientist should understand, but many do not.
As with all converts, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Will he really throw himself into the fray, trying to correct some of the harm he has done? That would be wonderful. Or will he let his mea culpa on Capitol Hill suffice? That wouldn’t be as wonderful.
It may depend on how severely Warmers attack him and how sturdy his personality is. Most of us have gained strength from the many personal attacks. But not all. Speaking out to Congress is an indication that he is no shrinking violet.”
Here are some excerpts from Botkin’s testimony that my friend Marc Morano of Climate Depot posted on his website:
Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate.
I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century.
Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now
Phosphorus and other essential minerals
Pollution by directly toxic substances
End Excerpt of Dr. Botkin’s testimony.
I am adding this fine man to my list of heroes.
Blog for Friday, May 30th
El Nino is here.
The sea surface temperature map continues to show the increase in the pool of warmer than average water in the eastern Pacific Ocean, off of the coast of Peru.
It is not nearly as strong as the great El Nino of 1997-98.
It is predicted to continue to increase somewhat in the coming months, but no one is predicting it to become super strong on long lasting.
Here is the typical El Nino weather pattern. Wetter and cooler than average in Southern California and across the south. Warmer and drier than average for Seattle and northwest.
Here is the latest El Nino report from NASA.
I will continue to keep you posted as the El Nino continues to develop.
Blog for Thursday, May 29th
2013 was one of the quietest wildfire years in U.S. history. The 2014 wildfire season, moreover, has been relatively quiet so far. This statistics come from by my friend and hero James Taylor.
He is managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism published by The Heartland Institute. He also writes a weekly column for Forbes which appears on the magazine’s Forbes.com website. Here is that article:
Sorry, Jerry Brown, Global Warming Is Reducing Wildfires
California Gov. Jerry Brown blames global warming for recent wildfires in California, but objective scientific data show a decline in wildfires as our planet modestly warms.
2013 was one of the quietest wildfire years in U.S. history, according to objective data from the federal government’s National Interagency Fire Center. The 47,000 wildfires last year may seem like a very large number – and it certainly gives global warming alarmists like Brown plenty of fodder for misleading global warming claims – but the 47,000 wildfires was less than half the average number of wildfires that occurred each year in the 1960s and 1970s. Importantly, the Earth was in a cooling phase during the 1960s and 1970s when so many more wildfires occurred.
The unusually quiet 2013 fire season continued a long-term trend in declining wildfires. From 1962 through 1982, for example, at least 100,000 wildfires occurred in the United States every year. Since 1982, however, not a single year has registered 100,000 wildfires. During the past decade, an average of 73,000 wildfires occurred each year. During the 1970s, by contrast, an average of 155,000 wildfires occurred each year.
The 2014 wildfire season, moreover, has been relatively quiet so far. The total number of wildfires is well below the 1962-2013 average, and is even below the average for the past decade. Even so, the below-average 22,000 wildfires so far this year give global warming alarmists plenty of opportunities to mislead the public about the scientific facts.
The long-term decline in wildfires reflects an ongoing improvement in global soil moisture and an ongoing decline in global drought.
Sorry, Jerry Brown, Global Warming Is Reducing Wildfires.
Blog for Wednesday, May 28th
A climate skeptic named Larry Hamlin, a retired Southern California Edison vice president of power production and former state energy construction czar under Gov. Gray Davis (2001), just wrote another in his series of guest blogs on WattsUpWithThat in which he debunks this crazy headline. I picked up the material below from his excellent essay.
And it was not just the Guardian that hyped ocean rise from melting in Antarctica, the U.S. Major TV Networks screamed “The Sky is Falling” back on May 13th:
NBC Brian Williams warned that sea level would rise by 13 feet by the year 2100. ABC’s Diane Sawyer chimed in that Florida would be hit by three or more feet of sea level rise. CBS’s Scott Pelley bemoaned that a large part of Antarctica is melting and can’t be stopped.
These broadcasts were supposedly based on these two new released studies which addressed research on West Antarctica ice loss involving six specific glaciers and that somewhere in the next 200 to 900 years onset of sea level rise increase of 1 mm or more per year could begin. But several of the alarmist scientists had encouraged the outrageous reports by issuing hyped crisis statements.
Now the real facts: One of the studies was published in Science and involved use of computer simulations. This study specifically cautions that the simulations used were not coupled to global climate models and as such these simulation results do not constitute a projection of future sea level rise impacts. But the projections of a sea level rise increase 1/2 thickness of human fingernail crated that media “sea level rise alert” panic.
The second study was published in Geophysical Research Letters and involved use of satellite radar tracking analysis of ice movement and thickness. This study found that over the last 41 years the ice loss from these six unstable glaciers has increased. It then said that projections of the evolution of this sector of West Antarctica should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore neither of these studies made any claims that man-made climate change was responsible for these findings.
None the less, the broadcast media “freaked out” with absurd claims
In addition to the NBC, CBS and ABC news anchor absurdities noted earlier the BBC claimed that sea level would rise by 1.4 meters by 2100 and The Guardian claimed that sea level would rise by 4 meters. Based on the material contained in the two published studies the alarmist claims made by NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, The Guardian and many other news organizations about these West Antarctica studies can only be viewed as ill-informed, exaggerated and erroneous. It seems clear that no one involved with these news organizations made any effort to actually obtain, read and evaluate the information contained in the two studies.
The on May 19 another study was published in Geophysical Research Letters. It was based on results of new satellite radar altimetry measurements. Again this third study makes no assertions about man-made climate change being responsible for the study’s findings.
The Guardian and the BBC both wrongly claimed in screaming headlines that the study showed that Antarctica ice loss had doubled since the last measurements. That was plain and simple not true at all.
The manner in which these three Antarctica studies were reported and broadcast by the news media can only be characterized as an extraordinary example of what climate alarmism and climate science propaganda looks like. It is clear from how these alleged news reports were handled that the news organizations involved are pushing political and ideological agendas that have nothing to do with objective climate science reporting.
Thanks to Larry Hamlin for researching and explaining all of this.
Blog for Tuesday, May 27th
Yes, I enjoyed a barbeque today with about 500 people, some of whom I know well and most of whom have familiar faces but I don’t really know at all. The food was great. The friendly vibes were very good. There was plenty of fun.
But did I think about our nation and the men and women who gave their lives to protect our freedom? You bet I did. I am lucky because no one in my family has been killed in action despite several years in uniform for many of them. May the red, white and blue forever wave on my house as it has for decades and decades.
What I didn’t spend much time thinking about is debunking climate change/global warming. But the Wall Street Journal published an article by two men for whom I have great respect, Joseph Bast of Heartland Institute and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville and NASA. Their article deals with that frequently touted statistic “97% of scientists”.
I am going to reprint the article here:
The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%’
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite
Blog for Monday, May 26th
I was planning to write about the great indebtedness we all have to the brave young men and women who gave their lives defending our country and protecting our freedom. I feel very strongly about their sacrifice.
But then came the word of the death of my friend Herb Jefferies. Now I don’t feel like writing. His Son Rob lives in Encinitas. Herb lived a long and amazing life. He was 101. Here is one of his life highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORaSnWF2SX4.
I played this song on the radio as boy disc jockey.
Here are pictures from the trip my son and I took along the San Andres Fault on Tuesday. Otherwise, please accept my best for a great holiday for you and yours.
Blog for Sunday, May 25th
Secretary of State John Kerry has become a strong voice for the Obama Administration’s campaign to institute government dictated counter measures to stop Climate Change and save us from an environmental catastrophe. As he explained it in a recent speech in Mexico, even if they are wrong about climate change, the things they want to do would be highly beneficial. “The worst thing is we would create millions of new jobs; we would transition to cleaner energy … we would have cleaner air, which would mean we have less hospitalization for children [with] asthma and people with particulates causing cancer; and we would have greater energy security for everybody and independence as a result. That’s the worst that could happen.”
Back in this county, Mr. Kerry warned graduates of Boston College that they have doom and destruction to look forward to if they don’t take climate change more seriously than previous generations. “And I know it’s hard to feel the urgency as we sit here on an absolutely beautiful morning in Boston,” Kerry said, “you might not see climate change as an immediate threat to your job, your communities or your families. But let me tell you, it is.”
If the U.S. does not act, “and it turns out that the critics and the naysayers and the members of the Flat Earth Society – if it turns out that they’re wrong, then we are risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet,” Kerry told the graduates.
Kerry said that 97 percent of scientists say climate change is ‘urgent’ because it will lead to food and water insecurity, and ‘things will change in a hurry. And they will change for the worse.
“What’s frustrating is that this challenge is not without a solution,’ he continued. ‘The solution is actually starring us in the face: It is energy policy. Make the right energy policy choices, and America can lead a six trillion dollar market with four billion users today, and grow it to nine billion users in the next 50 years,” he claimed.
“If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge, and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong – 97 percent of them, all wrong – but supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? This is not a matter of politics or partisanship. It’s a matter of science and stewardship.”
“What we are seeing around the world is what scientists have predicted,” Kerry continued. “They’re not telling us that we may see global climate change. We are seeing it, and we’re seeing the impacts now.”
All of that is a very strong and appealing presentation. But, I have to try to explain what’s wrong with it.
Mr. Kerry’s vision is that we will cut of the use of fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal and switch to solar and wind. As sweet as that sounds it just will not work at this time. Both solar and wind are part time power sources and still far more expensive than fossil fuels. Poorer nations, such as Mexico to our immediate south, could not maintain their economy and civilization without fossil fuels. And, even in the United States the cost of food and transportation, heat and electricity would skyrocket. The energy sources that Kerry said creates “more and more of the problem of climate change in a compounded fashion” are what keep Mexico and many other nations up and running. Kerry’s dreams of eradicating fossil fuels would mean lights out for Mexico.
The Secretary of State is fed the scientific material he uses by scientists who are totally funded by the Federal Government to produce data that supports the global warming claims. Their primary product are computer models which they have set up to show what happens if carbon dioxide is an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas. Here is the chart of those predictions compared to actual temperatures.
It is very clear that the science behind Mr. Kerry and the rest of the global warming crowd is not valid.
Meanwhile, they claim that 97% of scientists support global warming. That statistic is just plain phony. However, it is true that there is a great mass of scientists who support the global warming movement. And, who can blame them since their entire professional careers and handsome income from Federal grants depend on supporting the global warming movement.
But, our network of skeptics is also very large even though we don’t get any funding for our efforts. We will be having an international conference in Las Vegas in July. Look at this web site and you can see who many of these skeptics are and see their credentials. It is an impressive group. Here is the web site:
http://climateconference.heartland.org/ By the way I will be one of the two speakers at the Tuesday morning breakfast at that conference.
Please understand that I am an environmentalist and I support the development of alternate energy. But, because there is no significant man-made global warming we do not have to skyrocket our cost of living and give up our fossil fuel powered civilization of smart phone, TVs, computers, air conditioning and heating, jet airplanes and a prosperous industrialist system as we work toward efficient and full time new energy sources. Let science do its job. Within 30 years we will be done with fossil fuels. In the meantime, there is no crisis,so relax and enjoy life.
Blog for Saturday, May 24th
Global Warming, now called Climate Change since the warming stopped, was responsible for the bitterly cold winter in the eastern two-thirds of the United States this past winter according the latest scientific claim and Climate Change is also going to increase the price of your insurance, but at least it is not going to increase our defense budget in the U.S. House of Representatives has its way. Global Warming is now involved in everything around us, even if it’s not for real.
Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, University of Oxford, is behind the new theory which attempts to connect the coldest winter in 30 years in the Eastern United States with global warming. A comment he got from a friend who lives in New York who said “we can forget about global warming because we’ve just had one of the coldest winters on record” made him realize that people’s perception of the effect of our emissions of carbon dioxide are too simplistic (by his way of looking at it). He says that the climate system is extremely complicated and while indeed in the long run we are heading for a warmer planet the effects of our emissions of carbon dioxide on a year-to-year basis are really much more complex than this. He says warmer than “normal” temperatures in the Pacific caused the record cold weather in the east. So, he tries to make a link between man-made climate change and the anomalies that were experienced around the world this last winter. This may be hard for people in Chicago and Detroit to accept. But this strangeness is out there and getting media coverage. Wow.
Now about our insurance companies. They think Climate Change is going to drive up the settlements they are going to have to pay and they want to lay the cost off to our tax dollar supported governments. Because of climate-related risks, chief executives from 66 of the world’s largest insurance and reinsurance firms have signed a statement on climate risk. “Climate change is happening, mankind’s influence is very material and the changes are occurring faster than earlier projected,” the statement reads. “The prospect of extreme climate change and its potentially devastating economic and social consequences are of great concern to the insurance industry.”
So now in a forerunner of possible court cases that aim to determine who should pay for the destruction caused by climate change, Farmers Insurance Group filed nine lawsuits against Chicago-area municipal governments last month, claiming the city failed to prepare for heavy rainfall last year that damaged sewers and drains. Farmers Insurance says the damage resulting from the rains is an avoidable issue.
“Farmers has taken what we believe is the necessary action to recover payments made on behalf of our customers for damages caused by what we believe to be a completely preventable issue, as well as to prevent it from happening again,” Luis Sahagun, a spokesman for Farmers Insurance, wrote in an email to U.S. News.
Bob Litan, a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution says “Insurance companies are definitely on the front line when it comes to dollars and cents of climate change.”
The bottom line, we will pay in increased taxes and increased insurance rates, whether climate change is real or not.
Meanwhile in Washington, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve an amendment to the $600 billion National Defense Authorization Act which prohibits the Pentagon from using any of its budget to address climate change and specifically instructs the Department of Defense to ignore the latest scientific reports on the threats posed by global warming.
The data the amendment is forcing the Pentagon to ignore are the most recent and comprehensive reports on the dangers the United States faces as a consequence of climate change. The Pentagon itself in its later 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review said: “Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating.”
In a letter to the House before Thursday’s vote, Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush wrote the amendment is “science denial at its worst and it fails our moral obligation to our children and grandchildren.”
The bill passed Friday and will now be heard by the Democratic-controlled Senate where it will undoubtedly be voted down.
All of this stuff amazes me. I am convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that man-made climate change is a non-issue. Our emissions of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels is not having any significant impact on our climate. I know for sure the essential trace gas carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and should not be an issue. I also know that within 30 years our scientists and engineers will have perfected new non-fossil fuel systems to power our civilization. I simply wish that in the meantime we could all relax. There is no crisis.
Blog for Friday, May 23rd
Yes, I know you don’t really like looking at charts, but I am asking you, please, just look briefly at these two charts.
The first chart shows the continuing increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of our use of fossil fuels. When we burn gasoline in our cars and trucks, jet fuels in our airplanes, coal and oil and gas to generate electric power the exhaust is primarily carbon dioxide. After over 150 years of burning fossil fuels and the steady increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it is still just a tiny trace gas, less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere. It is invisible, tasteless and odorless. It is essential to life. But we are told it is responsible for global warming as it interacts with water vapor to create a greenhouse effect. Note, please, that the chart shows it is continuing to increase at a steady rate.
Now look at the second chart. It shows global temperatures for the last 20 years. It shows no increase. Now if the increase in carbon dioxide causes a rapid rise in temperature which is the reason for the great global warming scare according to Al Gore and UN IPCC, these charts raise a big, big question. The global warming alarmists have been making excuses and offering a variety of flimzy explanations for all these years now, but how can they really hang on to their theory in light of this lack of warming?
But instead of admitting they were wrong, the alarmists just keep on keeping on. Now they plan to spend millions and millions of dollars to defeat politicial candidates who question the global wamring scare. Here are excerpts from the latest press reports:
An environmental advocacy group backed by hedge fund tycoon Tom Steyer is set to unleash a seven-state, $100 million offensive against Republican “science deniers” this year, a no-holds-barred campaign-style push from the green billionaire that could help decide which party controls the Senate and key statehouses come November.
Instead, Lehane said the 501(c)4 group will play in races that feature a stark choice between “pro-climate action” candidates — all Democrats — and “anti-science” Republicans who have questioned the veracity of climate change or supported the interests of the oil and gas industry
Lehane said the effort, which is budgeted at around $100 million but could grow, will focus attention on hyper-local issues — such as drought in Iowa or flood insurance costs in Florida — that could influence voter perceptions in key pockets of each state. Pollution-related health concerns such as asthma and clean drinking water hit home for lower-income voters, he said.
Here is a strange twist about this man:
As the founder of the hedge fund Farallon Capital Management, Steyer made part of his fortune from investments in fossil fuels, including foreign coal investments, which has prompted charges of hypocrisy from the Koch-affiliated groups he’s fond of condemning.
Is he motivated by quilt? I don’t know. All I know is these people are paying no attention to science, only pursuing their environmental, anti- fossil-fuel agenda and it has become politics, not science.
Any idea what to do about this? I just plan to keep on explaining the facts every day and hope for the best.
Blog for Thursday, May 22nd
This is fun. Pat Sajak has tweeted his way into the global warming debate.
Tuesday he tweeted:
“I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.”
His tweet was retweeted 275 times and there lots of responses including these:
Peni Basse @pmbasse
Pat Sajak tweeted a hilarious joke about global warming. Naturally, liberals are FREAKING OUT! Sajak ALWAYS.
What’s up with Pat Sajak’s global warming tweet? … Climate scientists are RACIST??
.@AnnCoulter Defends Pat Sajak: Dems Equate Climate Denial with Holocaust Denial http://bit.ly/1oh2e9Q (VIDEO)
Stern Show @sternshow
#Howard’s advice to the “empty headed idiot” @patsajak: Keep your mouth shut or you’ll lose the best job in the world http://goo.gl/ScnBaz
Forecast The Facts @ForecastFacts
@patsajak climate denial isn’t something to joke about. It’s dangerous. #fail pic.twitter.com/U1VQ66LO95
@patsajak says his climate change tweet was a parody:
And soon people were making Wheel of Fortune pictures and tweeting them:
In case you are not hip to this gentleman, here are a couple of experts from his Wikipedia page:
Pat Sajak (/ˈseɪdʒæk/ SAY-jak, born Patrick Leonard Sajdak; October 26, 1946) is an American television personality, former weatherman, actor and talk show host, best known as the host of the American television game show Wheel of Fortune.
On April 18, 2014, Sajak used Twitter to announce his heterosexuality, a move viewed by some as being critical of the gay rights movement. Sajak also comments regarding climate change, and became the center of attention in May 2014 after several Twitter posts, including one in which he expressed his belief that “global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists”.[
Ann Coulter weighed in on the Pat Sajak Twitter controversy Wednesday night, saying she found his tweet funny and illustrative of how liberals like to act so open-minded but morph into the PC thought...
Sajak has explained that he was merely poking fun when he called global warming activists “unpatriotic racists.” I Was Just Joking! Climate Scientists Aren't REALLY Racist. “Sometimes it’s fun to poke a stick in a hornets’ nest just to hear the buzzing,” Sajak said.
In his early career Sajak was a TV weathercaster. Maybe that interest in weather and climate has continued and he has followed the global warming debate and really has reached an informed opinion. That would make me very happy.
Anyway, Pat, I watch your show and admire your TV skill. My very best to you.
Blog for Wednesday, May 21st
I took Tuesday off to join my Son for an outing. We started at the amazing old Mission Inn Hotel in Riverside and then traveled the San Andreas Fault from the Cajon Pass to Elizabeth lake traveling along the fault through Wrightwood and Palmdale on the way. What a great outing.
So instead of writing, please allow me to insert an item from NewsMax. It proves that there are well credentialed, top drawer Meteorologists who join me in battling the bad science of global warming/climate change. The names and credits of the authors are included with detailed report on WattsUpWithThat which is linked at the end of this item.
Scientists Rebut White House Global Warming Claims
By Jennifer G. Hickey
A group of independent scientists, economists, and meteorologists has issued a pointed response to the scientific foundation of the Obama administration’s claims that humans are drastically changing the climate by burning fossil fuels.
With expertise in multiple disciplines, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, engineering, and economics, the 15 signers make the case that the foundation of the White House National Climate Assessment (NCA) is a “masterpiece of marketing” that crumbles like a “house of cards” under the weight of real-world evidence.
“They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection,” assert the scientists.
The 829-page NCA report was released on May 6 and was characterized by administration officials as “the most comprehensive, authoritative, transparent scientific report on U.S. climate change impacts ever generated.”
The administration seized on the NCA findings as justification for its push to further regulate the fossil-fuel industry and to bolster alternative green-energy sources.
The scientists’ rebuttal, however, strongly challenges the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), which it says is “based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions” that human burning of fossil fuels is driving up atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and “is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes.”
The scientists do not have any affiliation with any particular organization and have worked together pro bono for several years.
Among the signatories are: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D’Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. “Bill” Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.
The authors criticize the NCA report for a lack of objectivity and its failure to include input from scientists who may question whether climate change is irrefutable and that a robust regulatory response is required.
“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they said.
The NCA and the White House assert that urgent action is needed because increasing average temperatures in the United States are responsible for a greater frequency of extreme weather events.
According to the NCA, average temperatures have increased between 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit and 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895 and forecasting models show a potential increase of an additional 4 degrees Fahrenheit if countermeasures are not adopted, including cap-and-trade, greater subsidization of green energy, and reduced fossil fuel production.
According to the NCA, “human influences are the primary driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines of independent evidence.”
The scientists describe that contention as “grossly flawed” and take issue with the EPA’s claim — used to justify greenhouse gas regulation — that there is “90-99 percent certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity.”
That claim “is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature,” they wrote. “Therefore, EPA’s theory … must be rejected.”
The group of scientists made similar points in a Supreme Court amicus involving EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.
In the brief the scientists assert EPA’s entire hypothesis that CO2 emissions endanger human health and safety has been falsified by real-world evidence.
“As the most important example, EPA asserts as its central ‘line of evidence’ for CO2 ‘endangerment’ that CO2 will warm the surface temperature of the earth through a mechanism by which rising CO2 concentrations in the troposphere in the tropics block heat transfer into outer space.”
They said that if EPA’s hypothesis were accurate there would necessarily be an observable “hot spot” in the tropical upper troposphere. But that has not been proven to exist, therefore, they write “the basis that EPA has for this rulemaking is no basis,” they wrote.
According to their rebuttal report, “over the last 130 years the decade of the 1930s still has the most U.S. state high temperatures records.”
Their assertion that climate disruptions are not increasing, ironically, is echoed in the most recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the White House often cites to support its own argument.
Globally, according to the IPCC in its 2012 special report on extreme events, “since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”
Furthermore, the IPCC in 2013 concluded that “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “no robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
The scientists also dispute the administration’s claims that proposed regulation of carbon dioxide can be achieved in a cost-effective manner that will create jobs and produce economic benefit. Rather, they argue, those policies will restrict economic growth causing harm to the poor.
“Unilateral CO2 emission control by the United States promises to damage the economy of the United States without any benefits. In fact, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere facilitates achieving the goal of raising the poor out of poverty through increasing food production,” the scientists wrote in their amicus brief.
The full detailed rebuttal is posted on the Watts Up With That website at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/scientists-respond-to-the-obama-administrations-2014-national-climate-assessment/
Blog for Tuesday, May 20th
There is not a shadow of doubt about it, Governor Jerry Brown of California believes that Global Warming/Climate Change is underway and is hitting California with full force. He is not pretending; this is not “using global warming” to support his agenda. Governor Jerry Brown is firmly convinced the science is settled and drought, hot weather and recent wild fires in the state are all part of the direct, dire consequences of this man-made civilization threatening change in the climate. My friend Anthony Watts sat nearby a few months ago in San Francisco as the Governor listened intently to alarmist climate change presentations at a national meeting (I think it was the Union of Concerned Scientists). He saw the serious look of alarm in Mr. Brown’s face.
So I was not surprised this weekend when the Governor blamed last week’s fires in San Diego County on climate change. I know some of you reading this thing I about to pick on Mr. Brown for political reasons. Ease up; I am not going to pick on him at all. He is not a scientist and he has listened to the scientists around him. He has accepted their conclusions and is acting on them “to try to save the state from the dire consequences the scientists tell him lie ahead.
We, the citizens of California, are already shouldering the costs of all of this. The prices of everything are going up. And, the increases are just beginning. The state’s cap and trade system limits the “greenhouse” gas emissions by large industries, requires the use of solar and wind power by electric utilities to produce an increasing percentage of the state’s electric power and subsidizes electric cars and encourages other gas saving vehicles. The governor is also promoting a bullet train “to get more cars off of the roads and reduce “greenhouse” gases.
Here is my problem. The scientific data which I have studied with intensity shows the drought, hot weather and fire danger are in no way related to man-made “greenhouse” gases (Carbon Dioxide in the exhaust from the use of fossil fuels is the primary gas they are talking about) and the remedial actions the state is taking at the expense of us taxpayers is of no significant impact on “controlling climate change”.
What is going on is normal, natural highly variable weather events. They have been happening through all history.
But, wait, I would say if I were reading this, how about all those scientists with Ph.D.s who the Governor has listened to? They tell us this is man-made climate change and that carbon dioxide is the culprit. That is ideed “the rub”. I have written extensively and done a couple of half hour videos (available on my website at http://johncolemanweather.com/vidoes/. It would be very repetitive for me to go through it again here. Let me simply say it is sad case of “science gone bad”. It is so ingrained the press and government at all levels accepts it. However, there are thousands of scientists who try to get the word out that there is no significant man-made global warming. But we are generally shunned and belittled.
We will be having an International Conference in Las Vegas in July. Here is the website that tells about that event:
I will deeply appreciate it if you can take the time to hear us out.
Special Blog on Monday, May 19th
This was a weekend of great, well deserved honor for one my best friends ever. This special blog is my tribute:
“2014 Commencement, LYNDON -A Vermont State College
Former LSC meteorology faculty member Joseph D’Aleo will be awarded
an honorary doctoral degree for his accomplishments as an educator
and a pioneer in the field of broadcast meteorology.
While at LSC, D’Aleo helped establish an Air Force ROTC program, a campus
weather service, a co-op internship program, and the Northeast
Storm Conference. D’Aleo and John Coleman turned Coleman’s vision
for a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week television station dedicated to forecasting
the weather into The Weather Channel.”
The commencement announcement was posted on Wattsupwiththat, where my friend Anthony Watts followed with
“Sincere congratulations Joe. It is well deserved, and long overdue.”
Now here is my heart felt comment:
Joe, you are a hero of mine. You stepped aside from your pursuit of a Ph.D. way back when to join me in the battle to bring meaningful, accurate weather forecasts to “Good Morning, America” and when the Producers and David Hartman made that impossible, you worked side by side with me to design The Weather Channel. And when I finally (after a four year search) came up with funding, you devoted your entire life and energy for several years to bring the TV weather service we envisioned into reality on TV screens across the United States. While you received only meager rewards for your accomplishments, you are admired and respected by thousands of TV Meteorologists for what you did. I am humbled by your knowledge, skill and humanity. May the balance of your life be ever so sweet Dr. D’Aleo.
Blog for Monday May 19th
Oh, no, those poor, poor Polar Bears. Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption is melting the Polar ice and this is leading to the death of the Polar Bears. Unless we do something very soon to stop global warming, the polar bear species will become extinct.
NO, NO, NO. If you believe the above you have bought into one of the greatest, calculated publicity myths ever foisted upon us by the environmental extremists and their gullible politician friends who “believe” Global Warming is a serious and immediate threat to our civilization.
Here are the facts:
There are thousands more polar bears alive today that in 1973. Why 1973? Well, that was the turning point. That was the year of the signing of an international agreement to protect polar bears from commercial and unregulated sport hunting. The devastating decades of uncontrolled slaughter across the Arctic, including the Bering Sea, finally came to an end.
On November 5, 2013, Jackson Landers wrote on the Slate TV website:
There are currently about 25,000 polar bears worldwide. In the 1970s the species numbered somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000; their recovery since then is owed in part to a 1975 treaty regulating the hunting of polar bears.
Matt Ridley, a British Journalist who writes mostly about scientific topics writes:
“In other words, the claim that polar bear populations are declining at all, let alone due to climate change, is a manufactured myth, designed for media consumption and with very little basis in fact. That it works all too well is demonstrated by an episode in 2011 involving Sir David Attenborough. In a television series the brilliant television presenter, unwisely diverging from neutral natural history, had asserted that the polar bear is already in trouble.” Ridley then explains how this miss-information seen and believed by millions has triggered a major debate among British scientists and politicians.
In denial of the increase in the Polar Bear population, in 2008 the U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 based on evidence that the animal’s sea ice habitat is shrinking and is likely to continue to do so over the next several decades. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, however, made clear several times during a press conference announcing the department’s decision that, despite his acknowledgement that the polar bear’s sea ice habitat is melting due to global warming, the ESA will not be used as a tool for trying to regulate carbon dioxide. The decision was based on evidence that sea ice is vital for polar bear survival, that this sea ice habitat has been reduced, and that this process is likely to continue; if something is not done to change this situation, the polar bear will be extinct within 45 years, Kempthorne said. He pointed to computer models he and his colleagues studied that project a 30 percent decline in sea ice by 2050.
The concept of issuing an endangerment ruling based on the predictions of a computer model and a theory about melting ice and polar bear deaths has led to a major debate. Many scientists have grown frustrated with the domination of the polar bear story by dogmatic propagandists and have begun to speak out. Susan Crockford, a zoologist with more than 35 years of experience, including work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals is one of them. She is the one who documents that the global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001.
She points out that DNA studies have shown that polar bears have existed as a species for about 600,000 years. They have lived through many warming and cooling periods in Earth’s history, and they didn’t become extinct during times when ice disappeared. Polar bears also interbred with brown bears during those phases when they had to seek out food on land rather than the seals that they now prefer. Neither hybridization nor global warming are likely to wipe out the polar bear anytime soon.
When a polar bear write up was posted on the WattsUpWithThat web site one Australian posted the following comment:
I certainly wasn’t worried. Polar bears are not much of a threat here. It’s years since they ate anyone in Brisbane.
Blog for Sunday May 18th
Nationally the price of a gallon of gasoline has gone up from $2.25 to $2.40 in the last decade. The cost of electricity is up by about 30 percent in the last 14 years. The price of food has increased about 4 per cent per year during this period, largely as a result of increased cost in the energy to grow, process, transport and market the food. There are a lot of factors behind these increases including the companies increasing prices to increase profits; after all everyone has to use energy and food and to some extent will pay whatever they have to.
But there are other factors in these increases that come directly from the actions of government; actions in reaction to the climate change threats resulting for carbon dioxide induced global warming. One of these very costly government directed matters is ethanol. Since the late 1990’s the cost of corn and food and energy have all increased at about the same rate. And the whole ethanol thing is a result of an effort to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Studies have shown over and over again that more co2 is released in the production of the corn than is saved in the use of ethanol but the farm state politicians funded by the newly enriched ethanol industry will not listen. At the same time the cost of producing electricity has increased through ever increasing environmental regulations on the production and use of coal to generate electricity and huge outlays of our tax dollars to pay for solar and wind installations through tax deductions, etc.
In general the average American family of four is now spending about $1,200 a year more to pay for all of this. And the worst is yet to come. Politico energy reporter Erica Martinson wrote this week about what lies ahead:
The EPA will launch the most dramatic anti-pollution regulation in a generation early next month, a sweeping crackdown on carbon that offers President Barack Obama his last real shot at a legacy on climate change — while causing significant political peril for red-state Democrats.
The move could produce a dramatic makeover of the power industry, shifting it away from coal-burning plants toward natural gas, solar and wind. While this is the big move environmentalists have been yearning for, it also has major political implications in November for a president already under fire for what the GOP is branding a job-killing “War on Coal,” and promises to be an election issue in energy-producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
The EPA’s proposed rule is aimed at scaling back carbon emissions from existing power plants, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases. It’s scheduled for a public rollout June 2, after months of efforts by the administration to publicize the mounting scientific evidence that rising seas, melting glaciers and worsening storms pose a danger to human society.
“This rule is the most significant climate action this administration will take,” said Kyle Aarons at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, one of a host of groups awaiting the rule’s release. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has urged the EPA to “go ahead boldly” with the rule, saying the agency must step in where Congress has refused to act.
But for coal country, the rule is yet another indignity for an industry already facing a wave of power plant shutdowns amid hostile market forces and a series of separate EPA air regulations. Coal-state Democrats like West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin have joined the criticism, echoing industry warnings that the fossil fuel was crucial to keeping the lights on in much of the U.S. during this past brutal winter.
The story goes on with political debate and the dire climate change “sky is falling” mania from the recent government report.
One expert tells me when it is all over, the cost to the average American family will be up to $4,200 a year.
If there were any significant man-made global warming, if carbon dioxide were a pollutant and a climate problem, I would strongly support whatever government actions were required to solve the problem. But I know without the slightest doubt there is no problem. This is science gone bad and government out of control. Hold on tight, friends, we are in for a rough ride.
Blog for Saturday May 17th
The official high in San Diego on Thursday at Lindbergh Field was 97 degrees. Is that the hottest it has ever been in May? No. The record for the month is 98 degrees. Snow fell in northern Illinois today. Is that the latest in the Spring season it has ever snowed there? No, Rockford’s latest snow is May 25th and Chicago’s all time latest snow record is June 2nd. A huge flooding rainstorm has hit the East today with 3 to 5 inches of rain in a band from near Atlanta to near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Is that the all-time heaviest May rainstorm? No. It’s not close. Spots along that rain band have recorded May rainstorms of 7 to 9 inches.
What’s my point in all the above? This is it: Weather is highly variable and it has been for as long as we have been keeping records. The climate change/climate disruption (formerly global warming) alarmist have recently screamed about every exceptional weather event blaming it on our use of fossil fuels and the exhaust of carbon dioxide. They have totally failed to prove any link between the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and weather, but they yell at the top of their lungs that “the science is settled” yet they have no proof; none; nah-dah.
Yesterday I watched a fine interview with two of the scientists who are measuring the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, studying its distribution in various regions of the Earth and how it is absorbed into the soil and oceans and used by green plants. They are gathering a lot of new detailed data. But, they made no claims that they were proving it is having a significant impact on our climate. I was reminded by this interview that there are many serious climate scientist out there, doing good science and not over-hyping the climate thing.
One of our problems is the use of the word normal in climate statistics. The figures listed as normal are actually the average of the last 30 years, updated at the beginning of each decade. I don’t think the people who came up the “normal” system had any ulterior motive. But, the result is very misleading. Weather and climate (weather over a long period) are constantly changing for normal reasons. But we are being constantly exposed to headlines about how much warmer or colder or wetter or drier than is normal and the media seems to imply that is a major event and of great concern. There is no such thing as normal, it is only the average of the last thirty years; no big deal.
Finding the impact of human activities is therefore very difficult. Claiming that the increase in the trace gas CO2 is responsible for some change or event is meaningless useless you can prove that the means in which it is causing that change has been proven. That simply has not been done.
That is why I am a global warming/climate change/climate disruption skeptic. I am fascinated by the scientific findings I find and try to keep my mind open to all scientific input. But I will not be influenced by people who shout and twist data and made up unsubstantiated claims and call me names.
In the meantime, I will continue to be fascinated by the ever changing and extreme weather events that continue today just as they did when I first became a “weatherman” 61 years ago.
Blog for Friday May 16th
Hopefully by the time you read this the arsonist will have been captured and the string of fires will have ended in San Diego County. No fires did not come my way this time (I had to evacuate in 2003 and 2007) but I am none the less upset about them. Yes, the weather was hot, dry and windy. But that doesn’t start fires; it takes something more, something that creates a spark or a flame. A downed or shorted powerlince has done in the past but that didn’t seem to be it this time. A spark from a miss-firing car or a gun blast or a careless smoker or camp fire, a lawn mower or a tractor, etc. can start a fire. But hot, dry and windy does not start a fire. And, this many fires in a three day period conviences me that some or most or all of them must have been work of an arsonist.
I hated seeing the homes burn in Carlsbad. One may have been the home of some we know; I haven’t found out for sure yet.
But the San Marcos fire really got to me. As it swept up the mountain behind San Marcos State it raced toward one of my absolute favorite places, Double Peak Park. From that peak you have a 360 degree view. You see the ocean, downtown San Diego, Mt Palomar, Mt San Jacinto and so much more. When things have settle down, head up there and soak it up. In the meantime here is an album of pictures.
Then it raced down the other side of the mountain to San Elijo Hills, an absolutely charming modern little town built around a city square. It was absolutely picture perfect. I know some home were lost there. I hope most of the community is OK and what is burned can be rebuilt. Here is an album of San Elijo Hills.
And it wasn’t done with my favorite spots yet. Next the fire swept down Harmony Grove Road. This little back country, valley road canopied by trees is one of my most treasured drives. Here are pictures.
So the San Marcos (Coco) fire really hit me.
I think it is all going to wind down quickly now. At least I hope so.
Tomorrow I will have a blog about global warming; there is plenty to say.
Blog for Thursday, May 15th
In San Diego today, like a lot of other retired guys, I was watching the fires on television. It was very confusing for firefighters, the media and the residents to understand what was going on in Carlsbad. When the fire began a rather strong ENE wind at 25 mph with gusts to 35 was carrying the fire westward over the area. But by 1 PM a strong Sea Breeze hit the leading edge of the fire and stopped the westward spread of the fire in its tracks and the plume of smoke that had streamed out over the ocean looped back toward the west. At the same time a brisk easterly wind was still pushed the western side of the fire, so the fire was sort of clumping up on itself. At one point a low range chopper shot from the south showed the two smoke plumes blowing toward each other, meeting in the middle and rising. What a shot. This pattern meant the Carlsbad fire was essentially over. It was a perfect example of how wind controls fire.
Meanwhile, I have line up with the with the rest of you on the unexplainable outbreak of seven fires in San Diego County in one day. It is very difficult to imagine how natural or accidental events could cluster up like this and a whole lot easier to conclude there must be a fire bug among us. Enough.
Last Friday I blogged about Lennart Bengtsson.
He is a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. I called him my newest hero as publicly switched sides and became a global warming skeptic. I then quoted his remarks that made it clear he could no longer support the status of carbon dioxide as a super greenhouse gas.
Well, here is what happened next: Bengtsson accepted a position as a member of the Academic Advisory Council of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The Independent describes the foundation as “the UK’s most prominent source of climate-change denial. And then all hell broke loose. Global warming alarmist scientists, many of whom had done research and written papers with Bengtsson in the past, started a hate campaign on Bengtsson. Day before yesterday, the pressure became so great he wrote the following letter:
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”
Wow, this global warming battle is high pressure business. On the Watts Up with That website, Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician, who is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data, made the following comment on this situation:
This is more shameful conduct by the climate “community”.
“As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate “community” believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society. Most “skeptics” are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. These are people that the climate “community” should be trying to persuade.
Begtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate “community”.
Instead, the “community” has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the “community” in the broader society.”
All of this and it has nothing to do with debating the science, it is all about the battle of two factions. The Hatfields and McCoys. I guess nothing changes. LOL
Blog for Wednesday, May 14th
There is a lot on my mind. For one thing, I think the latest Sea Surface water temperature anomaly map shows warmer than average water temperatures are now showing up in the Pacific Ocean near the Equator just west of the northern tip of Peru. This seems like a pretty good sign to me that a weak to moderate El Nino is developing. That will mean above average rainfall for Northern California next fall and winter perhaps ending the drought there. A weak to moderate El Nino, it is my observation, does little to increase rainfall in Southern California so the drought probably will not be totally wiped out. That will change if this El Nino grows much stronger than currently predicted. I will continue to monitor the situation.
Here in San Diego we had a Santa Ana wind event and a wild fire today. This is the first one of these since I retired. For the first time since retiring, I wanted to get on TV today. I had lot to say that wasn’t being said by those who were on and there was a ton of miss-information and weak reporting to drive me nuts. The first thing I wanted to say is the wind is in charge of where the fire goes and how hard it is to put out. The localized swirls and drafts created by the fire depend on the amount and nature of the material burning at that spot, but those localized winds have nothing to do with where the fire will spread next. That is totally controlled by the prevailing wind pattern. The reported who says, “The constantly shifting and unpredictable winds make it impossible to know what will happen next” (and, yes, I heard a reported say essentially that) is fear mongering and totally miss-speaking. Between 3 and 4 PM the LOCAL wind reports form the small internet automatic stations in the fire area clearly showed that the winds were diminishing and the firemen (They have a huge challenge, work hard and have my respect for their abilities) were in a position to bring things under control. Yet, I was still hearing lots of shouting about the Santa Ana wind gusts on the TV. Nobody was researching the local data. I wanted to discuss the well-known diurnal nature of Santa Ana wind events and say the firemen were going to have 12 hours at least on favorable conditions and for today, the worst was past. Generally speaking, when the wind is blowing over 30 miles per hour, the wild fire is basically unstoppable. The firemen can save individual structures (with a lot of effort and luck) but they can’t stop the fire. But when those winds drop under thirty miles per hour, the firemen have the upper hand. Generally speaking the winds diminish over the coastal region as they blow from the mountains toward the water. The wind that was driving the fire in that canyon south of Four S Ranch was a lot stronger than the winds at Rancho Santa Fe and Fairbanks Ranch. They needed to be noted and reported. It could have save a whole lot of worrying and evacuations. Yes, I missed saying all of that on TV. Now, it’s off my chest and re-retire.
Now something needs to be said about global warming and I will let someone else say today:
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and here is his comment this week:
The White House has released its latest National Climate Assessment. An 829-page report and 127-page “summary” were quickly followed by press releases, television appearances, interviews and photo ops with tornado victims – all to underscore President Obama’s central claims:
Human-induced climate change, “once considered an issue for the distant future, has moved firmly into the present.” It is “affecting Americans right now,” disrupting their lives. The effects of “are already being felt in every corner of the United States.” Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington, maple syrup producers in Vermont, crop-growth cycles in Great Plains states “are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience.” Extreme weather events “have become more frequent and/or intense.”
It’s pretty scary sounding. It has to be. First, it is designed to distract us from topics that the President and Democrats do not want to talk about: ObamaCare, the IRS scandals, Benghazi, a host of foreign policy failures, still horrid jobless and workforce participation rates, and an abysmal 0.1% first quarter GDP growth rate that hearkens back to the Great Depression.
Second, fear-inducing “climate disruption” claims are needed to justify job-killing, economy-choking policies like the endless delays on the Keystone XL pipeline; still more wind, solar and ethanol mandates, tax breaks and subsidies; and regulatory compliance costs that have reached $1.9 trillion per year – nearly one-eighth of the entire US economy.
Third, scary hyperventilating serves to obscure important realities about Earth’s weather and climate, and even in the NCA report itself. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily for decades, contrary to White House claims average planetary temperatures have not budged for 17 years.
No Category 3-5 hurricane has made landfall in the United States since 2005, the longest such period since at least 1900. Even with the recent Midwestern twisters, US tornado frequency remains very low, and property damage and loss of life from tornadoes have decreased over the past six decades.
Sea levels are rising at a mere seven inches per century. Antarctic sea ice recently reached a new record high. A new report says natural forces could account for as much ashalf of Arctic warming, and warming and cooling periods have alternated for centuries in the Arctic. Even in early May this year, some 30% of Lake Superior was still ice-covered, which appears to be unprecedented in historical records. Topping it off, a warmer planet and rising CO2 levels improve forest, grassland and crop growth, greening the planet.
Press releases on the NCA report say global temperatures, heat waves, sea levels, storms, droughts and other events are “forecast” or “projected” to increase dangerously over the next century. However, the palm reading was done by computer models – which are based on the false assumption that carbon dioxide now drives climate change, and that powerful natural forces no longer play a role. The models have never been able to predict global temperatures accurately, and the divergence between model predictions and actual measured temperatures gets worse with every passing year. The models cannot even “hindcast” temperatures over the past quarter century, without using fudge factors and other clever tricks.
Moreover, much of the White House and media spin contradicts what the NCA report actually says. For example, it concludes that “there has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900.” Other trends in severe storms, it states, “are uncertain.”
Climate change, Johnstown Floods, Dust Bowls, extreme weather events and forest fires have been part of Earth and human history forever – and no amount of White House spin can alter that fact. To suggest that any changes in weather or climate – or any temporary increases in extreme weather events – are due to humans is patently absurd. To ignore positive trends and the 17-year absence of warming is abominable.
Fourth, sticking to the “manmade climate disaster” script is essential to protect the turf, reputations, funding and power of climate alarmists and government bureaucrats. The federal government doles out some $2.6 billion annually in grants for climate research – but only for work that reflects White House perspectives. Billions more support subsidies and loans for renewable energy programs that represent major revenue streams for companies large and small, and part of that money ends up in campaign war chests for (mostly Democrat) legislators who support the climate regulatory-industrial complex.
None of them is likely to admit any doubts, alter any claims or policies, or reduce their increasingly vitriolic attacks on skeptics of “dangerous manmade global warming.” They do not want to risk being exposed as false prophets and charlatans, or worse. Follow the money.
Last, and most important, climate disruption claims drive a regulatory agenda that few Americans support. Presidential candidate Obama said his goal was “fundamentally transforming” the United States and ensuring that electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket.” On climate change, President Obama has made it clear that he “can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will.” His Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Department of Energy and other officials have steadfastly implemented his anti-hydrocarbon policies.
Chief Obama science advisor John Holdren famously said: “A massive campaign must be launched to … de-develop the United States … bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.… [Economists] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable [re]distribution of wealth.”
(The President also wants to ensure that neither a Keystone pipeline approval nor a toned-down climate agenda scuttles billionaire Tom Steyer’s $100-million contribution to Democrat congressional candidates.)
This agenda translates into greater government control over energy production and use, job creation and economic growth, and people’s lives, livelihoods, living standards, liberties, health and welfare. It means fewer opportunities and lower standards of living for poor and middle class working Americans. It means greater power and control for politicians, bureaucrats, activists and judges – but with little or no accountability for mistakes made, damage done or penalties deliberately exacted on innocent people.
A strong economy, modern technologies, and abundant, reliable, affordable energy are absolutely essential if we are to adapt to future climate changes, whatever their cause – and survive the heat waves, cold winters, floods, droughts and vicious weather events that will most certainly continue coming.
The Obama agenda will reduce our capacity to adapt, survive and thrive. It will leave more millions jobless, and reduce the ability of families to heat and cool their homes properly, assure nutritious meals, pay their rent or mortgage, and pursue their American dreams.
America’s minority and blue collar families will suffer – while Washington, DC power brokers and lobbyists will continue to enjoy standards of living, housing booms and luxury cars unknown in the nation’s heartland. Think Hunger Games or the Politburo and nomenklatura of Soviet Russia.
Worst, it will all be for nothing, even if carbon dioxide does exert a stronger influence on Earth’s climate than actual evidence suggests. While the United States slashes its hydrocarbon use, job creation, economic growth and international competitiveness, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia – and Spain, Germany, France and Great Britain – are all increasing their coal use … and CO2 emissions.
President Obama and White House advisor John Podesta are convinced that Congress and the American people have no power or ability to derail the Administration’s determination to unilaterally impose costly policies to combat “dangerous manmade climate disruption” – and that the courts will do nothing to curb their executive orders, regulatory fiats and economic disruption.
If they are right, we are in for some very rough times – and it becomes even more critical that voters learn the facts and eject Harry Reid and his Senate majority, to restore some semblance of checks and balances.
[Originally published at Canada Free Press]
Blog for Tuesday, May 13th
Have you ever been to the South Pole? Neither have I. And there are high odds neither one of us is ever going to get there. So we have to depend on experts to tell us what is happening there. So what do the experts tell us is going on? Here is the problem. There are two totally different reports that have reached me today:
From Al Gore’s website:
A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and
its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists
reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could
destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more
may be unavoidable in coming centuries.
Global warming caused by the human-driven release of greenhouse gases has helped
to destabilize the ice sheet, though other factors may also be involved, the scientists said.
The second post comes from WattsUpWithThat:
The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion has continued into
May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.
“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was
set in April 2008,’’ the centre said.
I suspect there is some element of truth behind the report from Al Gore’s website, but I can assure you that there is no reasonable science behind the claim about that unstoppable huge sea level rise and that blaming it all on “human driven greenhouse gases” is the without any valid scientific support. It is more of the same ole hype.
National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has published this chart of Antarctic sea, and it is clear that the ice extent this year is greater than average.
And, there is this picture of the Antarctic. It says there is plenty of ice down there.
But, here is the ringer. That item posted on the Al Gore Website came from…The Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena and the University of California, Irvine, highly credible sources. However, their release includes none of that talk about man-made greenhouse gases being the cause and tones down the sea level rise comment to:
“This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries
to come,” Eric Rignot, of UC Irvine said. “A conservative estimate is it could take several
centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea.”
What does the above mean to me? I shouts out that the Al Gore camp is willing to take any climatic event and twist and turn it and tie it to the (failed) Carbon Dioxide greenhouse gas theory and then scream “the sky is falling.” It is not a scientific debate we are having; it is PR war.
Blog for Monday, May 12th
Severe spring weather in the Midwest Sunday. Tornadoes, flash floods and big hail. Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana all got hit hard. Look at the pictures.
Meanwhile, let me ask, will Climate Change be a significant issue in the Presidential election of 2016? I doubt it for several reasons. As of now, voter surveys don’t even rate Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Disruption (no matter how it is worded) in the top ten issues with voters. They are worried about the economy, jobs, healthcare, taxes, the size of government and several other issues, but not the climate. Even Democrats (the party that has Climate Change actions in its platform) don’t seem to be worrying about the climate. And, since there has been no warming for 17 years, as of now, even if some warming occurs during an El Nino in the next year or so (A possibility according to the long range forecast) it probably will not have enough impact to off-set the memories of the coldest winter in 30 years that gripped the nation this year.
However, this doesn’t keep the agenda driven media from pounding the topic home. On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday morning a potential Republican candidate for President in 2016, Florida Senator Marco Rubio was pushed to comment on Climate Disruption. He said, “I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing.” The host on the program seemed to be happy that he had got the Republican to deny Climate Change. That’s got to hurt his appeal, I thought I read in the host’s expression. (My wife says I often think I read something important in people’s faces and don’t really know their thoughts at all. LOL)
Between now and the election President Obama has indicated he intends to elevate Climate Change into a key issue. The new White House Climate Change website focuses on Solar and Wind energy and electric cars. But meanwhile, Washington insiders say his EPA intends to shut down coal mines and coal fired power plants. The Federal Government is currently spending 2.6 billion on climate change research (and only those who support the Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant/major greenhouse gas receive funding) and spending another 18 billion or so on various green energy initiatives and the like. It is clear the President wants to increase this spending.
Will all of this fire up the voters to elevate climate change in a significant issue in 2016 election. I don’t think so. And, as I have said many times before, this is the part of the whole Climate debate that upsets me the most, the science become a political issue. As the issue fades off of the voters radar, I suspect the spending will fade a bit and the politicians will focus elsewhere and eventually the media will get the point.
When that happens, I will stop writing blogs about climate, but write about weather and do some dancing around. I will be a lot more fun time. I look forward to that.
Blog for Sunday, May 11th,
There’s a storm in the West. A foot of snow will fall in high Colorado Rockies and three or four inches in Denver on Mother’s Day. Red Flag and high wind Warnings cover much of the rest of the west. Some severe thunderstorms will hit Kansas and Missouri. Very cold windy weather will sweep through the Midwest and Great Lakes this week while it turns Hot, Windy and Dry in the west.
My Mother was an amazing woman. I am been thinking a lot about her lately. It’s Mother’s Day; time to share her story.
It was 1933 when her husband had just obtained his Ph.D in English Literature at the University of Illinois in Champaign, Illinois. It was the height of the great depression and the great dust bowl. She had a degree in Mathematics and could have been teaching school, but she was already the Mother of three boys and girl and was expecting her fifth. Times were very tough. There was little demand for an expert on Chaucer and Shakespeare at the time, but finally, her husband, my Dad, found a position as a Professor of English at a brand new state college in the isolated ranch country town of Alpine in far west Texas, 1,200 miles away by the old fashioned two lane roads of the time. I don’t know how they made it to west Texas, but they did. I was born, the youngest of five in a small, rented house with a vacant lot of tumble weed, rocks and snakes between it and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks where the old steam locomotives belched dirty smoke as they chucked by day and night. Dad put on his suit and went off to the college to teach and left Mom with little money and five little kids. She worked very hard, but maintained a strong spirit. I never heard her complain. She cleaned, washed clothes, helped with studies, became the President of the PTA and Den Mother of the Cub Scout Pack. She cooked Spam and potatoes and made casseroles with whatever she could find to mix in.
Then came World War II. Her oldest son, my brother Bob, went into the Navy. Rationing meant even less meat, gas rationing, paper drives and a lot more sacrifices. She helped with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, she took us to church and kept us dressed (As youngest I had only hand-me-downs) through hours and hours of work at the sewing machine. All this time she was over a thousand miles from her parents and brothers and sisters with no chance of seeing them. There were letters but phone calls were expensive and for emergencies only.
When the war ended, Dad was able to get a position back in Illinois at SIU, Carbondale, and Mom had raised us all to teenage. Bob came back safely from his Navy stint and life at last was so much easier for Mom. She played bridge, enjoyed the Ladies Club and friends and we made frequent trips to visit my Grandparents.
In the end Mom and Dad had a long retirement in Florida. Somehow my Mom had been able to maintain her sanity and style through it all and I am so happy that I was able to visit often during those years. My Mom was the best; I am very lucky and very grateful.
Blog for Saturday May 10th
The two pictures above are the same man, Patrick Moore, when he was a young activist a co-founder of Greenpeace and then a few weeks ago when testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works and told them there is no scientific evidence that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. Moore also noted global warming is occurring at a modest pace and does not seriously threaten human welfare regardless of its cause. Needless to say be resigned from Greenpeace some time ago.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” said Moore. “If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on Earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”
After co-founding Greenpeace in 1971, Moore remained active with the environmental organization through 1986. Moore testified that after 15 years as a top Greenpeace official, he left the organization because it had become more motivated by leftist politics than environmentalism. Moore observed environmental activist groups’ focus on global warming issues since the late 1980s fits this disturbing trend, with political agendas rather than sound science driving global warming alarmism.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
Sounds like this man should be added to my list of climate change skeptic heroes. I hold back a little, however, because in his post Greenpeace life he has become a Washington DC lobbyist for….Nuclear power. I’m not anti-Nuclear, and in fact, at one point I was really interested in Thorium Nuclear power. However, I try to stay focused on the science (carbon dioxide is not a pollutant) of global warming and not get involved in politics and certainly don’t want to be a promoter. But, putting that all aside, it is exciting to have a co-founder of Greenpeace confirm the political agenda of the supposedly environmental organization and join us in straightening out the bad science behind the global warming/climate change silliness.
We just keep on battling but the other side is funded by 2.6 billion dollars of our tax money (and money is very powerful) so I feel like David battling Goliath. I am glad to have Patrick Moore by my side.
Blog for Friday, May 9th
The computer model forecast for late next week shows a really hot time for all the western United States and very chilly pattern in the Great Lakes area.
As that cold air pours in from Canada a strong cold front will push southward across the Midwest. That should lead to a real severe weather pattern in the Midwest. And in the West the hot dry pattern will lead to higher wild fire danger and a worsening of the drought. I would call the pattern in the West a hot SOSA if I were on TV, but I am sure the TV gang next week will label it a Santa Ana. This will all be more or less typical Spring weather, not man-made climate change.
Now about the man who is pictured here. He is a hero of mine. His name is Lennart Bengtsson. He is a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction. And here is the new headline about him:
Leading Climate Scientist Defects From Warmers, Declares Himself A Skeptic Of Man Made Warming
Here is part of the news report from today:
In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:
“I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show.”
It takes a great scientist to publicly admit that he was wrong. That is why Dr. Bengtsson is a hero of mine. Just in case you think he the only noted scientist to join the team debunking global warming let me list a few other of my Global Warming Skeptical Scientist Heroes of mine:
Dr. Tim Ball, Former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Don Easterbrook, Professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University
William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University
Patrick Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
S. Fred Singer, Emeritus professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Roy Spencer, Principal research scientist for the University of Alabama professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
The ones listed above will all be speakers at the International Climate Conference in Las Vegas in July. Now a sampling of the whole list of more than a thousand…Only a sampling, because who wants to read the whole list:
(This is to debunk that statistic you see that “97% of scientists believe in global warming” and prove I am not alone. )
Joseph H. Abeles Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Director, Business Development Sarnoff Corporation
Harold M. Agnew, President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984) White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989) Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 -1979), E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A. Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, AAAS
Sol Aisenberg, President, International Technology Group Formerly, Staff Member, MIT; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School; Visiting Research Professor, Boston University
Ralph B. Alexander, Former Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University President, R.B. Alexander & Associates Technology and market analysis in environmentally friendly materials and coatings Author, Global Warming False Alarm (Canterbury)
Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of North Carolina -Wilmington Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American Scientific Affiliation
Franco Battaglia, Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy Life Member APS
Peter J. Baum, Member of the Technical Staff General Research Corporation (retired) Formerly, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California at Riverside Life Member American Geophysical Union
David J. Benard, Retired Aerospace Scientist Co-Inventor of the Chemical Oxygen- Iodine Laser
Richard W. Benjamin, Senior Advisory Scientist Savannah River Site (DOE) (retired) Member ANS, AAAS
Stephen E. Bodner, Naval Research Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS
John W. Boring, Professor Emeritus of Engineering Physics University of Virginia F. Paul Brady Principal, BPF Investments/Charitable Investments Professor of Physics
Richard J. Briggs, Formerly, Program Manager, Science Applications International Corporation Deputy Director, Superconducting Supercollider Laboratory Associate Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Associate Professor, MIT Fellow APS, AAAS
Lowell S. Brown, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Washington Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS
Thomas G. Brown, Professor of Optics The Institute of Optics University of Rochester Fellow OSA
Daniel M. Bubb, Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Rutgers University, Camden
William R. Burdett, Principal Consultant, FSIM Consulting Formerly, E-Government Architect U.S. Department of Justice (retired); Geophysical
Jose´ M. Cervero, Professor of Theoretical Physics Departamento de Fisica Fundamental Facultad de Ciencias Universidad de Salamanca
C. Todd Chadwick, Experimental Design Consultant Member AES Joseph F. Chiang Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS
Michael R. Clover, Science Applications International Corporation
William T. Coffey, Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Dublin, Trinity College Author, The Langevin Equation (World Scientific Publishing) Member Editorial Board, Advances in Chemical Physics Member Royal Irish Academy; Fellow APS, IET, Institute of Physics
Roger W. Cohen, Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006 Fellow APS
Robert K. Conger, President Conger and Associates Consulting
John W. Cox, Director, Advanced Sensor Engineering Aerospace Corporation
Lawrence Cranberg, Professor of Physics University of Virginia (retired) Fellow APS
Barry D. Crane, Project Director Institute for Defense Analyses Life Member APS
Steven R. Cranmer, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Karen Harvey Prize (AAS) 2006 Associate Editor, Journal of
Riccardo DeSalvo, Senior Scientist Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) California Institute of Technology Member ASME
James A. Deye, Nuclear and Medical physicist Life Member APS
Eugene H. Dirk, APS Division of Astrophysics, and Division of Computational Physics Topical Groups on Gravity, and Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants
Douglas E. Fields, Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico
Edward J. Finn, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Georgetown University Chair, Department of Physics (1990-1993) President University faculty Senate (1980-1982) NSF Program Manager (1981-1983) Co-author, Fundamental University Physics (Addison Wesley)
Robert A. Fisher, Consultant, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Scientist (retired) Department of Chemistry and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California at Berkeley
Michael M. Fitelson, Chief Scientist, Micro-Systems Enablers Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems
Joseph R. Florian, Co-Founder of Jaycor Networks Incorporated Senior Scientist, Jaycor, SAIC Member IEEE
Harold K. Forsen, Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation (retired) Governing Board, National Research Council (1994-2003) Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (1995-2003) Arthur Holly Compton Award (ANS) 1972 Member National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, ANS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Bruce L. Freeman, Senior Experimental Physicist, Ktech Corporation Formerly, Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M Coauthor Explosively Driven Pulsed Power (Springer);Explosive Pulsed Power (Imperial College) Member IEEE Plasma Sciences, Directed Energy Professional Society
Michael H. Frese, Designer/Developer of Multiphysics Simulation Codes and Applications Founder and Managing Member of NumerEx, LLC Member SIAM, IEEE
James L. Friar, Laboratory Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS
Martin Fricke, Corporate Officer Science Applications International Corporation; The Titan Corporation Former Elected Member POPA Fellow APS
Peter D. Friedman, Associate Professor Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Member American Geophysical Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society Ian J. Fritz Research Physicist, Sandia
Ronald B. Goldfarb, National Institute of Standards and Technology Life Member APS
Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics University of Hartford Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS Chairman (2004), New England Section APS
Paul M. Grant, EPRI Science Fellow (retired) IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus Senior Life Fellow APS
Howard D. Greyber, University of Pennsylvania (retired) Formerly, Princeton University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern University Member American Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society
Joseph G. Harrison, Associate Professor Department of Physics University of Alabama at Birmingham Member ACS, MRS
Howard C. Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut Editor, The Energy Advocate Author, A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake) Dennis B. Hayes Research Physicist Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories President, Lockheed Martin
James R. Johnson, 3M Company (retired) Member Carlton Society (3M Hall of Fame) Member National Academy of Engineering
O’Dean Judd, LANL Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Technical Advisor and Consultant Fellow APS, IEEE, AAAS
Andrew Kaldor, Distinguished Scientific Advisor Manager of Breakthrough Research ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow AAAS, Member ACS
Alexander E. Kaplan, Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005 Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996 Fellow OSA
Thomas J. Karr, Director, DARPA & Strategic Projects, Advanced Concepts & Technology Division Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1984-1996) Editor, Applied Optics (1991-1994) Member OSA, AAAS; Senior Member IEEE
Thomas W. Karras, Senior Fellow Lockheed Martin Commercial Space Systems Life Member APS, Member OSA, AIAA, SPIE
David J. Kaup, Provost’s Distinguished Professor Department of Mathematics University of Central Florida
Paul I. Kingsbury, Manager, Physical Properties Research Department Corning Inc. (retired)
Robert S. Knox, Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Rochester Member APS Council 1985-1988 Fellow APS
William A. Koldewyn, Senior Consultant Strategic Space Development, Inc. Adjunct Professor of Physics, Dixie State College Staff Consultant and SBSS Chief Scientist, Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp. (retired)
Richard V. Kollarits, Member of the Technical Staff AT&T Laboratories/Research, Retired
Iannis Kominis, Assistant Professor Department of Physics University of Crete
Robert A. Koslover, Senior Scientist Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA), Inc.
M. Kristiansen, C.B.Thornton/P.W.Horn Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Fellow APS, IEEE
Moyses Kuchnir, Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (retired) Life Member APS, Member IEEE, AAAS
Lorenz A. Kull, President and Chief Operating Officer Science Applications International Corporation (retired) Life Member APS; Member AAAS, IEEE
Joseph A. Kunc, Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California Fellow APS
Gary S. Kyle, George W. Gardner Professor of Physics New Mexico State University
Paul L. La Celle, Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering Former Chair, Department of Biophysics University of Rochester Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort
André LeClair, Professor of Physics Cornell University
Robert E. LeLevier, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1951-1957) Physics Department, RAND Corp (1957-1971) R&D Associates (1971-1983) Eos Technologies, Inc. (1983-1993)
John F. Lescher, High Technology Systems and Product Development and Marketing, Civilian and Defense Industries Author, Online Market Research (Addison-Wesley) Fellow APS; Senior Member AIAA; Member IEEE, American Marketing Association, Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals
James D. Lester, Research Physicist (retired) Life Member IEEE
Robert E. Levine, Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired) Member ACM, IEEE
Harold W. Lewis, Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman, Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
John D. Lindl, James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007 Fellow APS, AAAS
Xavier Llobet, Research Associate Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Gabriel G. Lombardi, Senior Scientist, Phase Coherence, Inc. National Research Council Associate (NIST, 1980-82) Life Member APS, Member OSA
Michael D. Lubin, Colonel, United States Air Force (retired)
John E. Mansfield, Vice Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Kristanka Marinova, Department of Chemical Engineering Faculty of Chemistry Sofia University, Bulgaria
Richard Marrus, Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at Berkeley Fellow APS
John Martinis, Professor of Physics University of California, Santa Barbara APS Fellow
David T. Marx, Associate Professor of Physics Illinois State University
Joseph Maserjian, Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology -Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)
John H. McAdoo, Aerospace Physicist Member IEEE, AAAS
Gene H. McCall, Laboratory Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) E. O. Lawrence Award 1988 Former Chairman, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Fellow AIAA, Associate Fellow Royal Institute of Navigation
Thomas A. McClelland, Vice President, Commercial Products Frequency Electronics, Inc.
Harold Mirels, Principal Scientist, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Fellow APS, AIAA Member National Academy of Engineering
Jim Mitroy, Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology Charles Darwin University, Australia APS Outstanding Referee: 2010
Michael Monce, Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College Member AAPT, American Geophysical Union
Nasif Nahle, Scientific Research Director Biology Cabinet, Mexico Member AAAS, NYAS Rodney W. Nichols, President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001) Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University (1970-1990) Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian Service (1970) Fellow AAAS, NYAS Chad J. Njeim, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Physics University of New Mexico Gordon C. Oehler, Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. Corporate Vice President for Corporate Development, Science Applications International Corporation (1998-2004) National Intelligence Officer for Science, Technology and Proliferation (1989-1992) William P. Oliver, Professor of Physics Tufts University Life Member APS Frank R. Paolini, Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford (retired) Senior Member APS, Member IEEE Byung Kyu Park, Candidate for the Ph.D. Department of Physics University of California at Berkeley Albert C. Parr, Chief, Optical Technology Division NIST (retired) Fellow APS; Member OSA, SPIE Daniel N. Payton III, Senior Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation (1992-present) Eos Technologies (1984-1992) Technical Director of Nuclear Technology Air Force Weapons Laboratory (1976-1984) John T. Pearson, Research Assistant Microfluidics Group Brigham Young University Member AIAA Erik M. Pell, Xerox Corporation (retired) Author: From Dreams to Riches – The Story of Xerography (Carlson) Edward Goodrich Acheson Medal (Electrochemical Society) 1986 President, Electrochemical Society (1980-1981) Fellow APS, Honorary Member ECS, Senior Member IEEE
William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin U.S. Department of Commerce Medals 1980, 1983 Edward U. Condon Award (NIST) 1983; SPE International Research Award 1996 Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS Raymond E. Sarwinski, President, Cryogenic Designs, Inc. Life Member APS Kenneth V. Saunders, Senior Research Engineer and Project Leader RAND Corporation (retired) Lead Author, Priority Setting and Strategic Sourcing in Naval Research,Development and Technology Infrastructure (RAND) Life Member APS, Member SIAM, Mathematical Association of America, AIAA Nicola Scafetta, Research Scientist Physics Department Duke University Member American Geophysical Union Mark D. Semon, Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Bates College Member American Academy of Forensic Scientists, American College of Forensic Examiners Thomas P. Sheahen, President/ CEO, Western Technology, Inc. (energy sciences consulting) Author, Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer) Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-78) Arnold J. Sierk, Technical Staff Member Theoretical Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS
Szymon Suckewer, Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Director of Plasma Science & Technology Program Princeton University Fellow APS, OSA Ronald M. Sundelin, Associate Director, DOE Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (retired) Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Physics, Virginia Tech Fellow APS Andrei Szilagyi, Formerly, Chief Scientist, Aura Systems, Inc. Chief Technologist, Radiant Technology Corporation Chief Scientist, NanoMuscle Inc. Member MRS, Electrochemical Society, TMS – The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society Willard L. Talbert, Scientific Consultant (1993-present) Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1976-1993 (retired) Professor of Physics, Iowa State University (1961-1976) Fellow APS Lu Ting, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University Lead Author, Vortex Dominated Flows (Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer) Member SIAM, AIAA, AAM Frank J. Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University Coauthor, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press) Salvatore Torquato, Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics Princeton University 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics Fellow APS Rusty S. Towell, Professor of Physics Abilene Christian University.
Sorry about that long list….and this was just a small part of it. But I wanted to make a point and I think I just did. LOL
Blog for Thursday, May 8th
This is the map of weather watches, warnings and alerts as of Wednesday evening. It is about as quiet as the weather ever gets. There is a pause in the action pretty much coast to coast. Some severe thunderstorms might pop up at the few spots for a few minutes in the purplish areas in the Midwest. A few inches of snow is falling the Black Hills and Bad Lands of South Dakota and high grasslands of Northwestern Nebraska. Otherwise, the Spring weather is generally pleasant and near normal. This is in stark contrast the long list of out of control wicked storminess that yesterday’s Federal Climate Assessment told us grips the nation. Oh, well, even a big ole storm goes quiet at times.
But meanwhile the satellite measurements indicate the oceans of planet Earth are somewhat warmer than “normal” or more accurately warmer than the average since satellite measurements began about 30 years ago.
The longer range computer forecast maps meanwhile cook up a more active weather pattern with heavy rains and severe storms, possibly including tornadoes in the central plains states by a week from Saturday.
This is the sort of weather information that I have examined and used in my forecasting daily through the years (of course, the data was far skimpier and more primitive decades ago when I began. LOL)
Does any of this seem dangerous or extreme or cause me lose any sleep? No. It is routine.
As for my hometown of San Diego, the May Gray seems sure to become established during this period. But the warmer than normal water temperatures in the Pacific will probably mean the gray will not be as heavy or persistent as it usually is.
The temperature map from the computer for a week from Saturday shows the warm season heat in full control in the southwestern desert. That is sure to draw Coastal Eddy into San Diego. But look, the temperatures here are far warmer than normal. This is something worth watching.
But none of this is something I haven’t seem more than once in the past. That is one reason I questioned all that global warming scare talk ten years ago and began to study the science it was based on. The more I studied the more I realized the evidence was not valid. Now in retirement I have the time and freedom to try to help turn the tide of public opinion.
Have you looked at my video where I tell the story of how Al Gore and Maurice Strong (of the UN) grabbed hold of the sketchy carbon dioxide greenhouse theory and blew it into the entire climate change frenzy that grips the nation (and to a lesser extent the World) today?
If not, here is the link: http://colemanscornerdotcomdotbr.wordpress.com/vidoes/
And if you would rather see latest scientific dismantling of this week’s new Federal Climate Change Assessment Report please go to Roy Spencer, Ph.D.’s analysis.
Dr. Spencer’s paper is at http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Thanks for following my blogs. If makes me feel as though there is hope that eventually we can straighten out this messed up science about CO2 being a pollutant and a super greenhouse gas.
Blog for Wednesday, May 7th
The sky is falling. “Climate Change” is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to “green energy” to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report. It was reviewed by federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.
If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.
I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).
Please allow me to hold your attention for a few minutes to explain why I don’t buy into this Climate Change alarmism. The climate of Earth has never been “normal” or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed.
The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.
When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.
They call people such as me who debunk their non-scientific silliness as “deniers” and claim we are flat-earthers and shills for “big oil”. It is insulting and maddening. But I will not be silenced. And neither will the thousand others, many of them with Ph.D.’s and on the faculties of major universities who are working to stop this bad science that labels CO2 as a pollutant and blames it for every shift in the weather.
We will be gathering, we global warming skeptics, at Heartland Institutes 9th International Conference on Climate Change, July 7 – 9, 2014 in Las Vegas. You can learn about that conference at http://climateconference.heartland.org/. I will be one of the speakers at the breakfast session on Tuesday July 8th. Look at the list of speakers on the website and you will see an impressive group. A group of the powerful Ph.D.’s in the group have recently published a complete scientific document that totaling destroys the climate change alarmism of the US Democrat Party and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can find that publication on line at http://climatechangereconsidered.org/.
In the meantime, through blogs, and radio and television interviews whenever any of us can get on the air we will continue to try to debunk this way of climate alarmism. For instance, I will be on the air on WLS Radio in Chicago with Bruce Wolf & Dan Proft on Wednesday morning (today) at 8:45 AM Chicago time (6:45 AM San Diego time) and do my best to tell the real story of climate and weather. You can listen to that broadcast on line at
All of this not withstanding, my life is sooo good. Every day is fun and relaxed since I have ended the tread mill life of grinding out all those TV weathercasts a day. I now do my dancing for fun only. LOL
Blog for Tuesday, May 6th
The President of the United States has decided to make Climate Change a major issue of the last two years of his Administration. This deeply saddens me but I won’t give up my effort to debunk the horrid distortion of science that has led to this Climate Change Alarmism campaign. First of all, please, believe me, there is no significant man-made global warming. There is a minor warming trend continuing as Earth continues to go through its normal, natural climate change from Ice Age to Interglacial period which in ten thousand year or so will fade into another ice age. The activities of mankind in powering our civilization with fossil fuels has had no significant impact on this natural process. And this chart shows that the warming has stalled now for 17 plus years:
So today to launch his new campaign the President has invited a group of television Meteorologist to the White House to interview him on the topic. The barrage of publicity will be deafening. I deeply regret that the global warming/climate change thing has become a partisan political issue. Al Gore made global warming a Platform issue for the Democrat Party and it is now accepted without serious study or scientific consideration by a vast majority of liberals in this country. And, as politics goes, the Republican Party denies global warming because it is a key issue of the other party without even studying the science.
There are thousands and thousands of scientists who know without a doubt that the entire matter is based on bad science. We fight with everything we have to inform the public of the truth, but the dominate liberal media shuns us and the global warming team calls us names and insults us. We know we right and we try to explain that this global warming campaign is costing us billions in tax dollars every year and driving up the our cost of living by well over a thousand dollars a year for the average family (and the cost is increasing dramatically in the coming years as the government enacts cap and trade regulations.) One dramatic increase is in the cost of corn. This is leading to hunger and perhaps thousands of deaths per year in the poorest nations of the world. It is not a small, “who cares” matter. You can get my explanation of how this all got started and what the bad science is all about by watching my videos on this website or following my links to active climate change debunking websites of scientists I greatly respect. I get you to set politics aside and study the science of the issue. It is important. Meanwhile, somehow I will get through the next 48 hours or so of massive publicity on the issue.
NOW HERE ARE A COLLECTION OF MY OLDER BLOGS:
A BLOG BASED ON THE WORK OF GREGG D. THOMPSON:
According to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Global Warming with all its dire consequences is the result of the increase of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels to power our automobiles and airplanes, our electric power generating plants and our factories. How much do you know about CO2? Let me ask some questions:
Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?
Question 2. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Question 3. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Question 4. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
The answers to these questions are key in evaluating the global warming scare. However, a sampling with these questions proved almost no one knows the correct answers. Without this basic knowledge there is no way you can logically decide whether Global warming is really happening and whether it is natural or not.
Here are some respondents’ perceptions followed by the correct answers.
Question 1. What percentage of the air is CO2?
Respondents’ answers: nearly all were 20% – 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition
Question 2. What percentage of CO2 is man-made?
Respondents’ answers ranged from as high as 100%, with most estimating it to be between 25% and 75%.
The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a minuscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.
Question 3. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Respondents’ answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.
The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life – just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is essential to photosynthesis, the basic process that makes plants grow. Without CO2 there would be no crops, no flowers, trees, grass or bushes. Co2 is a natural gas. It is clear, tasteless and odorless. It is in no way a pollutant.
Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapor) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant – because it’s not.
Question 4. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?
Respondents’ answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.
The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.
• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.
• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.
1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 – hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.
2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable.
3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no effect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.
4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.
Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters perhaps due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling.
The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years – and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.
What I presented here was mostly written by an Australian man, Gregg D Thompson. I edited and excerpted from his climate posting. He is a Climate Researcher, Astronomer and Environmentalist. He has written two science books, been Business Manager and Director of 3 companies, Author of science magazine articles and Designer and project manager of special effects attractions. He is also a Nature photographer.
When you hear on the news about the government regulating greenhouse gases or the pollutant CO2, another news writer, reporter or editor is displaying durability, ignorance or bias.
This situation drives me nuts. But, maybe I was sort of nutty before.
A BLOG INSPIRED BY DR. JUDITH CURRY:
The Truth About Greenhouse Gasses
Many people don’t accept my position that there is no significant man-made global warming because I am simply a Television Meteorologist without a Ph.D. I understand that. That is why the article that follows is so important to me. William Happer, Ph. D. is a Professor of Physics at Princeton University. He tells it like it is. I present his article from an on-line journal called First Things with only a couple of small edits. There is a link to the original posting at the end of the article.
The dubious science of the climate crusaders.
I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.
I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants.
Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.
Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)—a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”
As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.
How close is the current atmosphere to the upper or lower limit for CO2? Did we have just the right concentration at the preindustrial level of 270 ppm? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 “pollution” and about minimizing our carbon footprints, one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2, as Simpson thought one couldn’t be too thin—a view which was also overstated, as we have seen from the sad effects of anorexia in so many young women. Various geo-engineering schemes are being discussed for scrubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the “pollutant.” There is no lower limit for human beings, but there is for human life. We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2—except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.
The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and NASA (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the NASA or the Navy limit for human beings.
Yet there are strident calls for immediately stopping further increases in CO2 levels and reducing the current level. As we have discussed, animals would not even notice a doubling of CO2 and plants would love it. The supposed reason for limiting it is to stop global warming—or, since the predicted warming has failed to be nearly as large as computer models forecast, to stop climate change. Climate change itself has been embarrassingly uneventful, so another rationale for reducing CO2 is now promoted: to stop the hypothetical increase of extreme climate events like hurricanes or tornados. But this does not necessarily follow. The frequency of extreme events has either not changed or has decreased in the 150 years that CO2 levels have increased from 270 to 390 ppm.
Let me turn to some of the problems the non-pollutant CO2 is supposed to cause. More CO2 is supposed to cause flooded cities, parched agriculture, tropical diseases in Alaska, etc., and even an epidemic of kidney stones. It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.
Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.
The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.
There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well-known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was green) and wine was exported from England. This warm period was followed by the “little ice age” when the Thames would frequently freeze over during the winter. There is no evidence for significant increase of CO2 in the medieval warm period, nor for a significant decrease at the time of the subsequent little ice age. Documented famines with millions of deaths occurred during the little ice age because the cold weather killed the crops. Since the end of the little ice age, the earth has been warming in fits and starts, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.
A rare case of good correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is provided by ice-core records of the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the last million years of so. But these records show that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 levels, so that the levels were an effect of temperature changes. This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.
The most recent continental ice sheets began to melt some twenty thousand years ago. During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years.
The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. The other factors are not well understood. Plausible candidates are spontaneous variations of the complicated fluid flow patterns in the oceans and atmosphere of the earth—perhaps influenced by continental drift, volcanoes, variations of the earth’s orbital parameters (ellipticity, spin-axis orientation, etc.), asteroid and comet impacts, variations in the sun’s output (not only the visible radiation but the amount of ultraviolet light, and the solar wind with its magnetic field), variations in cosmic rays leading to variations in cloud cover, and other causes.
The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.
The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.
This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the medieval warm period and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.
The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The hockey-stick curve caught the attention of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant, and an academic statistician, Ross McKitrick. As they began to look more carefully at the original data—much of it from tree rings—and at the analysis that led to the hockey stick, they became more and more puzzled. By hard, remarkably detailed, and persistent work over many years, consistently frustrated in their efforts to obtain original data and data-analysis methods, they showed that the hockey stick was not supported by observational data. An excellent, recent history of this episode is A. W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.
About the time of the Copenhagen Climate Conference in the fall of 2009, another nasty thing happened to the global-warming establishment. A Russian server released large numbers of e-mails and other files from computers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Among the files released were e-mails between members of the power structure of the climate crusade, “the team.” These files were, or should have been, very embarrassing to their senders and recipients. A senior scientist from CRU wrote, for example: “PS, I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a freedom of information act.”
A traditional way to maintain integrity in science is through peer review, the anonymous examination of a scientific paper by qualified, competing scientists before publication. In a responsible peer review, the authors may be required to make substantial revisions to correct any flaws in the science or methodology before their paper is published. But peer review has largely failed in climate science. Global warming alarmists have something like Gadaffi’s initial air superiority over rag-tag opponents in Libya.
Consider this comment from one of the most respected IPCC leaders, as revealed in the CRU e-mails: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to define what the peer-review literature is.” And consider the CRU e-mail comment on a journal that committed the mortal sin of publishing one of the heretical papers: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Peer review in climate science means that the “team” recommends publication of each other’s work, and tries to keep any off-message paper from being accepted for publication.
James Madison reminds us in The Federalist Papers that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.” Madison goes on to observe that the smaller the community, the more likely that parties and judges will be one and the same.
Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about 1 degree Celsius in warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere—about 2 ppm per year—it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.
“Mitigation” and control efforts that have been proposed will enrich a favored few with good political ties—at the expense of the great majority of mankind, including especially the poor and the citizens of developing nations. These efforts will make almost no change in earth’s temperature. Spain’s recent experiment with green energy destroyed several pre-existing jobs for every green job it created, and it nearly brought the country to bankruptcy.
The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.
Indeed, the computer programs that produce climate change models have been “tuned” to get the desired answer. The values of various parameters like clouds and the concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols are adjusted to get the best fit to observations. And—perhaps partly because of that—they have been unsuccessful in predicting future climate, even over periods as short as fifteen years. In fact, the real values of most parameters, and the physics of how they affect the earth’s climate, are in most cases only roughly known, too roughly to supply accurate enough data for computer predictions. In my judgment, and in that of many other scientists familiar with the issues, the main problem with models has been their treatment of clouds, changes of which probably have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the earth than changing levels of CO2.
What, besides the bias toward a particular result, is wrong with the science? Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions about what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor our understanding and weed out the theories that don’t work. This has been the scientific method for more than three hundred years. Recently, the advent of the computer has made possible another branch of inquiry: computer simulation models. Properly used, computer models can enhance and speed up scientific progress. But they are not meant to replace theory and observation and to serve as an authority of their own. We know they fail in economics. All of the proposed controls that would have such a significant impact on the world’s economic future are based on computer models that are so complex and chaotic that many runs are needed before we can get an “average” answer. Yet the models have failed the simple scientific test of prediction. We don’t even have a theory for how accurate the models should be.
There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey-stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2. What has transformed climate science from a normal intellectual discipline to a matter of so much controversy?
A major problem has been the co-opting of climate science by politics, ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a righteous cause. What better cause than saving the planet? Especially if one can get ample, secure funding at the same time? Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate-related research.
Funding for climate studies is second only to funding for biological sciences. Large academic empires, prizes, elections to honorary societies, fellowships, and other perquisites go to those researchers whose results may help “save the planet.” Every day we read about some real or contrived environmental or ecological effect “proven” to arise from global warming. The total of such claimed effects now runs in the hundreds, all the alleged result of an unexceptional century-long warming of less than 1 degree Celsius. Government subsidies, loan guarantees, and captive customers go to green companies. Carbon-tax revenues flow to governments. As the great Russian poet Pushkin said in his novella Dubrovsky, “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs.” Any doubt about apocalyptic climate scenarios could remove many troughs.
What about those who doubt the scientific basis of these claims, or who simply don’t like what is being done to the scientific method they were taught to apply and uphold? Publications of contrary research results in mainstream journals are rare. The occasional heretical article is the result of an inevitable, protracted battle with those who support the dogma and who have their hands on the scales of peer review. As mentioned above, we know from the Climategate emails that the team conspired to prevent contrary publications from seeing the light of day and even discussed getting rid of an editor who seemed to be inclined to admit such contentious material.
Skeptics’ motives are publicly impugned; denigrating names are used routinely in media reports and the blogosphere; and we now see attempts to use the same tactics that Big Brother applied to the skeptical hero, Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984. In 2009 a conference of “ecopsychologists” was held at the University of West England to discuss the obvious psychological problems resident in those who do not adhere to the global warming dogma. The premise of these psychologists was that scientists and members of the general population who express objective doubt about the propagated view of global warming are suffering from a kind of mental illness. We know from the Soviet experience that a society can find it easy to consider dissidents to be mentally deranged and act accordingly.
The management of most scientific societies has enthusiastically signed on to the global warming bandwagon. This is not surprising, since governments, as well as many states and foundations, generously fund those who reinforce their desired outcomes under the cover of saving the planet. Certain private industries are also involved: those positioned to profit from enacted controls as well as financial institutions heavily invested in “green technologies” whose rationale disappears the moment global warming is widely understood to be a non-problem. There are known connections and movements of people involved in government policy, scientific societies, and private industry, all with the common thread of influencing the outcome of a set of programs and investments underpinned by the supposed threat of global warming.
My own trade union, the American Physical Society (APS), is a good example, but hardly the worst. An APS Council statement issued on November 18, 2007 states: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security, and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” This is pretty strong language for physicists, for whom skepticism about evidence was once considered a virtue, and nothing was incontrovertible.
In the fall of 2009 a petition, organized by Fellow of the American Physical Society, Roger Cohen, and containing the signatures of hundreds of distinguished APS members was presented to the APS management with a request that at least the truly embarrassing word “incontrovertible” be taken out of the statement. The APS management’s response was to threaten the petitioners, while grudgingly appointing a committee to consider the request. It was exactly what James Madison warned against. The committee included members whose careers depended on global warming alarmism, and the predictable result was that not one word was changed. Bad as the actions of the APS were, they were far better than those of most other scientific societies, which refused to even reconsider extreme statements on climate.
The situation is even more lamentable for the general public, which is fed a constant stream of propaganda by specialists in environmental issues from the mainstream media and well-funded alarmist blogs. Not unlike functionaries of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984, with its motto “Ignorance is Strength,” many members of the environmental news media dutifully and uncritically promote the party line of the climate crusade.
However, the situation is slowly getting better. Skeptics are more numerous and better organized than before. In a few cases, leading former adherents have publicly and courageously spoken out against the dogma and its core of establishment promoters. The IPCC itself has come under severe criticism by the international scientific establishment for its series of bizarre errors and organizational failings. Under pressure from a dissident group of Fellows, the Royal Society moved to meaningfully moderate its former radically alarmist position on global warming. And perhaps most important of all, public skepticism has increased significantly, and with it has come a major drop in support of the climate crusade’s attempt to seize control of the “pollutant,” CO2.
In our efforts to conserve the created world, we should not concentrate our efforts on CO2. We should instead focus on issues like damage to local landscapes and waterways by strip mining, inadequate cleanup, hazards to miners, and the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, and organic carcinogens. Much of the potential harm from coal mining can be eliminated, for example, by requirements that land be restored to a condition that is at least as good as, and preferably better than, when the mining began.
Life is about making decisions, and decisions are about trade-offs. We can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or we can be caught up in a crusade that seeks to suppress energy use, economic growth, and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
Dr. Happer is a hero of mine. He has presented the case of global warming skeptics with clarity and completeness.
To see the original article as posted on First Things follow this link: