Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Know where the money is coming from and the incentive behind the money.. It's not about the environment for these people it's about lining their pockets and protecting their investments while using Canadians as puppets to do their work. These people do not want Canada to be a contributor to the world oil market they want it for themselves and use the environmental issue as a means to get what they want.

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/07/vivian-krause-great-green-trade-barrier/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Know where the money is coming from and the incentive behind the money.. It's not about the environment for these people it's about lining their pockets and protecting their investments while using Canadians as puppets to do their work. These people do not want Canada to be a contributor to the world oil market they want it for themselves and use the environmental issue as a means to get what they want.

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/07/vivian-krause-great-green-trade-barrier/

From the article "Most of my research is based on U.S. tax returns because the Internal Revenue Service requires greater disclosure than the Canadian Revenue Agency." ---> My interpretation of this statement - I can't accurately quantify money from within Canada. Second, if you follow the money, the REAL BIG money, you'll find a massive spending campaign from the industry in all areas of spending - lobbying, advertising and placing stories in the media.
 
Guest opinion by Dr. Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

India Prime Minister Narendra Modi sensibly refuses to attend yet another climate summit – this one called by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in New York for September 23, under the auspices of the United Nations, which profits handsomely from the much-exaggerated climate scare.

Environmentalists have complained at Mr. Modi’s decision not to attend. They say rising atmospheric CO2 will cause droughts, melt Himalayan ice and poison lakes and waterways in the Indian subcontinent.

However, the UN’s climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has already had to backtrack on an earlier assertion that all the ice in the Himalayas would be gone within 25 years, and the most comprehensive review of drought trends worldwide shows the global land area under drought has fallen throughout the past 30 years.

Mr. Modi, a spiritual man and thus down-to-earth, knows that a quarter of India’s people still have no electricity. His priority is to turn on the lights all over India. In Bihar, four homes in five are lit by kerosene.

Electric power is the quickest, surest, cheapest way to lift people out of poverty and so to stabilize India’s population, which may soon overtake China’s.

The Indian-born Nobel laureate in economics, Professor Amartya Sen, recently lamented: “There would appear to be an insufficient recognition in global discussion of the need for increased power in the poorer countries. In India, for example, about a third of the people do not have any power connection at all. Making it easier to produce energy with better environmental correlates (and greater efficiency of energy use) may be a contribution not just to environmental planning, but also to making it possible for a great many people to lead a fuller and free life.”

The world’s governing elite, however, no longer cares about poverty. Climate change is its new and questionable focus.

In late August the Asian Development Bank, for instance, based on UN IPCC rising carbon dioxide (CO2) scenarios, predicted that warmer weather would cut rice production, rising seas would engulf Mumbai and other coastal megacities, and rainfall would decline by 10-40% in many Indian provinces.

Droughts and floods have occurred throughout India’s history. In the widespread famine caused by the drought of 1595-1598, “Men ate their own kind. The streets and roads were blocked with corpses, but no assistance can be given for their removal,” a chronicler in Akbar’s court reported.

Every Indian knows that too much (or too little) monsoon rainfall can bring death. That is why the latest computer-generated doom-and-gloom scenario by the Asian Development Bank is not merely unwelcome – it is repugnant. Garbage in, gospel out.

In truth, rice production has risen steadily, sea level is barely rising and even the UN’s climate panel has twice been compelled to admit that there is no evidence of a worldwide change in rainfall.

Subtropical India will not warm by much: advection would take most additional heat poleward. Besides, globally there has been little or no warming for almost two decades. The models did not predict that. The UN’s climate panel, on our advice, has recently all but halved its central estimate of near-term warming.

Sea level is rising no faster than for 150 years. From 2004-2012 the Envisat satellite reported a rise of a tenth of an inch. From 2003-2009 gravity satellites actually showed sea level falling. Results like these have not hitherto been reported in the mainstream news media.

More than 2 centuries of scientific research have failed to make the duration or magnitude of monsoons predictable. Monsoons depend on sea and surface temperature and wind conditions in the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, timing of El Niños in the equatorial Pacific, variations in Eurasian and Himalayan winter snow cover, even wind direction in the equatorial stratosphere.

Earlier this year, the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a 1 in 4 chance that the 2014 monsoon rainfall would be below the long-term average, leading to a year of drought

The prediction was wrong. Widespread floods in northwestern India and Pakistan have killed several hundred people. Many environmentalists and governmental officials are now insisting that rising atmospheric CO2 is the culprit. Yet the one cause of the recent floods that can be altogether ruled out is global warming, for the good and sufficient reason that for 18 years there has not been any warming.

Worse still for CO2 alarmists: 20th and 21st century warming did not occur in the western Himalayas, and paleo-temperature records from for the last millennium confirm no exceptional recent warming in this region, although the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today almost everywhere else.

Regardless of the numerous political manipulations of fact and reality, the scientific problems of forecasting monsoon self-evidently remain unsolved.

In 1906 the forecasts depended on 28 unknowns. By 2007 scientists from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology were using 73. So insisting that just one variable – CO2 concentration – will drive future monsoons is unscientific.

Professor Nandakumar Sarma, vice-chancellor of Manipur University, recently confirmed that “even supercomputers cannot predict what will happen due to climate change within 10-20 years, since there are millions of variable parameters.”

Models said monsoons would become more intense. Instead, they have weakened for 50 years.

As for the floods in the north-west, a study of three major rivers floods in Gujarat by Dr. Alpa Sridhar confirmed that past floods were at least 8 to 10 times worse than recent floods such as that of 1973. CO2-based climate models have been unable to “hindcast” or recreate those floods.

Models also fail to replicate the 60-yr and 200-yr cycles in monsoon rainfall linked to solar cycles detected by studies of ocean sediments from the Arabian Sea.

A new study led by Professor K.M. Hiremath of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics shows the strong, possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve) in Figure 1.

The red curve is actually the result of a simulation of the Indian monsoon rainfall for the past 120 years using solar activity as a forcing variable. The sun is visibly a far more likely influence on monsoon patterns than changes in CO2 concentration.

Governments also overlook a key conclusion from the world’s modelers, led by Dr. Fred Kucharski of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics: “The increase of greenhouse gases in the twentieth century has not significantly contributed to the observed decadal Indian monsoonal rainfall variability.”

Not one climate model predicted the severe Indian drought of 2009, followed by the prolonged rains the next year – up by 40% in most regions. These natural variations are not new. They have happened for tens of thousands of years.

A paper for Climate Dynamics co-authored by Professor Goswami, recently-retired director of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, shows why the models relied upon by the UN’s climate panel’s recent assessments predict monsoons inaccurately.



Figure 1. There is a possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve).

All 16 models examined had the same fatal flaw: they made rain too easily by artificially elevating air and water masses in the atmosphere.

Models are not ready to predict the climate. Misusing computers to spew out multiple “what-if” scenarios is unscientific.

Most fundamental problems in our immature understanding of climate have remained unresolved for decades. Some cannot be resolved at all. The UN’s climate panel admitted in 2001 what has been known for 50 years: because the climate is a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic object,” reliable long-term climate prediction is impossible.

Misuse of climate models as false prophets is costly in lives as well as treasure.

To condemn the poorest of India’s poor to continuing poverty is to condemn many to an untimely death. Mr. Modi is right to have no more to do with such murderous nonsense. It is time to put an end to climate summits. On the evidence, they are not needed.

______________

Willie Soon is a solar physicist and climate scientist at Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Lord Monckton was an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report (2013) of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC.
 
Know where the money is coming from and the incentive behind the money.. It's not about the environment for these people it's about lining their pockets and protecting their investments while using Canadians as puppets to do their work. These people do not want Canada to be a contributor to the world oil market they want it for themselves and use the environmental issue as a means to get what they want.

http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/07/vivian-krause-great-green-trade-barrier/
I remember there was already an expose on Krause posted on thiis forum (forget which thread) some time ago.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/study-links-changing-winds-warming-pacific-25679516

Study Links Changing Winds to Warming in Pacific
Sep 22, 2014, 3:44 PM ET
By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press

he study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.

"What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve," said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

"So clearly, there are other factors stronger than the greenhouse forcing that is affecting those temperatures," he added.

The study released by the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not question global warming, but argues there is evidence that in at least one place, local winds are a more important factor explaining ocean warming than greenhouse gases.

It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change.

They pointed out that the study sees a correlation but did not do the rigorous statistical and computer analysis to show that the cause of the wind changes were natural — the kind of analysis done when scientists attribute weather extremes to global warming.

"This may say more about the state of climate modeling than it says about causes of warming in the Pacific Northwest," Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, said in an email. "The authors ... have not established the causes of these atmospheric pressure variations. Thus, claims that the observed temperature increases are due primarily to 'natural' processes are suspect and premature, at best."

Johnstone and co-author Nathan Mantua, a research scientist with the NOAA Fisheries Service in Santa Cruz, California, pointed to the fact that one steep ocean warming period from 1920 to 1940 predates the big increases in greenhouse gases, and an ocean cooling period from 1998 to 2013 came while global average temperatures were at or near all-time highs.

They also noted that the wind changes consistently preceded the ocean surface temperature variations by about four months, showing the wind was causing the changes to temperature, not the other way around.

James Overland, a research oceanographer at the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, said the study reinforced findings that the North Pacific has a lot of natural variability in 5- to 20-year time scales, and he reached the same conclusions on changes in the Bering Sea.

"Natural variability cannot be ruled out as an important mechanism," he said in an email.

During the entire period from 1900 to 2012, there has been an increase of about 1 degree Fahrenheit in ocean surface temperatures in the area from Hawaii to Alaska, and down the coast to British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California, according to the study.

The wind acts to change temperature through speed and direction. When the wind blows faster across the water, evaporation increases, and like sweat drying on the skin, cools the water surface. Winds from the south drive warmer air and water to the region. Winds from the north drive in colder air and water.

Mantua said he and Johnstone took the potential inaccuracy of the data into account, comparing it to several other sources, including land surface air temperatures along the coast, which also agreed.

"It just seems to us it's a pretty simple story," Mantua said. "Yet it's going to take people by surprise, because it is ingrained in our minds that if the climate warms up in the course of the century, it's probably because of global warming, the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and other things humans have done that have pushed it in a warming direction."

———

AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report.
 
Leona Aglukkaq says Paris 2015 climate deal will take 'courage'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leona-aglukkaq-says-paris-2015-climate-deal-will-take-courage-1.2775407

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq says Canada is working toward an agreement that would include commitments by all major emitters ahead of the next climate change conference in Paris in 2015.
"As we get closer to 2015, I am confident we can achieve a final agreement, but it will require courage and common sense. And it is crucial any new agreement contain commitments from all major economies and major emitters," Aglukkaq said in her speech to the UN on Tuesday.

In an interview with CBC News ahead of her speech to the UN, Aglukkaq said "Canada is doing its part" by taking action in sectors that represent the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.
"What we've moved on is the two largest emitters in Canada related to the electricity sector as well as the transportation sector."
But in a report to the UN in April, Environment Canada's own numbers showed that oil and gas production accounted for 25 per cent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions in 2012.
The transportation sector has dropped to a close second, accounting for 24 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions, while the electricity sector accounts for 12 per cent.
"We have moved forward in addressing the largest greenhouse gas emitters and that's in the transportation sector as well as the electricity sector," repeated Aglukkaq
​​Canada has yet to bring in regulations for the oil and gas sectors, despite a promise to do so by the end of 2012.*
Agglukaq said her speech will also focus on the initiatives Canada is taking in the auto sector and the progress made by the the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce pollutants.
On Monday, Aglukkaq announced that new emissions regulations for light passenger vehicles first announced two years ago will come into force on Oct. 8, bringing the country's auto sector in line with regulations already announced by the U.S.
She also announced Canada intends to further regulate fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles, as well as draft new regulations around smog emissions from cars and the amount of sulphur allowed in gasoline​.
The Opposition New Democrats say Canada is going to the summit "empty handed" because some of the regulations being made public today were first announced two years ago.

* Free pass for Coal, Oil & Gas....
 
I don't get you GLG.. Anyone who speaks up for industry is a paid puppet. Anyone who speaks against it and spews the cause of climate change nonsense is pure as the driven snow and has no hidden agenda. It what universe does this make sense. Regardless of what camp you stand in one is no purer than the other both have their motives, both are paid by some group to further their agenda. Your argument using this is mute,, it cant be done.. Well again not to people with any common sense it cant be used,, but who are we talking with here lol..
 
China Deal Trumps Province, First Nations on Energy Projects: Treaty Expert
FIPPA carries big labour and regulatory implications for LNG development.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca




Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Approved 31-year treaty with China without debate.


Chairman Harper and the Chinese Sell-Out
Who needs democracy? Secret treaty is a massive giveaway of Canadian resources and rights with no vote in Parliament.
Harper Gov't 'Conceded to China' under Pressure: Treaty Expert
FIPA 'is the price China demanded to open its purse strings for investing in the resource sector in Canada.'
Harper's Sneaky, Undemocratic, Terrible Deal with China
Why the sudden ratification of FIPA is sparking startled outrage across Canada.
Read more: Energy, Federal Politics, BC Politics, Environment
One of the nation's investment treaty experts warns that Canada's highly preferential trade agreement with China could have important implications for resource and LNG development in British Columbia and the rest of the country.

The controversial Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA), which the Harper government signed into effect without parliamentary debate, "means that any B.C. government or legislature or courts would now be subject to obligations arranged by the federal government and China under the treaty," says Osgoode Law School professor Gus Van Harten.

It also means that the FIPPA obligations can overrule the priorities and rights of First Nations in the province.

Van Harten offered two critical examples on how FIPPA could impact the province.

If the government of British Columbia decided to change the rules on hydraulic fracturing of shale gas to protect water or reduce methane leaks, those changes could be contested by Chinese investors as unfair and a violation of their expectations at the time they invested.

In addition, if the B.C. government stipulates that more British Columbians must be employed by the industry as opposed to foreign temporary workers, then Chinese investors could contest those changes too, also as an unfair change to the rules in place when they invested.



"If they want to change the rules about extraction or employment, the government would be restrained by obligations in the treaty," adds Van Harten, the author of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law.

The government of B.C. has already signed an agreement with China that would allow the importation of cheap labour from the superpower to build LNG terminals.

How does FIPPA connect to that labour agreement? Van Harten wonders.

"The governments of British Columbia and the federal government have to come clean about their decisions and how they may have been influenced by obligations under the treaty," adds the law professor.

Give public a 'window' on treaty

The B.C. government has actively subsidized shale gas and LNG development with low royalties, infrastructure incentives, free water, and free geoscience amounting to more than a billion dollars worth of taxpayers' money.

A B.C. government website boasts that "British Columbia offers low corporate tax rates, royalty credits, tax credits, and refunds for investments in research and development, machinery and equipment."

Under FIPPA the cessation of any of these subsidies could be challenged by Chinese investors too. It's not easily predicted, Van Harten notes, because under FIPPA the situation with subsidies is much more complex. Some subsidies are allowed by the agreement while others are not.

The treaty expert would like to see provincial or federal legislation that provides the public with "any information available to government about how the treaty has been invoked by foreign investors so the public can have a window on the treaty's impact on government in Canada."

FIPPA, which faces ongoing legal challenges from First Nations, has many controversial chapters and significantly departs from other trade agreements in critical ways.

Expert lists concerns

Here are just a few of the treaty's unique components as explored by Van Harten in a forthcoming and in-depth study for The Canadian Yearbook of International Law.

It gives China unique Most Favoured Nation status and "obligates Canada, but not China, to open its economy to the other state's investors."

It allows Chinese investors, in general, to purchase assets in Canada that Canadian investors would not be able to purchase in China.

It limits Canada's ability to screen Chinese investments to review under the Investment Canada Act while preserving China's ability to screen Canadian investments at any level of government and without the limitations imposed on screening by the Investment Canada Act.

It allows foreign investors from either country to bring claims against the other, but it does not allow either government to bring claims against foreign investors -- a clear imbalance.

It omits a reservation designed to preserve aboriginal rights, something included in all of Canada's 25 other similar investment and trade agreements.

The treaty has a lifespan of 31 years -- a longevity greater than the great majority of similar treaties signed by Canada.

It gives a special status to foreign investors such as the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC) or China Petrochemical Corp. (Sinopec) in the form of substantive legal protections not enjoyed by other private parties, including domestic competitors.

It allows investors such as Chinese state-owned corporations to bring claims against the government in secret. (Van Harten says the arbitration would have to be made public only when an award is issued.)

Furthermore the treaty's definition of investment is extremely broad.

It does not mean just land or buildings but includes resource concession rights, debt instruments (that is, portfolio investment), intellectual property rights and "any other tangible or intangible... property and related property rights acquired or used for business purposes."

Who controls LNG benefits?

Chinese interest in the province's proposed 14 LNG terminals is substantial and largely confined to powerful state-owned corporations with direct ties to China's totalitarian Communist party.

These mega-firms, among the world's largest oil companies, have all been embroiled in scandals and corruption probes around the world, including Canada.

Sinopec, China's largest company by revenue, has a 15 per cent stake in the Pacific Northwest LNG project.

CNOOC owns a 60 per cent stake in the Aurora LNG project proposal and is pursuing an interest in Prince Rupert LNG project.

And PetroChina Co. Ltd. is a major partner in a consortium led by Royal Dutch Shell to build an LNG project in Kitimat.

A 2013 report by the US-China Business Council noted that, "Investment and market access restrictions continue to be a priority concern" for U.S. and Canadian companies trying to operate in the restrictive and highly protectionist Chinese economy.

No independent public review on the implications of unprecedented treaty took place prior to its ratification.

Trade between China and Canada is highly imbalanced. In 2013 Canada exported about $20-billion worth of raw goods (ores, fish and wood pulp) to China, while it imported $50-billion worth of machinery, footwear, furniture, toys and plastics from that country.

Read more: Energy, Federal Politics, BC Politics, Environment

Andrew Nikiforuk is a contributing editor to the Tyee. He will be talking in Squamish about the province's LNG plans on Thursday night. More details here. Find his previous stories here.

This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
 
I don't get you GLG.. Anyone who speaks up for industry is a paid puppet. Anyone who speaks against it and spews the cause of climate change nonsense is pure as the driven snow and has no hidden agenda. It what universe does this make sense. Regardless of what camp you stand in one is no purer than the other both have their motives, both are paid by some group to further their agenda. Your argument using this is mute,, it cant be done.. Well again not to people with any common sense it cant be used,, but who are we talking with here lol..

I guess we are asking you to do some critical thinking. Is that too much to ask for?
Paid puppets like Patrick Moore or Ezra Levant will not supply you with critical thinking.
They will offer you their opinion that is bought and paid for by the tarsands.
Post%20%231%20image.%202013-06-26.jpg


Why is it that Alberta has no marches to support Tarsands?
Why is it that BC has no marches to support LNG?
Why is it that Canada has no marches to support Coal, Oil & Gas?
Perhaps your common sense can explain that....
You and your like come on here with your views and back them up with opinions.
I counter them with research from science. Not working out for you huh....

Perhaps you should investigate the hero's of your side and post up how they have righted the wrongs.
How have your heroes brought about change for the good?
Seems to me their call for supporting the poor is about as generous as a 3 dollar bill.


http://www.prwatch.org/search/node/Patrick Moore

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...=default&search=Patrick+Moore&fulltext=Search


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?search=Ezra+Levant+&button=&title=Special:Search

http://www.desmogblog.com/ezra-levant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get you GLG.. Anyone who speaks up for industry is a paid puppet. Anyone who speaks against it and spews the cause of climate change nonsense is pure as the driven snow and has no hidden agenda. It what universe does this make sense. Regardless of what camp you stand in one is no purer than the other both have their motives, both are paid by some group to further their agenda. Your argument using this is mute,, it cant be done.. Well again not to people with any common sense it cant be used,, but who are we talking with here lol..
I can't speak for GLG, walleyes - but speaking for myself - I would make these statements:

1/ Industry verses most of us here on this forum, and especially "us" verses industry spokespersons - is very much a one-sided battle. Most industries - esp. the oil and gas sector - have $Billions in profits and $Billions to spend on PR firms and lobbyists who dole out influence and brown manila envelopes to circumvent and corrupt good governance and democracy. Painting concerned citizens who are involved in the functioning of democracy, asking the hard questions they should be asking to our regulators and demanding honesty and transparency- as some hidden bunch of paid NGOs "from away" - is very much a diversionary tactic employed by PR firms.

2/ I respect all informed and supported debate on all of these issues - and I especially appreciate all the input from OBD, you - and other so-called pro-industry posters - Especially when the input builds on your experience with things like production methods and the on-the-ground reality in the tar-sands.

3/ I am admittedly NOT an expert on climate change. I have - however - read quite a bit of the available science. It concerns me. There is great agreement within the scientific community that climate change is real, it is largely caused by our human activities (esp. hydrocarbon burning) - and it is to some extent avoidable. That agreement extends to acknowledging there are real, substantial risks to future generations if we do not acknowledge things like expanding CO2 levels and try to deal with that increase. The debate in science is on how fast to predict we will reach those predicted future levels. The reason for that debate is that we are trying to predict our future and how much and how fast we continue to expand our appetite for fossil fuels.

4/ There is a difference between the data and the science on one hand - and the media reports on the other. Often, the public fails to recognize the difference between the 2, and some appear willfully blind and antagonistic to the data/science when it is presented to them. That is worse than unfortunate, as ignorance appears to be some desirable trait in the public - as far as PR pundits and some politicians are concerned. That is where my concern lays with demanding honesty over our biases including who is paying certain peoples salaries. For me - there is an increased responsibility for those who have ready access to the media - to provide us (the public) accurate and timely info - so we can engage the politicians who are also driven by the media and getting re-elected.

The future belongs to our kids and their kids. I don't have the right to screw it up for them - especially if I know better.
 
The future belongs to our kids and their kids. I don't have the right to screw it up for them - especially if I know better.
100% agreed on that, it's a moral obligation that all parents need to make.


Industry-friendly experts list
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Industry-friendly_experts

Industry-friendly experts serve two primary roles in the propaganda and public relations campaigns. In the first category are people who work behind the scenes as advisors, using psychology and other specialized expertise to design PR and advertising campaigns.
In the second category are experts for the public stage who appear to speak as independent, disinterested authorities with regard to a public issue. This kind of expert plays a role in the propagandists use of the third party technique. In some cases, an expert's opinion is directly related to receiving compensation from the industry or interest whose activities the expert advances. In other instances, an expert may already hold a view that is beneficial to industry, thereby having his work receive more attention and attract more funding than if it weren't supportive of the propagandist's cause. This kind of expert may be professionally inept or overly ambitious. Or he may be simply naïve about how he is serving as a tool for the propagandist.


Wonder why when ever the denial crowd post info on this thread you can find their experts on this list?
 
The Next Generation Asks World Leaders at UN: Why Not Act on Climate Change?

[WtQyg1l3p9g] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtQyg1l3p9g
 
Protect the poor – from climate change policies
Anthony Watts / 8 mins ago September 26, 2014
Cornwall Alliance works to ensure reliable, affordable energy for poor families worldwide

| Guest essay by Paul Driessen |

In a more rational, moral, compassionate, scientifically literate world, this Cornwall declaration would not be needed. It assesses the “far-reaching, costly policies” that the world’s governments are adopting, supposedly to prevent global warming and climate change. It calls on governments to focus instead on protecting the poor, who desperately need the affordable energy that those policies circumscribe.

The declaration was crafted by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This coalition of theologians, faith leaders, scientists, and economic, environmental and policy experts is committed to safeguarding God’s entire creation: not just the Earth and its wildlife, but the people who also inhabit our wondrous planet, especially the poorest among us. More than 150 have already signed the declaration.

The declaration lists ten reasons to “oppose harmful climate change policies.” It notes that our Earth is “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.” Its climate system will respond to and correct damage that might arise from the relatively small effects of carbon dioxide that we humans are adding to the atmosphere – compared to the numerous, complex, powerful, interacting natural forces that have always ruled our planet’s ever-changing climate and weather.

For one thing, crops and forests and other plants will respond to the extra CO2 by growing even faster and better, greening the planet and helping to feed wildlife and people. For another, as my extensive new climate report makes clear, the real world is simply not cooperating with the alarmists’ dire forecasts.

President Obama says climate change “will define the contours of this century more than any other” issue. Secretary of State John Kerry insists that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and poses “greater long-term consequences” than ISIL, terrorism or Ebola – even as ISIL butchers crucify men, behead little children, and promise to murder Westerners in their homes and streets.

Reality tells a different story. Not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States in nine years – the longest such period since at least 1900 and perhaps the US Civil War. Arctic ice has rebounded. Antarctic ice that is supposed to be melting is instead expanding to new records, “because of” global warming that’s supposed to be happening with increasing speed, but instead stopped 18 years ago. Sea levels are barely rising. Perhaps all this good climate news is due to our carbon dioxide emissions?

All these “inconvenient truths” are at the heart of the Cornwall appeal. Look first, it suggests, at actual, empirical, real-world climate observations. In almost every case they differ significantly from – or are directly opposite to – what the White House, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other alarmists assert and predict.

Second, the declaration implores, consider how anti-fossil fuel climate policies would affect the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. Then “abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature, and instead adopt policies that simultaneously reflect responsible environmental stewardship, make energy and all its benefits more affordable, and so free the poor to rise out of poverty.”

As UCLA emeritus professor Deepak Lal (who wrote the foreword to the India edition of my Eco-Imperialism book) wrote in Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:

“The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.… t is mankind’s use of the mineral energy stored in nature’s gift of fossil fuels … accompanying the slowly rolling Industrial Revolution, [that] allowed the ascent from structural poverty which had scarred humankind for millennia. To put a limit on the use of fossil fuels without adequate economically viable alternatives is to condemn the Third World to perpetual structural poverty.”

The Cornwall Alliance echoes and expands on these concerns in its Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor, a 55-page analysis by professor of climatology David Legates and professor of economics Cornelius van Kooten.

Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty, the Alliance points out. Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions would greatly increase the price of energy, as well as goods and services. Such policies would slow, stop or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to prosper and adapt to all climates. They would harm the poor more than the wealthy,

President Obama says the United States is committed to helping poor nations deal with the effects of “climate disruption.” However, he has also signed an executive order requiring that federal agencies take climate change into account when preparing international development, loan and investment programs. This has meant that U.S. agencies will support wind, solar and biofuel projects – but will not provide loans or other assistance for state-of-the-art gas-fired power plants in Ghana, coal-fired power plants in South Africa, or similar projects in other severely energy-deprived and impoverished nations.

Worldwide, 2.8 billion people still use wood, charcoal, coal and dung in open fires to heat and cook. At least 1.2 billion people still do not have access to electricity and the countless blessings it brings. In India alone, more than 300 million people lack electricity; in Africa more than 550 million. The result is millions of deaths every year from lung and intestinal diseases. The vast majority of these victims are women and children.

But under current White House, IPCC and EU policies, they are not likely to get electricity anytime soon. Mr. Obama justified his policies by telling students in Johannesburg, South Africa, “if everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over – unless we find new ways of producing energy.”

In other words, in a world where hydrocarbons still provide 82% of all energy, for this White House and IPCC, exaggerated concerns about climate change 50 or 100 years from now trump concerns about safeguarding billions of people from rampant poverty and lethal diseases. This is intolerable.

Wind and solar power will let people in remote areas have light bulbs, cell phone chargers and tiny refrigerators, until they can be connected to an electrical grid. However, such limited, unreliable, expensive electricity cannot support modern economies, factories, shops, schools, hospitals or families.

No wonder China, India and other developing countries are building hundreds of coal-fired generating plants. Their leaders may be happy to participate in wealth transfer schemes, in which they receive (at least promises of) “climate adaptation and mitigation” money from rich countries. But they will not sign any international accord that restricts their fossil fuel use and economic development. They understand all too well the need to end rampant poverty, misery, disease and premature death – even if Mr. Obama, UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon and Al Gore do not, or do not care.

Put bluntly, “climate-smart” policies for poor countries and poor families are stupid – and immoral.

As American University adjunct professor Caleb Rossiter asked in a June 2014 Wall Street Journal article, “Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”

So study these issues. Ponder what the Cornwall Alliance has to say. Sign the declaration. Speak out against energy deprivation, prolonged poverty and needless death. And help protect your children’s futures – and the hopes, aspirations, lives and basic human rights of the world’s poorest families

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality.
 
Climate Science is not Settled.


Sept. 19, 2014
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner
The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds .
But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate.
For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:

• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.

• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.

• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.

• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."
 
While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN -0.02% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.
 
Protect the poor – from climate change policies
Anthony Watts / 8 mins ago September 26, 2014
Cornwall Alliance works to ensure reliable, affordable energy for poor families worldwide

| Guest essay by Paul Driessen |

In a more rational, moral, compassionate, scientifically literate world, this Cornwall declaration would not be needed.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A destructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial equality.

For moral guidance perhaps we should check with Pope.
Unless you think he is some how not telling us the truth...

Vatican to UN Summit: Climate Change is man-made and man’s responsibility
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/09/24/vatican_address_to_2014_un_climate_change_summit/1107182

(Vatican Radio) The Holy See has called for “an authentic cultural change” to combat climate change which is man-made and therefore man’s responsibility.
That was the focus of an address delivered Tuesday evening to the UN Climate Change Summit in New York by the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Mr Secretary General,
I am pleased to convey the cordial greetings of His Holiness Pope Francis to all those here present for this important Summit, which has gathered together high governmental and civil officials, as well as leaders from the private sector and civil society, in order to identify significant initiatives that will address the concerning phenomenon of climate change. It is well known that climate change raises not only scientific, environmental and socio-economic considerations, but also and above all ethical and moral ones, because it affects everyone, in particular the poorest among us, those who are most exposed to its effects.
For this reason, the Holy See has often stressed that there is a moral imperative to act, for we all bear the responsibility to protect and to value creation for the good of this and future generations. Pope Francis, from the beginning of his Pontificate, has underlined the importance of “protecting our environment, which all too often, instead of using for the good, we exploit greedily, to one another’s detriment” (Address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, 22 March 2013).
The scientific consensus is rather consistent and it is that, since the second half of the last century, warming of the climate system is unequivocal. It is a very serious problem which, as I said, has grave consequences for the most vulnerable sectors of society and, clearly, for future generations.
Numerous scientific studies, moreover, have emphasized that human inaction in the face of such a problem carries great risks and socio-economic costs. This is due to the fact that its principal cause seems to be the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere due to human activity. Faced with these risks and costs, prudence must prevail, which requires thoughtful deliberations based on an accurate analysis of the impact our actions will have on the future. This requires a great political and economic commitment on the part of the international community, to which the Holy See wishes to make its own contribution, being aware that “the gift of knowledge helps us not to fall into attitudes of excess or error. The first lies in the risk of considering ourselves the masters of creation. Creation is not some possession that we can lord over for own pleasure; nor, even less, is it the property of only some people, the few: creation is a gift, it is the marvellous gift that God has given us, so that we will take care of it and harness it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude” (Pope Francis, General Audience, 21 May 2014).
Mr Secretary General,
The long debate on climate change, which gave rise in 1992 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its subsequent implementation, shows how complex this issue is. Since then until our own day, much has changed: the dynamics of international relations have given life to changing geopolitical contexts, while the scientific and informational technologies have become extremely refined.
A principle element which has emerged from the more than thirty years of study on the phenomenon of global warming is the increasing awareness that the entire international community is part of one interdependent human family. The decisions and behaviours of one of the members of this family have profound consequences for the others; there are no political frontiers, barriers or walls behind which we can hide to protect one member from another against the effects of global warming. There is no room for the globalization of indifference, the economy of exclusion or the throwaway culture so often denounced by Pope Francis (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 52, 53, 59).
In the actions undertaken to counter global warming we have too often seen the predominance of special interests or so-called “free-riders” over the common good; we have too often noted a certain suspicion or lack of trust on the part of States, as well as on the part of other participants. However, if we really wish to be effective, we must implement a collective response based on a culture of solidarity, encounter and dialogue, which should be at the basis of normal interactions within every family and which requires the full, responsible and dedicated collaboration of all, according to their possibilities and circumstances.
In this regard, it seems opportune to recall a concept which was also developed within the forum of the United Nations, that is, the responsibility to protect. States have a common responsibility to protect the world climate by means of mitigation and adaptation measure, as well as by sharing technologies and “know-how”. But above all they have a shared responsibility to protect our planet and the human family, ensuring present and future generations have the possibility of living in a safe and worthy environment. The technological and operational bases needed to facilitate this mutual responsibility are already available or within our reach. We have the capacity to start and strengthen a true and beneficial process which will irrigate, as it were, through adaptation and mitigation activities, the field of economic and technological innovation where it is possible to cultivate two interconnected objectives: combating poverty and easing the effects of climate change.
Market forces alone, especially when deprived of a suitable ethical direction, however, cannot resolve the interdependent crisis concerning global warming, poverty and exclusion. The greatest challenge lies in the sphere of human values and human dignity; questions which regard the human dignity of individuals and of peoples are not able to be reduced to mere technical problems. In this sense, climate change becomes a question of justice, respect and equity, a question which must awaken our consciences.
Mr Secretary General,
The ethical motivations behind every complex political decision must be clear. At present, this means consolidating a profound and far-sighted revision of models of development and lifestyles, in order to correct their numerous dysfunctions and deviations (cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, 32). This is also needed due to the many crises which present society is living in economic, financial, social, cultural and ethical contexts.
Within this perspective, an authentic cultural shift is needed which reinforces our formative and educational efforts, above all in favour of the young, towards assuming a sense of responsibility for creation and integral human development of all people, present and future.
For its part, Vatican City State, though small, is undertaking significant efforts to reduce its consummation of fossil fuels, through diversification and energy efficiency projects. However, as the Holy See’s delegation at the COP-19 in Warsaw indicated, “talking about emission reductions is useless if we are not ready to change our lifestyle and the current dominant models of consumption and production”. The Holy See attaches great importance to the need to promote education in environmental responsibility, which also seeks to protect the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology. There are many Catholic educational institutions, as well as Bishops’ Conferences, dioceses, parishes and Catholic inspired NGOs committed to this work in the conviction that the deterioration of nature is directly linked to the culture which shapes human coexistence. Respect for environmental ecology is a condition of, and conditioned by, respect for human ecology in society.
Confronting seriously the problem of global warming requires not only strengthening, deepening and consolidating the political process on a global level, but also intensifying our commitment to a profound cultural renewal and a rediscovery of the fundamental values upon which a better future for the entire human family can be built. The Holy See commits itself to this end, so that, in this work, the international community may be guided by the ethical imperative to act, inspired by the principles of solidarity and the promotion of the common good, in the knowledge that “the dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies” (Evangelii Gaudium, 203).
Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top