Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...hers-climate-delay-889-million-2016-election/

Can Koch Brothers Lock In Fatal Climate Delay For $889 Million In 2016 Election?
BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON JANUARY 27, 2015 AT 5:12 PM

Americans for Prosperity Foundation Chairman David Koch speaks in Orlando, Florida, in August, 2013.
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/PHELAN M. EBENHACK

The multi-billionaire Koch brothers are planning to spend a staggering $889 million in the 2016 election cycle, more than double what they spent in 2012. Politico called it “a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.”

Remember, the Koch family put together the Tea Party movement and much of the modern right-wing infrastructure. Koch Industries surpassed Exxon Mobil in funding climate science disinformation and clean energy opposition years ago. They have already become the biggest force for anti-science politicians at every level of government.

This $889 million announcement is a declaration of dependence on fossil fuels, a figurative declaration of war on a livable climate and the health and well-being of countless future generations. As Mayor Michael McGinn put it in 2013, “We’re the first generation to see the effects of climate change, and the last generation who can do anything about it. To refuse to use every tool at our disposal in this fight — to embrace inaction — is to endorse a trajectory that will lead to suffering, privation, and calamity.”

A quarter century of ignoring the warnings from the world’s top scientists has brought us to the point where we are already seeing dangerous climate impacts on every continent — and brought us perilously close to the first of many serious tipping points (see “New Studies Suggest Many Coastal Cities Eventually To Be Abandoned With Antarctic Ice Collapse”). Another decade of inaction would be fatal to a livable climate. It would essentially rule out stabilizing near 2°C (3.6°F), a temperature target we should beat to have the greatest chance of avoiding multiple catastrophes. Climate action delayed is climate action denied.

The Koch brothers clearly intend to use every tool at their disposal to pursue the trajectory of inaction, which will indeed lead to suffering, privation, and calamity — or “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts” for billions of people, as the world leading scientists and governments put it last year.

Worse, the Kochs want much more than mere climate inaction — their goal is to roll back every major climate and clean energy action we’ve already started. The New York Times explains that the goal of the $889 million 2016 Koch machine is “leveraging Republican control of Congress and the party’s dominance of state capitols to push for deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government.”

The Kochs are leading backers of a “coordinated nationwide attack on renewable energy policies” — an effort to roll back the modest clean energy standards most states have adopted. And yet these job-creating, pollution-reducing standards remain very popular with the public, who strongly support incentives for solar and wind and other forms of renewable energy.

For the Kochs to succeed as much as they have with their blatantly anti-populist, pro-pollution, “1% of the 1%” vision, they have had to simultaneously dupe, empower, and leverage the most extreme part of the electorate — the Tea Party — the only part that is mired in denial. More and more public opinion analysis makes clear that climate change is a wedge issue splitting the anti-science Tea Party extremists from the rest of the Republican party (and independent/moderate voters).

Pew-1For instance, a Pew poll out in late 2013 found that while 67 percent of all Americans say “there is solid evidence that the earth has been getting warmer over the last few decades” — and 61 percent of non-Tea Party Republicans say that — only 25 percent of Tea Party Republicans agree with that basic statement of fact.

The latest 2015 polling from the Yale Project on Climate Communications finds that the Tea Party minority is the only part of the electorate that opposes regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Of course David Koch said back in 2011 that the Tea Party “rank and file are just normal people like us.” Even in 2010 it was clear to many that “Tea party extremists backed by Big Oil and corporate polluters want to stop and then reverse all efforts to advance clean energy or avoid catastrophic global warming,” as I wrote at the time.

CO2regpoll
The main difference between the Tea Party candidates then and now is that the current ones are better at sounding less extreme than they are — and the media has been willing to go along with that frame, possibly because so many national Republicans have been pulled toward those same extreme positions by fear of getting a Tea Party primary challenger.

From a climate perspective, the other key difference between fall 2010 and now is that finally, years after the failure of the climate bill, team Obama is putting forward a climate agenda strong enough to enable a major global climate deal in December, one which would dramatically change the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption (though we would still be headed for warming well past 2°). We have both the fairly strong carbon pollution standards the White House is advancing for existing power plants plus a game-changing climate deal with China that requires faster carbon pollution cuts by the U.S. along with a peak in CO2 emissions by China by 2030 (which in turn drives China to a peak in coal consumption by 2020).

That means the 2016 election at the national level — and at the state level — will determine whether the U.S. keeps its CO2 commitment and remains a positive force for international negotiations. And that may well determine whether any global climate deal negotiated in Paris in 2015 succeeds.

Humanity really has only two paths forward at this point. Either we voluntarily and aggressively switch to a low-carbon economy over the next two decades or the post-Ponzi-scheme-collapse forces us to do so circa 2030. The only difference between the two paths is that the first one spares our children and grandchildren and countless future generations misery that is irreversible over a time scale of centuries.

The “Après nous le déluge” Koch brothers are placing an $889 million bet they can stop the rational, moral path of climate action in its tracks in 2016 — so they can extract a few more tens of billions of dollars while dooming billions of people to unnecessary suffering. What are you going to do?
 

Attachments

  • Pew-1.jpg
    Pew-1.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 64
  • CO2regpoll-638x458.jpg
    CO2regpoll-638x458.jpg
    47.9 KB · Views: 62
[h=1]Cheapest Solar In The World[/h]http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/24/cheapest-solar-world-michael-liebreich-interview-series/
One of the biggest solar power stories of the past year — if not the biggest — was the record-low price of solar power that was bid in Dubai toward the end of the year. ACWA Power bid 5.98 cents per kWh, well below the cost of natural gas in the region (which is 9 cents per kWh). Michael Liebreich — Chairman of the Advisory Board of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and founder of the company under the original name of New Energy Finance — was kind enough to invite me to dinner the other night after a World Future Energy Summitpanel that he moderated. On the way to dinner, our conversation was already getting so interesting that we stopped to record a bit of it.
I really think the video is worth a watch, so I’m going to encourage more of you than normal to watch it by not writing up a summary. However, in case you need a little bit of a taster, I will list some of the key topics discussed. Check them out below the video.

[pxHKRI2Cbas]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxHKRI2Cbas

Key topics Michael Liebreich and I had fun chatting about:

  • The world’s cheapest solar power bid.
  • A conversation between Kerry Adler, President of Sky Power, and Paddy Padmanathan, CEO ACWA Power, about the financial viability of that bid.
  • The solar power experience curve, and ways in which costs can and will continue to come down.
  • Disruptive technologies and the “Kodak moment” of incumbent industries that don’t transition quickly enough.
  • The future of utilities.
 
Well you might be wrong or right.
However science sure is wrong a lot when it comes to forecasting the future.






First off OBD - may and might are not new terms in science nor the English language.

Secondly - the fact that these terms are commonly used in science and you are not seemingly aware of that fact - nicely illustrates the point I was making earlier about the lack of science literacy in the denier camp. Thank you for that example.

Thirdly - This is not "my" science - it is everyone's science, OBD - even yours.

Fourthly - Science has even a more robust and defensible way of saying "may" and "might" - It's called "STATISTICS" - a specialized branch of mathematics. Scientists routinely say things like there is a 95% chance that this particular variable represents the true value of the population 19 times out of 20. These are the same kind of mathematical inferences that are used in all the sciences - even the engineering sciences which design and build your industrial equipment and vehicles that you use all the time without thinking about it. Then there are the recommendations and discussion sections where "may" and "might" are often used. Scientists are generally a cautious lot - commonly using "may" or "might". Again - you are only demonstrating your ignorance of science with the comments above - LOLs notwithstanding.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 54
Made just for you.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    93.2 KB · Views: 54
Made just for you.

The caterwauling over climate change has nothing to do with real-world warming, cooling, storms or droughts. It has everything to do with an ideologically driven hatred of hydrocarbons, capitalism and economic development, and a callous disdain for middle class workers and impoverished Third World families that “progressive” activists, politicians and bureaucrats always claim to care so much about.

Yup nothing to do with science it's just a world wide hoax designed for the creation of a one world government, lead by the UN with the expressed interest to take money from the rich and give to the poor. Thank god we have a few angry bloggers and a couple billionaire brothers to protect us from those scientists. Yup it's some kind of conspiracy to take over the world and impose some kind of socialist utopia.

Are we not lucky that OBD is here to shine the light on these forces of darkness...... perhaps call him batman


Gotham city is calling.....
[FznqqvTZmks]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FznqqvTZmks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And now for something total insane....... the new insane mode.

[LpaLgF1uLB8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpaLgF1uLB8#t=84
 
I guess OBD's denial camp can't claim that an ice age is imminent....
Are you starting to see a trend yet?
Are you wondering what this means?

hadcrut4_annual_global.png


26 January 2015 - Provisional full-year global mean temperature figures show 2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850.
The HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average.
Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.
Colin Morice, a climate monitoring scientist at the Met Office, said: "Uncertainties in the estimates of global temperature are larger than the differences between the warmest years. This limits what we can say about rankings of individual years.
"We can say with confidence that 2014 is one of ten warmest years in the series and that it adds to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last two decades."
Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, said: "2014 was an exceptionally warm year which saw warm tropical pacific temperatures, despite not being officially regarded as an El Niño."
Updates to the HadCRUT4 dataset are compiled using temperature measurements from around 1,600 observation sites over land and from ships and buoys at sea. Uncertainties arise from incomplete global coverage, particularly a lack of observations from the Polar Regions and limitations of the measurements used to produce the data sets.

more......
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/2014-global-temperature
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[0KGP4vvL65I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KGP4vvL65I
 
Oh, by-the-way all you climate change deniers out there - this latest economic/financial set-back was *NOT* caused by a pile of nerdy guys in white lab jackets trying to make you believe in a hoax to loose your jobs - it was caused by our current system of capitalism/consumerism/stock market. If you are truly worried about your jobs - there are bigger threats than guys in lab coats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-economy-there-will-be-blood/article22716555/

‘There will be blood’ in Canada from oil price collapse, JPMorgan warns
MICHAEL BABAD
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jan. 30 2015, 7:52 AM EST
Last updated Friday, Jan. 30 2015, 1:33 PM EST

Oil’s toll
A major U.S. bank is warning Canadians what to expect from the rout in the oil market: “There will be blood.”

That warning from JPMorgan Chase & Co. is largely aimed at the province of Alberta, home to Canada’s oil patch, but the collapse in oil prices will filter through the broader economy.

The Wall Street giant, like others, suggest a recession in Alberta, with slower economic growth in other parts of the economy. Economists generally now forecast growth of 2 per cent or lower in Canada this year.

Already, oil companies have slashed spending and started to lay off workers amid the shocking plunge in oil prices.

That’s the “direct blood,” as JPMorgan’s Kevin Hebner puts it.

But there will also be a ripple effect, and the threat of something far uglier.

Mr. Hebner, JPMorgan’s chief foreign exchange strategist, and technical analyst Niall O’Connor, warned in their new report of both the impact and the threat, using the Bank of Canada’s own numbers released last week.

That’s when Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz unveiled a surprise interest rate cut, which he dubbed an insurance policy amid the uncertainty in the oil market.

“Last week’s brief statement mentioned ‘oil’ 10 times and the insurance cut demonstrated the BoC’s focus on mitigating downside risks from the oil patch slump, especially given that we have so far only witnessed the tip of the iceberg in terms of direct damage (especially regarding energy-sector capex and employment,” they said in a section of the report titled “There will be blood,” referring to capital expenditures and jobs.

“Further, the Jan. 21 statement introduced ‘financial stability risks,’ which are particularly worrisome given stretched household debt levels and frothy housing markets.”

Mr. Hebner, who believes the central bank could well cut rates again, noted in an interview that each oil job in Canada indirectly supports two or three others.

And while there are no such signs at this point, households are vulnerable to shocks given the high consumer debt levels in Canada and inflated home prices in some parts of the country.

Indeed, Calgary’s housing market is showing initial signs of a slump, and the Bank of Canada has expressed concern about what that mean outside the home of the country’s energy industry.

“There certainly will be direct blood,” Mr. Hebner said, citing the hit to investment and the “tens of thousands” of jobs he expects will die.

Just last week, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank also warned of the threat of a recession in Alberta, projecting economic growth of just 0.5 per cent over the course of the year.

Other provinces, such as Ontario, are expected now to benefit from the decline in energy costs and the related plunge in the Canadian dollar.

A key issue in Canada is whether the rest of the economy “is strong enough going forward to offset negativity in the energy sector,” Derek Holt of Bank of Nova Scotia added today.

“Canada is more dependent on energy than ever before as one in five cap-ex dollars, one in four export dollars, and 13 per cent of GDP through direct and indirect effects are derived from the sector,” he added.

“Will a depreciated [Canadian dollar] and U.S. growth be enough to pull non-energy exports higher going forward and offset the pain that is sweeping through the resources sector (and not just energy)? I’m skeptical.”

Mr. Holt, too, raised questions about the state of Canadian households, though there are offsetting factors.

“In the context of all of this is a very mature household sector including: About a 70 per cent record high home ownership rate; record high real per-capita consumer spending; record high renovation spending; record high house prices; and a household debt-to-after-tax income ratio that may have stabilized but that remains elevated around records,” he said.

“There are many insulating safeguards in a strong financial system and a very different mortgage market but further growth off of record highs in such variables may not get a lift from rate cuts as employment growth has cooled over the past couple of years while the housing market is operating at saturated levels of activity.”

Economy contracts
And on that note, we turn to the latest reading, though it’s far in the rear-view mirror at this point.

Canada’s economy contracted by 0.2 per cent in November, Statistics Canada said today, driven lower by manufacturing, mining and the energy sector.

As The Globe and Mail’s David Parkinson reports, that’s the poorest showing in about a year.

And it may well add to the speculation over whether the Bank of Canada will cut rates again.

“November’s disappointing results will put a dent in Q4 GDP growth, the latter likely to come in around 2 per cent annualized, roughly half a percentage point lower than the Bank of Canada’s estimates in the recent monetary policy report,” said senior economist Krishen Rangasamy of National Bank of Canada.

“That, coupled with the recent Statistics Canada downgrade to employment, gives the central bank ammunition to dispatch another rate cut at its March meeting.”

The factory sector’s output sank by 1.9 per cent in the month, ending what had been a string of gains.

The latest reading from the U.S. economy, meanwhile, showed growth slowing in the fourth quarter to an annual pace of 2.6 per cent.

Loonie sinks
And you just knew this was coming: The Canadian dollar hit a fresh low today after those duelling economic reports from Canada and the United States.

So far today, the loonie has touched a low point of 78.22 cents U.S. and a high of 79.31 cents.

It's the second day in a row that the currency has swung by about a penny from its high to its low.

Misery loves company
Not to be outdone, Europe reported some ugly numbers today.

The Eurostat agency said it now expects the euro zone to sink further into deflation in January, to the tune of -0.6 per cent from December’s -0.2 per cent.

That’s largely driven by falling energy prices, but food, alcohol and tobacco are also playing a role.

The agency also said unemployment dipped in December to 11.4 per cent from 11.5 per cent, small comfort given the still-elevated level.

Russia cuts
The world’s central banks are just full of surprises these days.

The Bank of Russia became the latest today, cutting its key one-week auction rate to 15 per cent from 17 per cent as it plunges toward an expected recession.

The ruble tumbled, but that’s nothing new.

“The focus is now on growth downsides that will probably crush ruble-impacted import price inflation,” said economists at Scotiabank.

“Governor Elvira Nabiullina was under pressure to cut rates from the business community as the run-up in rates from 10.5 per cent in December was rippling throughout the financial system and economy,” they added in a research note.

“One cannot help but question such erratic monetary policy behaviour.”
 
Anyone can make and post jpgs, OBD. Here's a few back at you. Reading the science takes more work.
 

Attachments

  • Graph-2002-2011_Donors-Koch-Exxon.jpg
    Graph-2002-2011_Donors-Koch-Exxon.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 55
  • global-warming-hoax.jpg
    global-warming-hoax.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 55
  • 0212-cartoon.jpg
    0212-cartoon.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 55
  • 6a00d8341bf80c53ef01a73dbd6702970d.jpg
    6a00d8341bf80c53ef01a73dbd6702970d.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 55
  • ClimateChangeGlobalWarming.jpg
    ClimateChangeGlobalWarming.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 55
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129151549.htm
Where did the missing oil go? New study says some is sitting on the Gulf floor
Date: January 29, 2015
Source: Florida State University
Summary: Some 6 million to 10 million gallons of oil from the BP oil spill are buried in the sediment on the Gulf floor, about 62 miles southeast of the Mississippi Delta, researchers have discovered.
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129160854.htm

Scientists investigate link between skyrocketing sea slug populations, warming seas
Date: January 29, 2015
Source: California Academy of Sciences
Summary: A team of California scientists believes a far-flung Okenia rosacea bloom -- along with a slew of other marine species spotted north of their typical ranges -- may signal a much larger shift in ocean climate and a strong forthcoming El Niño.
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150127140815.htm

From tar sands to ring of fire: Forewarning changes to Canada's watersheds
Date: January 27, 2015
Source: University of Toronto
Summary: Ecologists have found the conservation of aquatic ecosystems in Canada has not kept pace with the country's changing landscape, and a prioritization of protection is needed. This new assessment of environmental, human census and business pattern data shows climate warming and northward expansion of human activities over a decade, and can be used to guide strategies for managing freshwater resources by highlighting the regions where humans are now having the greatest impact.

The Tar Sands in Alberta, potential development in the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, declining timber harvest and farming -- human activity is transforming Canada's landscape, yet many of the country's aquatic resources remain unprotected, according to research by ecologists at the University of Toronto.

Global warming controversy
"The conservation and management of aquatic ecosystems in Canada needs to keep pace with the country's changing landscape," said Cindy Chu, a former postdoctoral researcher at U of T and lead author of a study published in the January issue of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

Chu and and a team of U of T researchers examined environmental, human census and business pattern data from across Canada. Their analyis showed climate warming and northward expansion of human activities over a 10-year period from 1996 to 2006, threatening the quality and quantity of freshwater resources, especially in areas with the most human activity. They employed a variety of different scenarios that rank watersheds based on the importance of freshwater fish biodiversity, the presence of fish species at risk, and intensity of human activities.

"By combining the data we were able to identify regions that need attention," said Chu, now an aquatic research biologist with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. "Attention has typically been given to watersheds in British Columbia, southern Ontario, southern Quebec and the Maritimes. Our research shows that Canada's changing landscape means that attention is needed elsewhere, too."

The researchers recommend watersheds along the southern border of Canada, and northern regions of some provinces be prioritized for conservation through more intensive monitoring, research or management.

The study is the first national, chronological review of changing human activities and environmental patterns in Canada. The researchers hope it will be used to guide strategies for managing freshwater resources by highlighting the regions where humans are now having the greatest impact.

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Toronto. The original article was written by Sean Bettam. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: Cindy Chu, Charles K. Minns, Nigel P. Lester, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Jordan Rosenfeld. An updated assessment of human activities, the environment, and freshwater fish biodiversity in Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2015; 72 (1): 135 DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2013-0609 http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2013-0609
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://grist.org/politics/barbra-streisand-behind-global-warming-hoax-says-sen-inhofe/

Barbra Streisand behind global warming hoax, says Sen. Inhofe

By David Corn on 2 Dec 2014 41 comments Cross-posted from Mother Jones

The recent news on the front page of the New York Times was stark. As thousands of diplomats were gathering in Lima, Peru, to work on an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, scientists and climate-policy experts were warning

that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding—events that could harm the world’s population and economy.

But with an effort under way in Lima to protect the difference, as the newspaper put it, “between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one,” one fellow in Washington is readying himself to prevent any progress toward a climate accord: Sen. James Inhofe. The 80-year-old Republican from Oklahoma is one of the most notorious deniers of human-induced climate change. He has contended that God controls the Earth’s climate, not **** sapiens, and he has quoted the Bible to make this point: “As long as the Earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” And Inhofe, thanks to the recent elections, is in line to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans assume control of the Senate next month. He has vowed to do all he can to block regulations aimed at cutting emissions.

With diplomats in Lima wrestling with the challenges of climate negotiations and Inhofe counting the days until his likely ascension to one of the most powerful environment-related positions on the planet, I’m reminded of a bizarre encounter I had with the senator at a previous climate summit.

In December 2009, the United Nations hosted a global gathering in Copenhagen to hammer out what some participants hoped would be a binding accord that would compel a reduction in emissions around the world. Thousands of diplomats, policy advocates, and scientists flocked to the Danish city for the session, and thousands of reporters were there to chronicle the talks. Inhofe came, too. To troll. Or, as he put it, to be “a one-man truth squad.” He slithered in and out of the cavernous media filing center, ever at the ready to speak to reporters looking for the other side quotes denigrating the proceedings, claiming that climate change was no more than a hoax, and celebrating the summit’s failure to produce a binding and comprehensive treaty.

Inhofe was usually mobbed by reporters — especially non-American journalists who found it newsworthy that a U.S. senator would say such things. Judging from the smile on his mug, Inhofe enjoyed skunking up the party. After watching this for a few days, I could not resist the urge to engage.

As he strolled through the media center one afternoon, accompanied by several camera crews recording his pronouncements, I approached and politely asked if I could put a question to him. Sure, he said, in his folksy avuncular manner.

Look around us, I said, spreading my arms wide. There are thousands of intelligent and well-meaning people in this gigantic conference center: scientists, heads of state, government officials, policy experts. They believe that climate change is a serious and pressing threat and that something must be done soon. Do you believe that they have all been fooled?

Yes, he said, grinning.

That these people who have traveled from all points of the globe to be here are victims of a well-orchestrated hoax?

Yes, he said, still smiling.

That’s some hoax, I countered. But who has engineered such a scam?

Hollywood liberals and extreme environmentalists, Inhofe replied.

Really? I asked. Why would they conspire to scare all these smart people into believing a catastrophe was under way, when all was well?

Inhofe didn’t skip a beat: To advance their radical environmental agenda.

I pressed on: Who in Hollywood is doing this?

The whole liberal crowd, Inhofe said.

But who?

Barbra Streisand, he responded.

I nearly laughed. All these people had assembled in Copenhagen because of Barbra Streisand. A singer and actor had perpetuated the grandest con of the past 100 years?

That’s right, Inhofe said, with a straight face. And others, he added.

By this point, he was losing patience and glancing about for another reporter who wanted to record his important observations. And I was running out of follow-up queries. After all, was I really going to ask, “And Ed Begley Jr., too?” So our conversation ended, and I headed back to reality.

But I was struck by this thought: Did this senator truly believe Barbra Streisand was the devious force behind a completely phony global campaign to address climate change? He seemed to.

In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Inhofe does mention Streisand — but only once, lumping her together with Leonardo DiCaprio and John Travolta as celebs whose environmental “alarmism” had to be debunked. But his book did not shy away from clearly identifying the charlatans and hoaxers who have hornswoggled the planet: “environmental activist extremists,” Al Gore, MoveOn.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, and, yes, “the Hollywood elites.”

Perhaps when Inhofe seizes the reins of the Senate environment committee, he can further expose this conspiracy — and for the first witness … Barbra Streisand. It’s time for her to come clean.

This story was produced by Mother Jones as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
 
Climate Models - Beautifully Inaccurate

climate modelsTo date, every single NOAA, NASA, and IPCC Climate Model has gotten it wrong.

To counter this now obvious flaw, climate science agencies adopted the following strategy: utilize flashy marketing techniques when selling new “updated” climate models, focus media attention on supposedly once in-a-lifetime weather phenomenon, and most importantly, convince the public to patiently wait for the inevitable rise in global temperatures.

The ridiculous nature of this strategy is satirically portrayed in the photo (right) with an associated implied message here paraphrased as… just keep dressing yourself in a swimsuit even though there is snow on the ground, snow in the trees, and its cold outside. Not to worry, because eventually your dress attire will suit the climate. Shockingly for eighteen years the public has dutifully followed this crazy climate science mandate.

Enough already!

It’s time to reevaluate the “mandate”. Fine, let’s start by critically reviewing previous Climate Model Predictions versus Actual Results.

CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS

ACTUAL RESULTS

As atmospheric CO2 content increases, atmospheric temperatures will rise.

As atmospheric CO2 content increased, atmospheric temperatures have notrisen

Hurricane intensity and frequency will increase

Hurricane intensity and frequency have decreased

It’s definitely ALL about the atmosphere

It’s probably about the atmosphere and the oceans, not sure what it’s about

Polar Ice mass will dramatically decrease

Polar ice mass has steadily increased

Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass will significantly decrease

Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass has remained nearly in balance

El Niños will increase in frequency and intensity

El Niño frequency and intensity are not well understood and unpredictable

Sea level will rise catastrophically

Sea Level has risen very slightly on par with historical post ice age rates

Spending enormous amounts of money will improve model accuracy

Enormous amounts of money has been spent, model accuracy has not improved

The soon to be released and updated climate model is the answer

Successive models continue to fail

The atmosphere will warm, the oceans will NOT warm

The atmosphere has not warmed in 18 years, but the oceans have warmed

Coral reefs will die off in warmer, more acidic oceans

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and have actually rebounded

Ouch baby! Clearly something is very wrong with the climate modeling process, possible reasons are;

1.) Malicious intent to mislead. Some of this is definitely occurring; however the problem goes deeper. Yes, politicians have carried things to the extreme when explaining / extolling climate models, but many hard working and very intelligent scientists have given it their best. They are not trying to mislead, they believe in their models.

2.) Inexperienced / incompetent scientists. No way! Lots of well-intentioned super nerds are working their hearts and minds out on this stuff.

3.) Extremely flawed data. No again, kind of. Atmospheric data is accurate and abundant; however scientists have utilized just atmospheric data. Other data types such as geological and biological data have not been incorporated into the model-generation process.

4.) Natural climate variation. Clearly a very important factor to consider when generating climate models, unfortunately most climate scientists haven’t correctly incorporated its impact onto climate models.

5.) Climate models built on effects, not causes. Bingo…winner winner chicken dinner! This is the main reason models have failed. Historically climate models have been purposely constructed in a fashion that matches observed “average” atmospheric climate trends, and resulting models work for a time, then fail. Why, because significant natural geological variations unexpectedly interrupt “average” atmospheric climate patterns. The length, intensity, and frequency of these natural geological variations cannot be modeled / predicted by using average atmospheric climate trends. Rather it is necessary to independently study the length, intensity, and frequency of these natural geological variations. Ongoing efforts to understand the role of natural geological forces on climate can be investigated by following visiting the Plate Climatology Theory page.

To help clarify this concept, the following is a geological example of how ‘modeling the effects’ and not the ‘cause’ can lead to model failure:

Let’s construct a model to predict fluid flow of geysers, specifically building a predictive model to explain Water Flow Variations through a typical Yellowstone geyser. Geyser water flow variation is common in Yellowstone, but why?

One approach to building such a model would be to start by accurately measuring surface water temperatures, chemistry variations, flow-rate changes, biotic life-form changes / abundance, and mineral precipitation rates / types. After dutifully gathering mountains of said data, construction of the model begins by mathematically discerning average data trends: frequency, intensity, duration, etc. Done!

Now on to building a beautiful four-dimensional model (time is considered a fourth dimension) from this data, and performing final mathematical test runs. Awesome, works like a charm. So write up the press releases, make predictions, and wait for them to come true.

Big Problem! Given time the beautiful Yellowstone geyser model fails. What went wrong?

Turns out the surface water data was not directly related to, or necessarily indicative of, water flow variations in Yellowstone geysers. Upon further review, it’s discovered that geologically induced shifts in deep molten magma chambers are the root cause of geyser water flow variation. Using the abundant and accurate surface water flow data doomed the model to failure from the onset.

This is a classic case of modeling the effects, not the cause.

The same thing has happened with the NOAA, NASA and IPCC climate models. For years they have incorrectly constructed their climate models utilizing air fluid flow data at the exclusion of important natural geological data: heat and water flow from Deep Ocean rift systems, heat and water flow from major continental rift systems, and aerosol / particulate matter emissions from continental volcanoes. It should come as no surprise that their previous climate models have failed.

Finally, it just makes common sense that if major geological rift systems have the power to move entire continents 2-3 centimeters per year, frequently create large tsunamis that mix thousands of feet of ocean column, support vast chemosynthetic communities, and contain 70% of the planets known active volcanoes, they can certainly and easily influence our climate in a dramatic fashion. Add to this the influence of continental volcanic emissions and it’s easy to understand why it’s long overdue to incorporate these geological forces into future climate models.

And for the time being…dump the swimsuits and put on winter jackets.

James Edward Kamis is a working professional Geologist with an MS in Geology from Idaho State University, BS in Geology from Northern Illinois University, and AAPG member of 40 years. He has always been fascinated by the probable connection between Geology and Climate. Years of casual research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important second order driver of the Earth’s climate. You can contact James using the Contact Us page.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 45
Don’t Trust The Global Warming Doomsters And Their Moral Outrage

GoreAl Gore once suggested that since climate change is a “moral issue,” it is “beyond politics.” You must not question “settled” science or policy “consensus.” You must check your brain at the door, and obey the dictates of, er, politicians.

Moral issues are ultimately about how we treat each other. Those such as Mr. Gore who espouse grim Biblical projections of droughts, floods and plagues of insects, all caused by the malign hand of industrial capitalist man, claim that they are only “speaking up for” poor people both now and in the future. They stand against “intergenerational tyranny.”

But even if one discounts the possibility that these sentiments are reflections of H.L. Mencken’s trenchant observation that the desire to save the world is almost invariably a false front for the urge to rule it, then that still leaves the question of whether catastrophic projections are likely to be true, and the policies proposed likely to be effective.

If anybody doubts that such questions lead to moral opprobrium, check out the online comments on my most recent column. That piece noted that the claim that 2014 was the “hottest year on record” was highly uncertain (as now confirmed by the British Met Office) or, if true, not particularly surprising. I also refuted the notion that for 13 of the past 15 years to be “the hottest years on record” was no more astronomically implausible after a period of warming (man-made or otherwise) than that a person would be taller as an adult than a child.

My reward for these observations was a tsunami of moral outrage. I am apparently not just scientifically ignorant but plain stupid. I am in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, or at least trying to drum up more advertising for the Post from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. One commentator even suggested that I was probably also opposed to gay rights.

The fundamental “moral” assumption behind all this sturm und drang is that fossil fuels – which are above all a proxy for capitalism — are “unsustainable” and thus morally “bad.” This assumption is well challenged in a recent book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, by Alex Epstein.

Mr. Epstein does an excellent job of outlining the astonishing benefits that the development of coal, oil and natural gas have delivered to mankind: improving health, lengthening lives and facilitating a vast expansion in both material welfare and leisure possibilities. He also notes, with copious data, that fossil fuel development has – contrary to conventional wisdom – gone along with a cleaner environment (China will get there eventually, once it embraces democracy). He explains clearly and logically why wind, solar and biofuels are technological dead ends. He lays out convincingly why attempting to force these technologies on developing countries amounts to a death sentence.

It is sometimes said that Canada has a “moral obligation” to support global initiatives. Stephen Harper has pointed out that he will not support any treaty that pointlessly damages the Canadian economy or fails to include the leading emitters, particularly China. But how, in any case, could there be any moral obligation to sign onto a global agreement that is not merely bad for future generations, who need fossil fuels to flourish, but that destroys wealth and damages freedom right now? It is particularly morally reprehensible to recommend more and bigger versions of policies that have already caused hardship and suffering. Obvious examples are the impact of biofuel policy on food prices, and how the subsidization of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power has driven the very poorest members of Western societies into “fuel poverty.”

Nevertheless, “authority,” itself a moral concept, has been successfully captured, and the ethical high ground has been seized by those who prefer to pour rhetorical boiling oil on those who question them rather than engage in debate.

Mr. Epstein does a fine job of exposing how professional doomsters such as Mr. Gore, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen and Bill McKibben have been as mendacious as they have been wrong. But the really fascinating issue is the moral mindset that makes these thundering Jeremiahs – and their acolytes — seemingly impervious to rational arguments and objective evidence. Thus the one area where Mr. Epstein’s book may fall short is in making the case promised in the title. Making a practical, rational case is not synonymous with making a moral case, or at least one that will convert diehard opponents.

Morality is based on feelings, which means that it doesn’t make people think very clearly or logically. In fact, it often stops them from thinking at all. That makes moral psychology one of the most fascinating – and contentious — of the social sciences.

Mr. Epstein’s book is well worth reading on its own terms, but it raises issues that demand much further and deeper analysis of our “moral sentiments.” The Catch 22 lies in the fact that, due to the nature of morality, such analysis is likely to be ignored, or angrily
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 44
One thing for sure is OBD is in denial and thinks it's a hoax.
I pity the man as he has lost his critical thinking skills.
It's sad when someone, I use to respect, goes down that rabbit hole and loses his common sense.
Sorry OBD that's all i have left for you, just pity.
Sad that it's come to this.
Please stop posting such nonsense.
If you have something intelligent to post then do so and lets talk about it.
The debate is what to do about this problem not if there is a problem.
Perhaps look up what morals mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well that is not happening as your side is wrong way to much for people to believe them.




One thing for sure is OBD is in denial and thinks it's a hoax.
I pity the man as he has lost his critical thinking skills.
It's sad when someone, I use to respect, goes down that rabbit hole and loses his common sense.
Sorry OBD that's all i have left for you, just pity.
Sad that it's come to this.
Please stop posting such nonsense.
If you have something intelligent to post then do so and lets talk about it.
The debate is what to do about this problem not if there is a problem.
Perhaps look up what morals mean.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 27
North America’s premier weather agencies have been questioned over “homogenisation” changes to international temperature records used to declare last year the hottest on record.

U.S. Weather Agencies On Rack Over ‘Hottest’ Year Claim

Neither NASA nor the National Oceanic and Atmospheric *Association have responded to international reports questioning why temperature records at three rural stations in Paraguay had been changed dramatically.

Independent climate researcher and blogger Paul Homewood said he had compared NASA data with the raw temperature data for the stations and found a cooling over a 65-year *period had been turned into a warming trend.

The story was picked up internationally, including a long article in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph, and builds on a long-running controversy over the treatment of historic temperature records.

In Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology has been challenged over its homogenisation methods that have changed cooling trends to warming trends at some stations. BoM has maintained there are legitimate reasons to alter physical temperature records, including changes in recording equipment, and inconsistencies with temperatures at nearby areas.

An independent panel has been established to review BoM’s treatment of historical temperature data, as recommended by a peer review of the bureau’s national temperature data ACORN-SAT.

Mr Homewood was encouraged to examine NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies records after the agency declared 2014 the hottest on record. NASA later admitted that given the small difference between recent temperature highs and the margin of error in recording, it was only 38 per cent certain 2014 was the warmest.

After checking raw data, Mr Homewood said past temperatures had been adjusted down by almost 2C and a declining temperature trend over 65 years in the raw data had been transformed into a sharply warming trend.

Full story
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    78.4 KB · Views: 22
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top