Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #182

The Week That Was: 2015-06-06 (June 6, 2015) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project


ICCC-10: The New Science & Economics of Climate Change

The Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-10) will take place on Thursday, June 11 and Friday, June 12, 2015, at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. The program includes many of the leading spokespersons for empirical science, including Drs. Will Happer, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Bob Carter, and Craig Idso, along with Christopher Monckton & Anthony Watts. Also featured are members of the Right Climate Stuff Team with Hal Doiron introducing a simplified climate model, validated with 165 years of data. Registration is full, but you can watch all events live at: http://climateconference.heartland.org/



By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Climate and Health – USGCRP: As discussed in prior TWTWS, April 18, May 16 and May 31, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) released a draft for public review of its upcoming Climate & Health Assessment. The entire document has significant issues, including it is based on forecasts from climate models that have not been validated, it ignores the importance of public health measures in controlling infectious diseases, and it estimates deaths from extreme weather events, namely heat, that cannot be supported by mortality tables. The last findings are contradicted by a far more comprehensive study published in Lancet shows cold weather, not heat, kills about 20 times more people than hot weather. (TWTW May 31, 2015)

The chapter, Food Safety, Nutrition, and Distribution, is contrary to empirical evidence. It states:

“There are two overarching means by which increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and climate change alter safety, nutrition, and distribution of food (see Figure ES6). The first is associated with rising global temperatures and the subsequent changes in weather patterns and extreme climate events. Current and anticipated changes in climate and the physical environment have consequences for contamination, spoilage, and the disruption of food distribution. The second is that higher concentrations of CO2 stimulate carbohydrate production and plant growth, but lower the levels of protein and essential minerals in a number of widely consumed crops, including wheat, rice and potatoes, with potentially negative implications for human nutrition.”

Since temperatures have not been rising for over a decade, projections of increasing temperatures from increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) are not valid. There is no logical reason to accept assertions that projections from models that failed to predict the pause or plateau in temperatures are capable of projecting future temperatures.

The claim that increased CO2 may decrease the natural value of foods may have some minimal value, only if other issues are ignored, which the USGCSP does. The 19th century discovery of biological nitrogen fixation whereby plants convert nitrogen into ammonium, which then is converted by bacterium into edible food for plants, was a great breakthrough for agriculture. The subsequent Haber process for artificial fertilizer production (early 20th century) was another great breakthrough for agriculture.

Critics of these processes claim that the nutrient density is reduced in foods produced by application of artificial fertilizer. But the processes have greatly increased overall food production and the nutrients available for humanity.

As to carbon dioxide, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, by the Nongovernmental, International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), cites thousands of studies, in the laboratory and in the field, that demonstrate that enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide is a boon to the environment and humanity. The thirteen agencies of the USGCSP, which includes the Department of Agriculture, choose to ignore this enormously important research. To term the government-funded USGCRP report as biased may be too moderate. See links under: Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC and Defending the Orthodoxy.



Quote of the Week: “In God we trust, all others bring data” Motto of the Apollo Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/


Number of the Week: 500% in five years.


A Dud? For years, Science magazine has refused to publish articles from those who question the climate establishment, which claims that human emissions of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, are the primary influence on global warming/climate change. This view is the position of the current Administration.

One of the major problems with this view, is that it cannot explain the current plateau, or pause, in warming starting near the beginning of this century (using atmospheric data). Using surface data, the pause has been about 18 years. Thomas Karl, the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, (NOAA-NCDC) and some of his colleagues have taken the issue on. They adjusted existing sea surface temperatures to give the appearance of a stronger warming trend over the past 15 years. Sea surface data is collected from several sources including ships and, later, specially designed buoys. The data from buoys are considered superior in accuracy, than the data from ships, particularly data in the early part of the record.

The paper was published by Science magazine. To give journalists time to prepare a medial push, the magazine sent out pre-publication notices embargoed (to be held privately) until June 4. The media push went with certain journalists. But the effort also gave some of those skeptical of the views of the climate establishment opportunity to prepare rebuttals.

As Ross McKitrick, who was co-author of the work that exposed the hockey-stick stated, the Karl team increased the more recent sea surface temperatures by: 1) adding 0.12 degrees C to readings collected by buoys, ostensibly to make them comparable to readings collected by ships. As the authors note, buoy readings represent a rising fraction of observations over recent decades, so this boosts the apparent warming trend; 2) giving buoy data extra weight in the computations; and 3) adjusting post-1941 data collected from ships, in particular applying a large cooling adjustment to readings over 1998-2000.

There is no logical reason for adjusting what most consider to be superior data to bring it in line with what most consider to be inferior data, and Karl et al. gave none. A team from CATO commented on this questionable adjustment and noted that the adjusted data was still not statistically significant. Comparing the Karl et al. temperatures with those from other sources, particularly satellite temperatures, the CATO team (Michaels, Lindzen, & Knappenberger) also noted:

“If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and mid-tropospheric temperatures is even larger than previously noted.


“Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong invalidates virtually every forecast of sensible weather made by a climate model, as much of that weather (including rainfall) is determined in large part by the vertical structure of the atmosphere.


“Instead, it would seem more logical to seriously question the Karl et al. result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in line with these other global records.”

Science magazine refused to published Fred Singer’s rebuttal to its fawning review of the Merchants of Doubt, and Singer noted an amusing dilemma created by this re-worked data: What about the dozens of recent articles published by members of the Climate Establishment that try to explain away the missing heat, such as it is hiding in the Southern Oceans (James Hansen)? The article has created a conflict in climate science among advocates who claim it is a settled science.

See Article # 1 and links under Defending the Orthodoxy – No Pause and Challenging the Orthodoxy – No Lull in Pause


Atmospheric Temperatures v. Models: In his testimony before the US House Committee on Natural Resources on the draft guidance for greenhouse gas emissions by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville gave a simple graph that most members of Congress should be able to understand. The graph clearly demonstrates the divergence between forecasts from global climate models and actual atmospheric temperatures. Of course, some misrepresent the importance of the graph with frivolous claims such as people live on the surface, not in the atmosphere. However, the surface record includes human activity, such as building cities, irrigation, etc. that distort the record. Generally, atmospheric data do not include such activates and they measure the area in which the greenhouse effect takes place. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


RICO: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who is part of the Congressional Witch Hunt to identify those skeptics who received funding from sources other than government (the Administration) has written that skeptics should be subject to investigation under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. The act was designed to fight organized crime.

For evidence, Mr. Whitehouse cites a report by Drexel University professor Robert Brulle, in a 2013 paper published in Climatic Change. The web site of Climate Change states it is an Interdisciplinary, International Journal Devoted to the Description, Causes and Implications of Climatic Change. The co-editors are M. Oppenheimer; and G. Yohe, stalwart supporters of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is precisely the highly questionable reports of the IPCC to which many skeptics object.

Given the enormous amount of US taxpayer money spent on climate change (over $35 billion since 1993 with no official progress in understanding the natural influences on climate change), accusations are not enough. Mr. Whitehouse needs to explain why fossil fuel interests are capable of thwarting his goal of preventing what he calls “carbon pollution” – emissions of life-giving CO2. A more appropriate direction for a RICO-type investigation would be the IPCC and those who fund it. See links under Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt, Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back, and http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/journal/10584


Social Cost of Carbon? Robert Murphy of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) gives an excellent summary of the recent work on the Social Cost of Carbon by Robert Pindyck, a professor of economics and finance at MIT. Pindyck is not a global warming skeptic but he objects to the Integrated Assessment Models (IAM) commonly used. The model are “so flexible that the researcher can get out any desired answer.”

“Another huge problem that most people would be shocked to learn is that there is neither theory nor data to back up the way these computer models relate a specified temperature increase to a predicted amount of damage. As Pindyck explains it:

“’One of the most important parts of an IAM is the damage function, i.e., the relationship between an increase in temperature and GDP (or the growth rate of GDP). When assessing [the climate’s sensitivity to emissions], we can at least draw on the underlying physical science and argue coherently about the relevant probability distributions. But when it comes to the damage function, we know virtually nothing – there is no theory and no data that we can draw from. As a result, developers of IAMs simply make up arbitrary functional forms and corresponding parameter values. [Pindyck 2015, bold added, footnotes removed.]

“’Thus we see that all of the fancy computer models—including the three that the Obama Administration Working Group selected to estimate the “social cost of carbon”—rest on quicksand. Most policymakers, let alone the general public, have no idea how flimsy and arbitrary is the foundation upon which these computer simulations stand. This is what leads Pindyck to write: “I will argue that the use of IAMs to estimate the SCC [social cost of carbon] or evaluate alternative policies is in some ways dishonest, in that it creates a veneer of scientific legitimacy that is misleading.” Later in his paper Pindyck further writes that “the developers and users of IAMs have tended to oversell their validity, and have failed to be clear about their inadequacies.” Because of this overselling of the power of these models, Pindyck believes “[t]he result is that policy makers who rely on the projections of IAMs are being misled.”

In short, the IAFs are speculative models built upon speculative global climate models. Murphy concludes:

“Far from being optimally calibrated using an analysis of marginal costs and benefits—the way most economists describe it to the public—Pindyck openly admits that if the government wants to justify aggressive action against greenhouse gas emissions, it’s going to rely on a small group of experts simply making guesses about what should be done, in order to reduce the probability of vaguely defined catastrophes that even the experts admit probably won’t happen if governments do nothing. The case for aggressive government intervention keeps getting weaker and weaker, and yet the rhetoric against “deniers” continues to ratchet upward.” See links under Questioning the Orthodoxy.


Apollo Program: One of the latest ideas from international politicians planning for the meeting in Paris of the Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an Apollo program for renewable energy, with massive commitments in funding. The motto of the engineers and scientists at the Apollo Mission Evaluation Room was: “In God we trust, all others bring data.” Given the dislike that IPCC and its parent, the UNFCCC, have exhibited against data that is not compatible with their ideology, one can only imagine what the motto of this group would be. See links under: On to Paris!


Additions and Corrections: Several readers correctly objected to the statement in the last TWTW that “…there has been no empirical relationship established between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.” The statement was too strong. A more correct statement would have been: “no empirical relationship established between atmospheric CO2 and 20th century warming.” TWTW thanks its readers who take the time to correct erroneous statements.


Number of the Week: 500%. Energy researcher Mark Mills estimates efficiency of capital expenditures on various types of energy production. He measures it in terms of energy output per unit of capital cost for the energy-producing hardware, using EIA data. According to his estimates, over the past five years, efficiency gains for shale rigs is 500% per dollar spent on capital improvements; for solar cells about 200%, and for wind turbines about 125%. The US government heavily subsidies solar cells and wind turbines, but not shale rigs. Efficiency gains do not measure two basic problems of solar and wind: the lack of reliability and consistency. See link under: Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?



Please note that articles not linked easily or summarized here are reproduced in the Articles Section of the full TWTW that can be found on the web site under the date of the TWTW.

1. The climate warming pause goes AWOL (or not)

By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Jun 4, 2015


[SUMMARY: Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?]


2. The EPA Fracking Miracle

Andrew Cuomo’s ban on drilling is exposed as a fraud.

Editorial, WSJ, Jun 4, 2015


[SUMMARY: The EPA report demonstrating it was unable to find compelling evidence of water well and aquifer contamination from deep underground hydraulic fracturing of dense shale will place pressure on state governments that banned practice without evidence, especially New York.

EPA’s conclusion really is remarkable. The agency has yearned for an excuse to take over fracking regulation from the states, which do the job well. So if there was so much as a sliver of evidence that fracking was dangerous, the EPA would have found it. Think of this as the Obama Administration’s equivalent of the Bush Administration failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


The truth is that state oversight, industry best practices and especially innovation in technology and engineering are more than adequate to protect water and the wider ecology, as well as the prosperity that fracking underwrites. The EPA paper even accepts that the domestic energy boom has ‘increased domestic energy supplies and brought economic benefits to many areas of the United States.’”

The EPA non-findings are particularly concerning to New York Governor Cuomo who indicated during his re-election campaign, last year, that he was open to drilling, especially upstate atop the oil-and-gas-rich Marcellus Shale that straddles Pennsylvania and New York states.

After the election, “his health department rolled out a report full of dubious science concluding that it could not say with “absolute scientific certainty”—as if such a thing exists—that fracking does not endanger the public. The department cited “potential water contamination” and “the potential to affect drinking water quality.”


“In other words, Mr. Cuomo’s sleuths couldn’t find conclusive evidence that fracking harms drinking water, so he banned it until they can. Even as formerly depressed and deindustrialized Pennsylvania regions benefit from drilling, over the border the unlucky saps must bow to the green superstitions of New York City elites.]


“The Rochester and Buffalo metro areas are the third and fourth poorest cities in America after Detroit and Cleveland, according to the Census, but they could become the northeastern capitals of the U.S. energy renaissance. When even the EPA blesses fracking, the self-serving political hackery behind Mr. Cuomo’s ban is exposed for all the world to see.”]


3. Scientific Fraud and Politics

Look who is lecturing Republicans about scientific truth.

Editorial, WSJ, Jun 5, 2015


[SUMMARY: Using a press release by the politically motivated Union of Concerned Scientists as a starting point, the editorial questions an op-ed in the journal Science that laments “a growing and troubling assault on the use of credible scientific knowledge” and asks is the op-ed about science, or politics?

“Since the scientists brought it up, which is the greater threat to their enterprise: the Republicans who run Congress, or the most spectacular scientific fraud in a generation, which was published and then retracted by the journal Science?”

The WSJ editorial discusses an influential study (poll) by Michael LaCour on gay marriage, published in Science, which no one has been able to replicate. Not only is the raw data “lost” but the “canvassing firm he claimed to have employed has never heard of the project.

“Similar bias contaminates inquiries across the social sciences, which often seem to exist so liberals can claim that “studies show” some political assertion to be empirical. Thus they can recast stubborn political debates about philosophy and values as disputes over facts that can be resolved by science. President Obama is a particular aficionado of this bait and switch.


“As for those supposedly “anti-science” Republicans, they stand accused by Science magazine of trying to introduce more transparency and accountability to federal science grants. The House GOP is also guilty of attempting to spend more on the harder sciences, passing a bill last month that allocates money for the National Science Foundation by directorate—for example, boosting engineering spending by 13.2% over 2015 and biology by 12.6%. Money for the social and behavioral sciences declines by 44.9%.


“Scientific misconduct does seem to be mercifully rare, but a lesson of the LaCour retraction is to show more humility amid the illusion of scientific omniscience and to be more skeptical of studies that carry heavy political freight. That goes for the profusion of foods that are purported to cause or prevent cancer, and macroeconomic literature that claim to document a stimulus ‘multiplier.’


“Meanwhile, Science magazine editors who rebuke politicians might have more authority if their own science wasn’t so political.”]



Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt

The fossil-fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people

By US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Washington Post, May 29, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]



Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back

To This Senator, Global Warming Skeptics Are Like John Gotti

By Kerry Jackson, IBD, Jun 3, 2015


Senator Whitehouse: Use the RICO law against climate “Deniers”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jun 4, 2015


Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

By Craig Idso, Sherwood Idso, Robert Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, NIPCC, April, 2014


Challenging the Orthodoxy

John Christy, Climate Scientist, to President’s Council on Environmental Quality (May 13, 2015, testimony) [US House Committee on Natural Resources]

By Robert Bradley Jr, Master Resource, Jun 2, 2015


Link to testimony: CEQ Draft Guidance for GHG Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change

By John Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, May 13, 2015


Climate change: Mr. Obama, 97 percent of experts is a bogus number

By Richard Tol, Fox News, May 28, 2015


What was an incompetent piece of research has become a highly influential study, its many errors covered up.

Is ‘Deliberate Deception’ An Unfair Description Of ‘Official’ IPCC Climate Science?

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Jun 1, 2015


The Greenhouse Effect,

By Vincent Gray, NZClimate Truth Newsletter No 343, May 24, 2015


Defending the Orthodoxy

Draft Climate & Health Assessment Available for Public Review

By Staff Writers, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Apr 7, 2015 [H/t CATO]


Report: USGCRP Climate & Health Assessment

“Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science”


[SEPP Comment: Public Comment Period closes midnight, ET, June 8, 2015]

Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months

By Staff Writers, Science Daily, Jun 2, 2015


Link to paper: Time scales and ratios of climate forcing due to thermal versus carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels

By Xiaochun Zhang and Ken Calderia, Geophysical Letters, May 2015


Burning Coal Is Hot, the Global Warming Produced Is Even Hotter

Fossil fuel burning means heat and CO2, and more heat is trapped by the latter

By Bobby Magill and Climate Central, Scientific American, Jun 3, 2015 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Editorials from special interest groups, no data.]

Defending the Orthodoxy – No Pause

Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

By Thomas Karl, et al, Science, Jun 4, 2015


New fed data shows no stopping or slowing of global warming

By Seth Borenstein, AP, Jun 5, 2015 [H/t Gordon Fulks]


[SEPP Comment: Misleading headline – the data is not new, it has been re-worked (adjusted).]

Scientists Drop Science Bomb on Climate-Change Skeptics

By Jonathan Chait, New York Mag, Jun 4, 2015


The global warming ‘hiatus’ never actually happened, study says

Researchers say rate of warming has not declined in the last 15 years, contradicting a landmark UN report

By Amar Toot, The Verge, Jun 4, 2015


Challenging the Orthodoxy – No Lull in Pause

A First Look at ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015

Guest essay by Ross McKitrick University of Guelph, WUWT, Jun 4, 2015


Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jun 4, 2015


@NOAA ‘s desperate new paper: Is there no global warming ‘hiatus’ after all?

By Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Paul Knappenberger, WUWT, Jun 4, 2015


NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

By Bob Tisdale and Anthony Watts, commentary from Dr. Judith Curry follows, WUWT, Jun 4, 2015


Has NOAA / NCDC’s Tom Karl repealed the Laws of Thermodynamics?

By Christopher Monckton, WUWT, Jun 5, 2015


Obamas housekarls dance to his warming tune

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 4, 2015


Exotic adventures in global data to unfind “the Pause”, by Karl in 2015

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jun


NOAA Scientists Can’t Find The Heat, So They Start A Fire

Editorial, IBD, Jun 5, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jun 4, 2015


Reports of the Death of the Global Warming Pause Are Greatly Exaggerated

By Staff Writers, GEPF, Jun 4, 2015


Spin Cycle: Whither the Hiatus

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, Cato, Jun 4, 2015


Questioning the Orthodoxy

Should We Decarbonize As U.N. Demands? The Science Says No

Editorial, IBD, May 29, 2015


ABC (Australia) Interview with Nigel Lawson,

By Staff Writers, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Via GWPF, Jun 3, 2015


Climate Theater Of The Absurd

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, May 29, 2015


New paper finds the 18+ year ‘pause’ of global warming is not due to missing heat hiding in the deep oceans

By Staff Writer, The Hockey Schtick, May 28, 2015


Link to paper: Sea level budget over 2005–2013: missing contributions and data errors

By H. B. Dieng, et al, Ocean Science Discussions, May 13, 2015


Climate Change: The Only Enemy Obama Wants to Obliterate

By Rich Lowry, Real Clear Politics, Jun 2, 2015


Isn’t It About Time Climate Scientists Confessed?

By Kerry Jackson, IBD, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


MIT Economist Shows Weakness in “Social Cost of Carbon

By Robert Murphy, IER, May 19, 2015


‘Ozone hole’ shenanigans were the warm-up act for ‘Global Warming’ – now a reprise

By Staff Writer, ICECAP, Jun 4, 2015


You Ought to Have a Look: Climate Change Subtleties, Hurricanes, and Chocolate Bunnies

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, Cato, Jun 2, 2015


On to Paris!

French foreign minister: climate deal must avoid US Congress

French foreign minister: climate deal must take form that doesn’t need approval by US Congress

By Sylvie Corbet and Karl Ritter, AP, Jun 1, 2015


[SEPP Comment: The host has spoken, keep out democratically elected representatives.]

A Green Alliance With Europe

By Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Ricardo Lagos, Project Syndicate, Jun 5, 2015


Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was President of Brazil from 2003 to 2011 and Ricardo Lagos was President of Chile (2000-2006) and UN Special Envoy for Climate Change (2008-2010)

Apollo plan on cheaper green energy seeks global backing

By Staff Writers, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Jun 3, 2015


France seeks climate pact ‘pre-agreement’

By Celine Serrat, AFP, Jun 1, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Climate: The Road to Paris (1)

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


‘Radical transition’ of economy needed to curb climate change: study

By Alister Doyle, Reuters, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: No link to study.]

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Bonn U.N. talks seek to trim unwieldy climate change plan

By Alister Doyle, Reuters, May 31, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


India to seek more funds from rich nations at climate talks

By Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Jun 1, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


The Chorus of Climate Discontent Swells

By Walter Russell Mead & Staff, The American Interest


Seeking a Common Ground

Attrition in the climate trenches

By Robert Ellison, American Thinker May 31, 2015


If the science actually sank in, the battle would shift to ocean acidification, biodiversity or tipping points.

[SEPP Comment: Ocean acidification from CO2 is falsifiable, the other two are questionable.]

Destroy Capitalism, Save the Climate?

By Robert Ellison, American Thinker, May 28, 2015


The truth hurts for climate change doom-mongers

Science has been twisted into a morality tale of greedy humans

By Ross Clark, The Times, June 2, 2015


Via GWPF: http://www.thegwpf.com/the-truth-hurts-for-climate-change-doom-mongers/

Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics

By Planning Engineer, Climate Etc. Jun 3, 2015


Bill Nye Says, “Let’s Talk” About Global Warming. Okay, Let’s.

By William Briggs and Willie Soon, Briggs Blog, Jun 3, 2015


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

Two Centuries of Drought on the Eastern Mongolian Plateau

Bao, G., Liu, Y., Liu, N. and Linderholm, H.W. 2015. Drought variability in eastern Mongolian Plateau and its linkages to the large-scale climate forcing. Climate Dynamics 44: 717-8733. Jun 2, 2015


A New Regional Model for Simulating African Hydroclimate

Moufouma-Okia, W. and Jones, R. 2015. Resolution dependence in simulating the African hydroclimate with the HadGEM3-RA regional climate model. Climate Dynamics 44: 609-632. Jun 2, 2015


How Temperature Impacts a Tropical Coral and its Symbionts

Winkler, N.S., Pandolfi, J.M. and Sampayo, E.M. 2015. Symbiodinium identity alters the temperature-dependent settlement behavior of Acropora millepora coral larvae before the onset of symbiosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 282: 20142260. Jun 1, 2015


“…it can be appreciated that both humans and corals — together with their symbionts — may well have little to fear if temperatures begin to rise again.”

Exploring a Plethora of Biases in State-of-the-Art Climate Models

Zhang, L., Wang, C., Song, Z. and Lee, S.-K. 2014. Remote effect of the model cold bias in the tropical North Atlantic on the warm bias in the tropical southeastern Pacific. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 6: 1016-1026. Jun 1, 2015


Model Issues

Implications of recent multimodel attribution studies for climate sensitivity

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jun 2, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Technical]

Changing Weather

Global warming does what Live Aid never could

By Ben Webster, The Times, Jun 2, 2015


Via GWPF: http://www.thegwpf.com/global-warming-ends-drought-in-sahel/

[SEPP Comment: Fails to mention the benefits of increased CO2.]

India Monsoon Predictably Slow Onset due to El Nino and cool, wet spring

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, ICECAP, Jun 6, 2015


India minister blames climate change for deadly heatwave, weak monsoon

By Krishna N. Das, Reuters, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Texas Floods Are Great Wet Hope For California

Editorial, IBD, Jun 2, 2015


Changing Climate

New paper finds eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean was 2C warmer than present 10,000 years ago

By Staff Writer, The Hockey Schtick, Jun 3, 2015


Link to paper: Southern Ocean contributions to the Eastern Equatorial Pacific heat content during the Holocene

By Kalansky, Rosenthal, Herbert, Bova, and Altabet, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Aug 15, 2015



Changing Seas

New climate stress index model challenges doomsday forecasts for world’s coral reefs

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jun 2, 2015


Small atoll islands may grow, not sink, as sea levels rise

By Penny Sarchet, New Scientist, Jun 2, 2015


Link to article: Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll

By P. S. Kench, The Geological Society of America, No date


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Ice core data shows the much feared +2°C climate ‘tipping point’ has already occurred…

The Holocene context for Anthropogenic Global warming

Guest essay by Ed Hoskins, WUWT, Jun 1, 2015


Antarctic Sea Ice Sets New High in May

By Staff Writers, Reporting Climate Science, Jun 3, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Scientists Find Trigger That Cracks Lakes

Fast-draining lakes atop Greenland ice sheet could accelerate sea level rise

By Lonny Lippsett, Oceanus, Jun 3, 2015


Hudson Bay breakup date for 2015 will really depend on which definition you use

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jun 5, 2015


Global polar bear population size is about 26,000 (20,000-32,000), despite PBSG waffling

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, May 31, 2015


Un-Science or Non-Science?

Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months

By Staff Writers, Science Daily, Jun 2, 2015


Link to paper: Time scales and ratios of climate forcing due to thermal versus carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels

By Xiaochun Zhang and Ken Calderia, Geophysical Letters, May 2015


[SEPP Comment: No empirical evidence of additional warming caused by increased CO2]

Burning Coal Is Hot, the Global Warming Produced Is Even Hotter

Fossil fuel burning means heat and CO2, and more heat is trapped by the latter

By Bobby Magill and Climate Central, Scientific American, Jun 3, 2015 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Editorials from special interest groups, no data.]

Congressional Budget Office: Hurricane Damage: Effects of Climate Change and Coastal Development

By Terry Dinan, Senior Adviser, Microeconomic Studies Division, CBO, Jun 5, 2015


(With Kerry Emanuel of MIT & Thomas Knutson of NOAA)

[SEPP Comment: Climate change will produce rising sea levels. Sea levels have been rising for about 18,000 years. The study relies on projections from models that have not been validated.]

Lowering Standards — APS

The APS taken to task

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 3, 2015


American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable

A new letter to the American Physical Society (APS) from physicists Roger Cohen, Laurence I. Gould, and William Happer makes it clear that the 2015 revision of the Society’s 2007 statement on climate change still hasn’t been revised enough.

By John Hayward, Breitbart, Jun 3, 2015


Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

How to Sell a Pseudoscience

By Anthony R. Pratkanis, Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, 1995 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Environmental Journalism Has Become Ideological Warfare

By Ron Arnold, ICECAP, May 30, 2015


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Manufacturing Alarm: Dana Nuccitelli’s Critique of John Christy’s Climate Science Testimony

By Marlo Lewis, CEI, Jun 4, 2015


Limiting Global Warming to 2 Degrees Celsius Won’t Save Us

By Kate Dooley and Peter Christoff, New Republic, May 27, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: Only by restoring the starvation and death of cold periods will we be saved?]

Rahmstorf’s “Fantasy” Of “A Weakening Gulf Stream” Gets Refuted Yet Again.

Norwegian University of Bergen: Gulf Stream Shows No Longterm Weakening Over Past 20 Years!

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt [Translated by P. Gosselin], No Tricks Zone, Jun 5, 2015


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

“Skeptic Climate Scientists are Industry-Paid Shills” (sir, what is your source for that?)

By Russell Cook, GelbspanFiles.com, Jun 4, 2015


Questioning European Green

Divisions apparent ahead of energy ministers’ meeting

Weeks of diplomatic haggling have produced a draft conclusion for upcoming meeting, but disagreements remain.

By Kalina Oroschakoff, Politico, EU, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: EU Energy ministers meet on June 8.]

Germany’s Anti-Wind Energy Elements Morph Into A Massive Network Of Protest Groups… Call Wind Energy “A Lie”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jun 4, 2015


Siemens CEO gives up on German fossil fuel plants

By Georgina Prodhan and Irene Preisinger, May 28, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Questioning Green Elsewhere

How Europe’s climate policies led to more U.S. trees being cut down

By Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Funding Issues

Private sector must pay more into $100bn global climate fund, says report

World Resources Institute advises businesses as well as governments to increase funding to enable poor countries to cut emissions and rebuild infrastructure

By Fiona Harvey, Guardian, Jun 3, 2015


Poll: Voters unwilling to pay to fight global warming

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Jun 5, 2015


Litigation Issues

Court rejects challenge to EPA’s ozone powers

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Jun 2, 2015


Link to decision: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/74C882991045080985257E580051699C/$file/12-1309-1555205.pdf

[SEPP Comment: Ozone is also a by-product of vegetation, should it be eliminated?]

Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Big Oil Companies Want a Price on Carbon. Here’s Why.

Natural-gas profits have Shell and BP, among others, calling for increased use of carbon-emissions fees ahead of a make-or-break climate summit in Paris.

By Ben Geman, National Journal, Jun 1, 2015


Faking it

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jun 1, 2015


Oil giants call for global carbon pollution fees

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Jun 1, 2015


BC carbon tax damage

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Jun 2, 2015


“Once the carbon tax started, economic growth in BC immediately dropped from well above the Canadian average down to at – or in some years, below – the national average.”

Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Fossil fuel subsidies

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, May 29, 2015


Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

By Jerry Hirsch, LA Times, May 30, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Elon Musk Defends His Companies’ Subsidies

By Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center, Jun 5, 2015 [H/t Cooler Heads]


[SEPP Comment: The subsidies to fossil fuel argument is absurd. Since petro-states subsidize fossil fuels to citizens, Western governments should subsidize other companies?]

EPA and other Regulators on the March

E-mails show Harvard, Syracuse universities, researchers falsely claimed no EPA involvement in Clean Power Plan study

By Steve Milloy, Junk Science, Jun 3, 2015


Scott Walker: Let’s Gut The EPA

By Ryan Koronowski, Climate Progress, Jun 2, 2015 [H/t Joe Bast]


EPA Plan to Ban Coal Hits Major Roadblock

By Phil Kerpen, Townhall, May 23, 2015 [H/t SPPI]


The EPA’s secret, wasteful methodology exposed

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Jun 1, 2015


Energy Issues – Non-US

Saudis Struggle to Meet Gas Needs

By Walter Russell Mead & Staff, American Interest, May 8, 2015 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Energy Issues — US

A Scientist Gets With the Program

By Norman Rogers, American Thinker, Jun 5, 2015


EPA’s Fracking Analysis: Something For Everyone

By Tom Zeller, Forbes, Jun 4, 2015


USDA Seeking to Double High Ethanol Blend Gas Pumps

By Eric Scheiner, CNS News, May 29, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Washington’s Control of Energy

Corn Ethanol Is Worse Than Keystone

By Robert Bryce, Bloomberg, Jun 2, 2015


Obama to seek cut in airplane emissions

By Timothy Cama. The Hill, Jun 3, 2015


QER Gets Warm Reception from House GOP

By Thomas Overton, Power Mag, Jun 3, 2015


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Oh Frack! EPA Lets the Greens Down

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Jun 4, 2015


Link to report: Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources

By Staff Writers, EPA Office of Research and Development, No date


Link to Executive Summary: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/F7A9DB9ABBAC015785257E540052DD54/$File/HF_ES_ERD_JUN2015.pdf

Oil Glut Part 4: The (Next) Shale Technology Revolution That Worries OPEC

By Mark Mills, Forbes, Jun 3, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Illuminating graph: “Five-Year Improvement – Energy Produced per Dollar Spent on Equipment.]

Big Data Will Keep the Shale Boom Rolling

Don’t believe the doomsayers proclaiming the end of the shale oil boom. It’s just getting more efficient.

By Richard Martin, MIT Review, Jun 2, 2015


Why Environmentalists Hate Natural Gas

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jun 5, 2015


EPA Buries Its Own Good News About Fracking

By Thomas McArdle, IBD, Jun 4, 2015


Fracking not a ‘widespread risk’ to drinking water: U.S. EPA

By Valerie Volcovici and Timothy Gardner, Reuters, Jun 4, 2015


New Age of Natural Gas

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jun 2, 2015


The new environmental fight: What is fracking, exactly?

By Zack Colman, Washington Examiner, Jun 5, 2015


“Not unlike an energy version of former President Bill Clinton’s infamous ‘It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.’”

Return of King Coal?

The Future Role of Coal: International Market Realities vs Climate Protection?

By Frank Umbach, UCERS, Department of War Studies, King’s College, Jun 3, 2015


Link to report: The Future Role of Coal: International Market Realities vs Climate Protection?

By Frank Umbach, UCERS, Department of War Studies, King’s College,


Nuclear Energy and Fears

The lunatic drive to close Indian Point

Editorial, New York Post, May 30, 2015


“So call the pols’ vows to shut Indian Point what they truly are: nonsense. Any real attempt to close it would be an abuse of . . .power.”

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

ExxonMobil CEO mocks renewable energy in shareholder speech

By Adam Lerner, Politico, May 27, 2015 [H/t Climate Etc.]


“We choose not to lose money on purpose.”

AWED Energy & Environmental Newsletter: June 1, 2015

By John Droz Jr. Master Resource, Jun 1, 2015


Solar grid parity?

By Rud Istvan and Planning Engineer, Climate Etc. May 31, 2015


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

EPA unveils three-year ethanol mandate

By Devin Henry, The Hill, May 29, 2015


Health, Energy, and Climate

A reader asks: is life expectancy in America declining?

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Jun 3, 2015


Environmental Industry

One of the Ways that Environmentalism Has Gone Mad

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, May 23, 2015


Greenpeace should stop fabricating global warming claims

By Christopher Monckton, WUWT, Jun 1, 2015


Other Scientific News

Yet More Sting on Scientific Publishing

Guest essay by Howard Booth, WUWT, Jun 3, 2015


Other News that May Be of Interest

Retractions Often Due to Plagiarism: Study

The number of plagiarism-based retractions has grown since the advent of detection software, according to a BioMed Central analysis.

By Kerry Grens, The Scientist, Jun 1, 2015 [H/t Catherine French]


The Risks of Mislabeled Risk

By Henry Miller, Project Syndicate, Jun 4, 2015


Will Western Civilization Survive The Coming Population Crash?

Editorial, IBD, Jun 2, 2015




Chemicals In Your Popcorn? asks the Times’ Kristof. Yes, there are

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Jun 4, 2015



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Peter
June 8, 2015 1:26 am

“E-mails show Harvard, Syracuse universities, researchers falsely claimed no EPA involvement in Clean Power Plan study
By Steve Milloy, Junk Science, Jun 3, 2015
Does the USA government not have an independent audit office that could be alerted and look into this kind of fraudulent behaviour?

June 8, 2015 2:41 am

Quote of the Week: “In God we trust, all others bring data” Motto of the Apollo Mission Evaluation Room engineers who supported Flight Operations
The trouble with this quote is that it does not cover the modern era of corrupted and false “data”. The alarmists have “data”. Boy do they have “data”. What they have is erroneous “data” crafted by con men. They are in the numbers racket.
For years, Science magazine has refused to publish articles from those who question the climate establishment, which claims that human emissions of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, are the primary influence on global warming/climate change.
And so, if someone tries to explain what the real data is and how the alarmists are corrupting the “data” then the rag called Science will not publish it. The whole idea of science and the scientific method is banned at Science. This is the sort of thing that happens when the government funds all of science in one way or another.

Reply to  markstoval
June 8, 2015 9:52 pm

With apologies to Admiral Farragut I would suggest “Damn the data, full speed ahead!”

June 8, 2015 6:25 am

I have been reviewing and commenting on regulatory rules and documents for over 30 years. The comment system for the US Global Change Research Program public review draft for its upcoming Climate & Health Assessment is without question the least conducive to meaningful criticism I have ever seen. It forces you into a query system which limits your comments and does not allow submittal of supporting documentation or figures.
To vent my anger I researched one claim in Chapter 7 Extreme Weather, page 253 Table 1: Health Impact of Extreme Events under the heading Climate Change Drivers & Future Projections from NCA3 (Melillo et al. 2014):
“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all increased since the 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.”
This statement struck me as questionable so I tried to track down the source.
The quote is taken verbatim from Melillo, J. M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 842 pp. On page 20 item 8:
“The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.”
This supporting documentation provides more nuance than the alarming statement in Chapter 7 of this document. Given the absolute nature of the description that “The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s” I assumed that this was a conclusion of one of the references cited in this reference When I reviewed the supporting references I could not find one that explicitly made that statement and most did not provide data to support it either.
So I went off and looked at data myself. Following the lead of Ryan Maue as described in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/15/experts-hurricane-activity-at-45-year-low-usa-major-hurricane-drought-almost-a-decade/ I evaluated hurricane data to look for a trend. I prepared several graphs, put together a data summary and had a back up spreadsheet to submit. It turns out none of that information could be submitted in their system.
So if you want to provide data and results that contradicts anything in this draft document you are out of luck.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights