Guest essay by David Archibald
In President Obama’s war on coal, and thus the US economy, what would be the cheapest way to start the counter-attack? The most effective allocation of funds would be to achieve what Nebraska set out to do. At the urging of State Senator Beau McCoy in late 2013, the Nebraska Department of Agriculture was tasked with commissioning a report on cyclical climate change. The budget for the exercise was $44,000. That right, for a mere $44,000 Nebraskans would be told what was going to happen to their climate. If the Sun was going to sleep with the consequence that cold air from the Canadians would come south faster and longer, Nebraskans would be forewarned and fore-armed. Alas, the effort was abandoned when promoters of global warming in the state offered to do it for free.
The danger to the promoters of global warming was that the stillborn Nebraskan climate report would have been the first government-sanctioned report on the planet to say that carbon dioxide and the burning of coal are nothing to worry about. A report on cyclical climate change would say that there is something far more serious coming that is going to smack our civilisation like a freight train. That serious thing is one of the cycles that the Nebraskans were going to be told about. One day the science of climate cycles might get out to Nebraska but in the meantime they will be wondering why their winters are getting colder and Spring seems to be delayed and how can they begin planting while their fields are still covered in snow.
It is one thing for books to be published which warn of the severe, solar-driven cooling coming (I’m on my third) and for retired academics to voice concerns over the low standards of US Government-funded climate science, but much more moral authority comes from the imprimatur of government. And any government can do it. Any government with coal mines, or coal-burning power plants, and tens of thousands of jobs at stake could wonder if the EPA view of climate science was all that there was to be known on the subject. Pennsylvania could do it, North Carolina could do it and Texas could do it to name a few. Half the states of the Union could do it and should do it.
As the climate reports come in, the vague, almost-impossible-to-believe notion that the Obama Administration’s war on coal through the EPA is a peculiar form of malicious self-loathing will be seen with crystal clarity. That there is no scientific basis for what the EPA is attempting to do whatsoever. That the degradation and disruption that the EPA is intent upon is a loathing for America as it is, pure and simple. Instead of the loftiest ideals of “thinking of the children” and so on, President Obama and the EPA are driven by the basest of motives – that their fellow Americans be poorer with reduced opportunities.
Now it is up to the states to defend themselves in the war on coal. Nobody else has the power or the interest at the moment. If they wish to defend themselves and their way of life, the first step is to acquire the armament appropriate to the battle. That would be a report on climate that they have commissioned and have ownership of. One government’s report on something like climate is as good as another’s. Thickness doesn’t matter so much. A 40 page report from the State of Pennsylvania that said that carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas and that we had better prepare for solar-driven cooling would send the EPA into apoplexy. So where is Pennsylvania’s report on climate, and those of all the other states that have so much to lose? Hasten now, so much time has been lost already.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of The Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting concept. Please explain further how the AGW promoters derailed the state effort. The story seems incomplete. We need to know more so that the push back against the hype can be more effective.
There is admittedly very circumstantial evidence that America is already planning for the possibility of global cooling.
A while ago, “The Herald”, a major Australian newspaper, posted an update about the ongoing scandal of large scale foreign buyouts of Australian farmland, some of which are believed to be government backed.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/divisions-grow-in-govt-over-farm-buyouts/story-fni0xqi4-1226740170681
The big question is – why? Why would the American and Chinese governments, who are believed to be behind the buyouts, be so interested in large scale ownership of Australian farmland, land which the IPCC and Australian CSIRO predict will shortly become worthless desert?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/9/27/science-environment/warming-hit-home-australians-ipcc
The reason of course is the land will not shortly become worthless. The land may shortly become very valuable indeed.
Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
Their prediction is based on the historic correlation between solar cycles and global climate.
Humans have been aware of the 11 year climate cycle since the dawn of history – several good years followed by several bad years is a fact of life. But there are also other, longer, more powerful cycles, which have an even larger impact on global climate.
One of them is the 200 year cycle. Every 200 years or so, solar activity falls to a sustained low. These long periods of low activity, known by the names of the scientists who discovered them – Maunder, Dalton, etc. – coincided historically with periods of extreme cold – plummeting global temperatures, crashing food production, and drastically shorter and less reliable growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere.
At the peak of the cold periods, history records widespread famines and other disasters, such as the Year Without a Summer in 1816, a food production catastrophe triggered by low solar activity during the Dalton Minimum, combining with an unusually severe series of major volcanic eruptions. In the Year without a Summer, over vast areas, crops in the Northern hemisphere were destroyed by snow and frost in mid Summer, which created global famine and social unrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
If the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the world is on the brink of a new cold period, which will start to bite in the next few years.
We could even see another year without a summer – there are several large volcanoes which are overdue for major eruptions, such as Katla in Iceland and Merapi in Indonesia. When they erupt, they shall add to downward pressure on global temperatures.
Given the risk, what could a nation whose grain belt is vulnerable to global cooling do to protect its future food supply?
The obviously solution is to buy up farmland in another country, a country which is warm enough, so that even if global temperatures fall significantly, the land they purchased would remain highly productive. A country which respects the rule of law, and would continue to respect the rule of law, even in the face of a global disaster.
A country like Australia.
[snip . . why not try pointing out the deceptions you allude to? Your comment is content free and pointless . . mod]
I’m all for a “war on coal”. But only if it is replaced with coal to liquid fuel conversion. Further, all coal fired power stations should be replaced with closed cycle gas fired backed up with open cycle gas peaking plants.
As to “what is to be done”? Well then, that is in the hands of readers of blogs like this.
If you pursue the “lukewarmer” path you will fail, not just yourselves but all of humanity.
If you are reading this, then you are not blameless if you do no stand up against the inanity.
It is not just the AGW hypothesis in error but the underlying radiative GHE hypothesis itself.
If WUWT readers chose the “lukewarmer” path, you have assisted those who would assault science, reason, freedom and democracy.
Either radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere or they act to warm it. There is no middle ground, no “real politic”. Cool or warm. Right or wrong.
Time to choose.
(Harsh? Yes, but seriously, do you think your half baked lukewarmer tripe, championed by the guy who revived it to help Margaret Thatcher and a guy who stamped the solar record flat to protect his “insurance advice” career, is going to shield you?! You were the sceptics. You were the people who were supposed to know. You were supposed to be the smart ones. Are you? )
It is one thing to report (without detail, as the previous comment noted) that a potential report on cyclic climate change was sabotaged by the defenders of the ‘consensus’ but quite another to impugn the motives of Obama and the EPA with rants about them wanting to impoverish America for generations to come. The latter gets nowhere – other than pandering to one side of a political divide. I wish such rants would disappear from this worthy site and the focus be kept upon science and the skullduggery that surrounds the IPCC, the academies and the research institutes – and yes, even the environmental campaign groups. There is a growing fanatical tendency to deride Democrats and any environmentalists – and to dismiss all past environmental campaigns as the same scaremongering as climate alarmism (DDT, PCB, Acid Rain, Lead in Petrol, etc.) – and apart from demonstrating massive ignorance of environmental science, it plays into the hands of those who dismiss ‘sceptics’ as politically motivated right-wing perpetual optimists with no real grasp of complex earth-sciences nor of economic realities. That is a shame, because there are some very astute critics that underpin this site and their analysis and commentaries need to be read. My fear is that many open minds will shy away from reading further when they encounter diatribes against Obama or dismissals of ALL environmental problems, past and future.
I think the poster above gives Obama way too much credit. I don’t believe Obama cares one bit for the environment, I think his motives are entirely an effort to support the efforts of an extreme faction of liberals. Not all supporters of AGW science are the same. He gives voice only to those scare mongers whose goal isn’t to clean the environment, but to control every facet of life in America.
Climate change science could have been saved in 2009 if Obama were to do with it what Clinton did with the economy, stop listening to the radicals on the left and bring himself to the middle. But Obama is not an effective leader and has shown himself to be leftist in everything he does. I’m not sure if Obama truly believes he is doing something good. My suspicion is that he doesn’t know what to do. The problem is that Obama’s natural impulse is to surround himself with leftists and they are the ones driving his agenda. He has made this a completely partisan issue. The actions taken by Obama, through the EPA, will actually set back the environmental movement for a generation. Obama’s problem, a lot of the time, is Obama himself. He’s too arrogant to admit, even to himself, that he isn’t as smart or important as he wishes to be.
The war on coal in UK is almost won. Two of the three remaining underground mines are under threat of closure thanks in part to the glut of cheap US coal (displaced in its home energy market by fracked gas), but mainly to the policies of successive UK governments to ban the construction of any new, state of the art, cleaner and more efficient generating capacity except with a carbon-capture millstone around its neck, and to impose carbon taxes designed to make generation from existing, 50-year-old-but-periodically-upgraded power stations uneconomic by 2018.
The mines still have reserves but these government policies are destroying their market and their future.
Peter Taylor at 1.08am
As an occassional contributer, I agree that it would be a pity if this wonderful site gets a name for ranting rather than science. However, although I am English I offer the view that your President and the EPA don’t mean to impoverish the country with their ill conceived strategies, any more than our Prime Minister and the DECC mean to over here. BUT THEY WILL.
Unfortunately politicians have to be seen to be ‘Doing something of strategic importance’ – its in their DNA. The terrible, endless, human tragedies playing out in the Middle East and Central Africa will make any potential impacts from climate change, given our ability to adapt, look like a picnic, but because they can do nothing about the real problems of today’s World, the UN and national politicians busy themselves in coming up with what they misguidedly believe to be a ‘strategic solution’ to a mainly hypothetical long term problem. Sadly, their inate need to be seen to be taking action on ‘something’ induces a gullibilty that, in this case, has been exploited by the environmentalists.
Very sad, but thank goodness we have sites like WUWT and its contributors prepared to question the orthodoxy.
This is nothing more than political fear mongering.
The biggest war on coal is the competition from fracked natural gas.
Natural gas prices have been low over the last five years. Electricity prices have been relatively steady (and historically low) over those five years following the increases in electricity prices in the preceding five years (i.e. 2004-2009). Over the last five years coal power has declined by approximately 30 GW. What will an additional 60 GW less do to the economy? Nothing.
What happened when the price of oil increased ten-fold over the decade of 1998-2008 (avg annual WTI price: $14 in 98 vs $100 in 2008; low in Jan 98 below $10, peak Jul 08 at $146 — WTI prices are from memory). Nothing. And don’t try to tell us the recession–oil prices plunge to $35 during the financial crises due Goldman and others selling their best assets in the liquidity crunch. Those were the good old days of the Bush Administration.
The “free market” has been choosing natural gas because it’s cheap. There will be $8 billion in subsidies to coal generators. Is that a war? AEP, the largest coal consumer in the US, doesn’t seem to mind. If coal power goes down 90 GW over a decade (225 GW to 135 GW), most of that will be the result of nat gas, not regulations.
Regarding the motives “that their fellow Americans be poorer with reduced opportunities.” That is ridiculous. What were Bush’s motives? I wouldn’t go that far with Bush (I am not a closed minded hater), but this is certainly what Bush accomplished. The US will never fully recover from Bush.
it is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ very sad for our grand kids who have no say for or against
I was wondering about coal yesterday and their attempts to destroy the industry. Then I realised that coal in the ground is coal in the ground for our grand children. The coal reserves can always be dug up in the future, ‘it’s all for the grand children.’ 🙂
An example from just yesterday of state-level suppression of dissent: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/03/ind-air-quality-chief-draws-heat-for-global-warming-remark/7287855/
Note that this was a first-page, above-the-fold story in the Indianapolis Star that ran for over forty column inches–just because one Department of Environmental Management official is a global-warming skeptic. And note the multiple quotes from unnamed sources.
So good luck with that state-level government-response thing.
Peter Taylor says:
April 5, 2014 at 1:08
==========
So it is OK to impugn the IPCC, some researchers, and academics, but not the people that use their false report to arm to the people. Obama could easily bless the Keystone pipeline as it has several studies done by his own people that say it would cause no harm, but he chooses not to. He purposely causes less employment, less economic activity, less wealth creation.
As for DDT it should be brought back to save millions of people, but there are people who would rather allow others to be sick or die instead of letting them use a safe chemical to be protected from harm.
Quite true, Peter Taylor.
It was reported last October that University of Nebraska-Lincoln refused to cooperate in the original study if it “it excluded the influence of humans”
So I thought I would save them 44 grand, and did my own study.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/nebraskas-climate-scientists-afraid-of-the-truth/
I just spoke to a friend of mine who called me to talk about cars they want to buy, and then talked about electrically powered cars because the UK had “servos” littered about the country to re-powered electrically powered cars. Apparently it was cheaper than petrol. Well, maybe so in the UK, but CO2 is still emitted. I asked how the electricity that “re-powered” the batteries was generated. We eventually got to gas and coal fired power stations. Which in the bigger picture of the situation, is correct. Then I asked how much CO2 “pollution” was in the air, right now, in their opinion. The answer was 40% (I kid you not – And most people I know “believe” this is the sort of concentration in the air right now). We’d all be dead I said, if that were true. The actual figure, as we know here, is ~3%.
Patrick: .04%
“Ken Coffman says:
April 5, 2014 at 4:07 am”
Yes. Corrected. That ~3% is the estimated annual human contribution to that ~0.04% total. Many times less than I stated. The main issue here, and with that post, is that too many people seriously believe that 40% of the air they breathe is CO2. Thats scary, even accounting for my error!
@David Archibald
If the California government claims there is potential liability to coal generated power in the form of ecological disaster for which AZ power generators might be liable, then Arizona power producers should take them at their word and surcharge the hell out of CA power to create a trust to pay for that potential liability until such time the CA government can prove that there is no risk of having to pay that amount. If CA wants a carbon tax, then they should try it in their house first.
Hunter April 5, 2014 at 12:38 am says “Please explain further how the AGW promoters derailed the state effort. The story seems incomplete. We need to know more so that the push back against the hype can be more effective.”
Serious? Think politician and bureaucrat thinking. They love spending but doing studies “for free” is even better.
Folks that don’t understand this need do some research on the thinking behind political campaigns. A good starting point is he bible of the Left, “Rules For Radicals”. Available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134
Another campaign example is After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s also available from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987
You can usually find them on line, maybe for free for reading at places like Google books, etc. It seems 1989 was a banner year for strategic campaign books (imho, driven by the election of Bush The First after two terms of Reagan). The Right (and “deniers”) are really late to the party in developing campaign guides that counter the Left. Name any that are widely read on the Right as the above from the Left. The Left used to use anything, even “studies”, “reports” such as Lewandowsky, so they could point to them and pronounce “scientists say” and cite an article. Now, however, they seem to have progressed to the point where they feel free to run campaigns on outright lies such as “if you like your plan…”.
Archibald correctly identifies the battlefield and one, but only one, weapon that can be used for a political counterattack. So often “deniers” believe all one needs is point to a failed “fact”, ala Fynman’s ” If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” ends the argument. It doesn’t. It hasn’t. It’s moving into to full, outright, campaign mode.
As to a government funded study? It would be helpful on the “fact” side of the ledger but only if one uses it, imho, within a political campaign. It will be extraordinarily difficult to produce such a study for the simple reasons outlined in the cited books. Through their campaigns, the Left controls many State bureaucracies, many State legislatures and, more importantly, the Federal System (which trumps any State action). Even States like Kentucky, a large coal mining state, with a Governor and General Assembly controlled by the Left even though a Right winger like Rand Paul is their Senator. I’ll wager anyone Kentucky will not pay for a study like the Nebraska one. Consider the campaign that has made folks like Sarah Palin and Bush The Second as the butt of jokes. In an environment where the Left is winning the firing CEOs for political reason(s), converting agencies like the IRS into political action agencies and is actively calling (and seriously) for jailing those that even offer complaints about what the Left is doing, suggesting and getting such a study will simply touch off another attack and smear episode. It’s a political campaign. The “deniers” simply, by their nature, won’t do political campaigns.
Further, it seems, like all things Left, the proposals implemented are failing in rather spectacular ways. Adding a study by a State won’t add much to the arsenal. German and British windmills come to mind. Even opinion polls indicate “warming” is at the bottom of all environmental issues. In fact, Australia’s government is actually rolling back some of it’s “warming” follies. The point is Warmism (ala, “climate change”, etc) is now entering what I call the Left wing’s political steady-state. This means there is a critical mass of money, people with vested interested and a proven political playbook to continue until events provide another opportunity. And there is always, for the Left, another opportunity or crisis. For example, WUWT has a recent article about another possible Super El Nino.
So, what should be done? A political counter-campaign that puts the Warmists, et al, into the same box as Piltdown Man and Bernie Madoff. Archibald’s suggestion could help but it must be done within a political counter-campaign. For the biologists, it means one must incinerate the seeds so they won’t sprout later.
Wow, this post has brought out a higher-than-usual rash of concern trolls whingeing about “sticking to the science”. It’s hard to know if the ignorance displayed concerning the very real, and deliberate war on coal is agenda-driven or shear mental deficiency. Obama himself said clearly during his campaign what his intentions were with regard to coal, and that his policies would necessarily make coal-fired energy prices skyrocket.
Obama’s EPA has been given an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and frankly totalitarian power, with its ability to punish “carbon”. This is something that should frighten the bejeezus out of all freedom-loving peoples, regardless of political affinity.
Patrick says:
April 5, 2014 at 3:51 am
“Then I asked how much CO2 “pollution” was in the air, right now, in their opinion. The answer was 40% (I kid you not – And most people I know “believe” this is the sort of concentration in the air right now). ”
————————————————————————————————————————
Yes, it is one of the questions I always ask when trying to discuss climate. I have found the answer most people give is 20%, still so far off it is scary. I believe this is a course we must take, to focus on the CO2 percentage so that the correct numbers become common knowledge to the common person.. I think we will find out that when that happens the power the alarmists have due to their fear mongering will dissipate.
Bruce Cobb says:
“Obama’s EPA has been given an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and frankly totalitarian power, with its ability to punish “carbon”. This is something that should frighten the bejeezus out of all freedom-loving peoples, regardless of political affinity.”
You’re 100% correct.
And this is only the beginning.
Read UN Agenda 21 and http://green-agenda.com
This is about the destruction of Western Civilization.
There were times we would have taken appropriate measures to take care of those traitors.
Now even resisting the Agenda which eventually will result in a massive slaughterhouse will serve the Agenda.
The Climate Change agenda is only a small part of the arsenal brought in position to down us.
The sooner we resist, the smaller the price we have to pay.
The times for civil dialogue and discussions have long gone.
Luckally we can still use our wood stoves.
April 5, 2014 at 5:14 am http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/05/obama-administration-faces-backlash-on-wood-stove-regulations/
@Peter Taylor,
You raised some interesting straw men, and then heroically knocked them down. Good job.
Peter Taylor says:
April 5, 2014 at 1:08 am
“My fear is that many open minds will shy away from reading further when they encounter diatribes against Obama or dismissals of ALL environmental problems, past and future.”
Yeah let’s bully people with non-aligned opinions, worked like a charm with Brendan Eich, didn’t it.