Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #191

The Week That Was: 2015-08-08 (August 8, 2015) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

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

The New Plan: On August 3, the Obama Administration announced its plan to control the production of electricity in the US in the name of protecting the planet from human-caused climate change, even though climate change has been occurring long before humanity existed. The administration’s plan is embodied in a 1560-page regulation released by the EPA titled the Final Rule, “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), to be published in the Federal Register sometime in the future. It is not until the rule is published in the Federal Register that activities such as litigation against it can begin, without the courts considering the litigation premature. The most important rules are on power plants operating today rather than those to be built or those which have to be modified or re-built.

The Final Rule contains major changes to the draft CPP including increasing the time given to the several states to comply with the rules by 2 years. Overall, the plan mandates that the states, together, reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, a more stringent mandate than 30% in the earlier version. However, mandates to the states changed in what appears to be clear political bias, with states controlled by democrats seeing their mandates reduced while those controlled by republicans seeing their mandates increased.

The CPP promotes the development of solar and wind, far more expensive and unreliable forms of electricity generation than coal, which the plan seeks to curtail. Also, the plan appears to favor wind and solar over natural gas for electricity generation, although previously government agencies bragged that under Obama carbon dioxide emissions were falling by the use of natural-gas-fired power plants. The New Plan raises the percentage of power to be generated by solar and wind from 22% to 28%. The natural gas power industry seems to be somewhat taken back, but should realize that opponents of fossil fuels will try to regulate use of all such fuels.

Also missing from the Final Rule that was in the prior draft are credits for energy efficiency. The EPA had assumed that consumers would actually save on their energy bills by reducing electricity consumption, even more than any increase in energy costs. Statements that consumers will save money appear to be invalid. See links under The Administration’s New Plan and The Administration’s New Plan – Independent Analysis


Quote of the Week:It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”— Richard Feynman [H/t Econospeak]


Number of the Week: $40 to $50 per barrel?


The Allies: Overall, leaders of environmental groups seemed pleased with the new plan. For example, writing in the Wall Street Journal, Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund called it a clean energy breakthrough, which gives the US an advantage in the race to produce “clean” energy rather than “unsafe pollution for the climate.” He, and others, uncritically repeat the Administration’s highly questionable health assertions about carbon dioxide and climate change.

The support of the environmental industry for the plan is not surprising. On August 4 the Majority Staff of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report on how the EPA worked hand-in-glove with the National Resources Defense Council, and other environmental groups on the plan to control carbon dioxide emissions. See links under The Administration’s New Plan and The Political Games Continue.


The Benefit-Cost: Using the EPA’s MAGICC* policy-analysis model, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger of Cato estimated the extent of global temperature reduction under the New Plan as compared with the “business as usual”, giving an approximation of the New Plan’s impact on climate. [All this is highly speculative.] They estimated that the New Plan will result in temperature reduction of 0.019°C (0.034ºF) by the year 2100. The New Plan is hardly the great breakthrough the environmental proponents assert.

EPA veteran Alan Carlin estimates that, based on analysis of costs experienced in Western Europe, the New Plan may increase electricity prices to consumers in the US by up to four times. Such an increase is drastically different from pronouncements by supporters of the New Plan about consumer savings.

Paul Homewood presents an excellent summary on electricity costs occurring in Western Europe from increased wind and solar (non-hydro renewables). Writing in WUWT, Ed Hoskins uses 2014 data from EurObservER to estimate the megawatts, by nameplate, of renewable installations by country per million people. German and Denmark have, by far, the greatest. Homewood compares these with 2014 electricity prices from Eurostat, the official EU statistical entity. The subsequent graph of EU Electricity Prices & Renewable Energy is revealing. As the installed renewable capacity per capita increases, the electricity cost increases. The increase in prices range from a low in Hungary of about 12 cent/kWhour (lowest renewables per capita) to a high in Denmark and Germany of about 30 cent/kWh (greatest renewables).

There is no reason why the EPA, or the Department of Energy, or the US Climate Change Research Program could not perform such analysis. But if they did, it is hidden from the public. Reliance on renewable energy (non-hydro) is very costly, and that is what the New Plan entails. See links under The Administration’s New Plan – Independent Analysis and Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind.


An Analogy? Many veterans of the Vietnam era have asked what went wrong. Why did President Johnson commit massive resources, including extensive ground troops, without a clear strategic plan and an understanding of the enemy? Part of the answer can be found in the Pentagon Papers. Ordered in secret by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was soon to leave the administration, this collection of documents reveal views of many members of the administration and in the Pentagon. Strangely, rather than using it for political advantage, Richard Nixon tried to suppress it. The Pentagon Papers reveal a lack of critical thinking coupled with ignorance and arrogance. These characteristics that can be found in this Administration’s war on climate change.

Ignorance can be seen in the changing of the terminology from global warming to climate change, which has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, long before humanity existed. Arrogance can be seen in the belief that humans are the primary cause, especially in the climate models, which ignore a multitude of natural influences. The Neglected Sun discusses six types of solar cycles influencing the earth’s climate, which are largely dismissed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 Science presents the poor correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature changes, yet CO2 is the primary area of concern expressed by the administration. The British Antarctic Survey presents a 10ºC (18ºF) jump in temperatures within 40 years shown in the Greenland Ice Cores about 38,000 years ago; yet, modest, late 20th century warming is called unprecedented.

There is no measure of victory with such an undefined, nebulous enemy. Unless, those who manipulated historic data by lowering earlier data, giving a warming trend where there was none, reverse course. Then, victory can be declared.

See links under Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?, Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science, Measurement Issues, and Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice.


April Fools Award: Presented on August 2, at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Defensive Preparedness.

Each year SEPP conducts its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson. Readers of The Week That Was are asked to nominate and vote for whom they thinks is most deserving under these criteria:

· The nominee has advanced, or proposes to advance, significant expansion of governmental power, regulation, or control over the public or significant sections of the general economy.

· The nominee does so by declaring such measures are necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment.

· The nominee declares that physical science supports such measures.

· The physical science supporting the measures is flimsy at best, and possibly non-existent.

There were 16 nominations representing 5 countries. Their locations range from a state in Australia to Vermont. The votes have been tabulated.

The vote was very close, but the victor emerged based on the strength of his nomination (below).

“I would like to nominate Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. In brief, when the Secretary of Energy is more interested in developing energy policy that supports CO2 emission targets than producing reliable energy, we have a problem. With Kerry, Obama or Lisa Jackson [previous recipients] you can sum it up to ignorance — they are not educated in science and they surround themselves with supposed experts, whom they choose to trust. With Moniz, you cannot — he has a renowned academic pedigree. Yet in spite of his obvious intelligence and education, he believes that despite the fact that computer simulations cannot predict the drag on a golf ball based on first principles, they can solve the vastly more complex problem of the earth’s climate, which includes inter-related thermodynamic, heat transfer and chemistry in a multi-phase domain set in a non-inertial reference frame, which is over 10^5 times the size of the golf ball.


“He spoke at a graduation at [my university], where I was the Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering. It was a painful experience for me. Rather than giving the students useful words of advice, he spent his entire speech expounding on the dangers of climate change:


“Based on his willful ignorance and in a position of great importance, I can think of no better candidate for this prestigious award.”


DOD: The US Department of Defense issued another National Security bulletin on climate change. “DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S. interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water. These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.” See comments on ignorance and arrogance, above, and links under Expanding the Orthodoxy.


Number of the Week: $40 to $50 per barrel. The CEO of Whiting Petroleum, which is operating in North Dakota, said: “We are tooling Whiting to run and grow at $40 to $50 oil.” See Article # 3.



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. Peer Review Is Not What It’s Cracked Up To Be

By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Aug 5, 2015


SUMMARY: Much is made of the peer-review of scientific papers; it is frequently held up as the gold standard that assures the quality of scientific publishing. People often ask whether some work has undergone peer-review and are then ready to accept it — confident this makes it kosher. I wish this were really true.


2. Climate-Change Putsch

States should refuse to comply with Obama’s lawless power rule.

Editorial, WSJ, Aug 3, 2015


SUMMARY: The editorial begins: “Rarely do American Presidents display the raw willfulness that President Obama did Monday in rolling out his plan to reorganize the economy in the name of climate change. Without a vote in Congress or even much public debate, Mr. Obama is using his last 18 months to dictate U.S. energy choices for the next 20 or 30 years. This abuse of power is regulation without representation.”

It continues with: “States have regulated their power systems since the early days of electrification, but the EPA is now usurping this role to nationalize power generation and consumption. To meet the EPA’s targets, states must pass new laws or regulations to shift their energy mix from fossil fuels, subsidize alternative energy, improve efficiency, impose a cap-and-trade program, or all of the above.”

“The rule is the first step in a crescendo of climate-change politics that Mr. Obama is planning for his final days. In September he will commune with Pope Francis on the subject, and then jet to Paris in hopes that his new rule shows enough U.S. progress that the climate treaty conference in December will reach some grand accord.”


“When the EPA rule does arrive before the Justices, maybe they’ll rethink their doctrine of “Chevron deference,” in which the judiciary hands the bureaucracy broad leeway to interpret ambiguous laws. An agency using a 38-year-old provision as pretext for the cap-and-tax plan that a Democratic Congress rejected in 2010 and couldn’t get 50 Senate votes now is the all-time nadir of administrative ‘interpretation.’”


“This plan is essentially a tax on the livelihood of every American, which makes it all the more extraordinary that it is essentially one man’s order. Mr. Obama’s argument is that climate change is too important to abide by relics like the rule of law or self-government. It is an important test of the American political system to prove that he is wrong.”


3. Despite Glut of Oil, Energy Firms Struggle to Turn Off the Tap

Companies keep finding ways to drill wells faster in an effort to deal with declining crude prices

By Erin Ailworth, WSJ, Aug 6, 2015


SUMMARY: The headline is a bit misleading. Some firms find that even at lower prices they can develop oil production profitably. “Amid a refrain about keeping growth in check, executives at Anadarko, a Texas-based oil and gas producer, told analysts last week that the company has doubled its rig efficiency. Anadarko can now drill 70 wells with one rig in Colorado’s Wattenberg field, compared with 35 wells per rig a year ago.” Profits and revenues are down but the firm is still operating and drilling.

The CEO of Whiting Petroleum Corp stated “We are tooling Whiting to run and grow at $40 to $50 oil.” Some producers are cutting back, some lost money on hedging, but massive losses many observers were predicting are not occurring.

Time after time in the past week, energy companies revealed swelling oil-production figures. Devon, based in Oklahoma City, said it pumped more than 30% more crude in the second quarter compared with the prior-year period, and said it is on track to produce up to 35% more oil this year compared with last. The company reported a $2.8 billion loss on revenue of $3.4 billion. [The cause of the loss was not reported.]

[SEPP Comment: Petro-states that depend on high prices for government budgets must be getting uneasy.]


4. The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming

Climate-change ‘deniers’ are accused of heresy by true believers. That doesn’t sound like science to me.

By John Steelle Gordon, WSJ, Jul 30, 2015


SUMMARY: “Are there any phrases in today’s political lexicon more obnoxious than “the science is settled” and “climate-change deniers”?


“The first is an oxymoron. By definition, science is never settled. It is always subject to change in the light of new evidence. The second phrase is nothing but an ad hominem attack, meant to evoke “Holocaust deniers,” those people who maintain that the Nazi Holocaust is a fiction, ignoring the overwhelming, incontestable evidence that it is a historical fact.”


The author debunks the claim “the science is settled” with a brief history of the improvements in planetary motion with the improvements in instruments and theoretical understanding such as the contributions of Einstein. He states: “If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven-sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.” But goes on to say: “The [Climategate] communications showed that whatever the emailers were engaged in, it was not the disinterested pursuit of science.”



Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Book Review of The Neglected Sun: ‘Buy This Book, Our Future May Depend On It’

By Jim Lakely, Heartland.org, Jul 9, 2015, from geologist George Klein


Study Finds Long Term Solar Cycle and Predicts Cooling

By Staff Writers, Reporting Climate Science, Jul 28, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Link to paper: Multi-millennial-scale solar activity and its influences on continental tropical climate: empirical evidence of recurrent cosmic and terrestrial patterns

By J. Sánchez-Sesma, Earth System Dynamics, Jul 24, 2015


Challenging the Orthodoxy

Spencer on Stossel’s “Science Wars”

By Roy Spencer, Video, Aug 5, 2015


The Progressive Increase of the Urban Heat Island’s Influence on Temperature Records

By Craig Idso, Cato, Jul 28, 2015


The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part VI

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Jul 21, 2015


WSJ: The End of Doom: Despite an explosion in population greater than Malthus could have ever imagined, global living standards are higher than ever

By Staff Writer, Hockey Schtick, Book Review in Wall Street Journal, Aug 6, 2015


Defending the Orthodoxy

Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry?

By Staff Writers, Insurance Journal, Jul 30, 2015 [GWPF]


“That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.”

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Climate Statism: Science, Poverty, Free Speech at Issue

By Paul Driessen, Master Resource, Aug 4, 2015


Global Warming Alarmists Run Into Brick Wall Of Facts

By Rick Manning, IBD, Aug 3, 2015


[SEPP Comment: To be correct, the snowfall claimed to be in Sydney was in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney.]

On to Paris!

The Paris Climate Summit

A binding agreement to non-binding targets looks likely

By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, Jul 30, 2015


AP Interview: UN climate chief: Paris to set 50-year agenda

By Elaine Ganley, AP, Jul 24, 2015 [H/t Dennis Ambler]


The Administration’s New Plan

Who Loses Under EPA’s Clean Power Plan?

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Aug 4, 2015


Link to plan: Final Rule

By Staff Writers, EPA, Aug 3, 2015


Obama doubles down on climate rule

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Aug 2, 2015


Obama rolls out historic climate rule: ‘We only get one planet’

By Jordan Fabian, The Hill, Aug 3, 2015


We only get one home. We only get one planet. There is no plan B,” Obama said.

Environmental activists cheer new climate rules

By Tim Devaney, The Hill, Aug 3, 2015


Obama’s New Power Plant Rules Have More Benefits Than Costs

By Cass Sunstein, IBD, Aug 4, 2015


Sunstein, a Bloomberg View columnist, is director of the Harvard Law School’s program on behavioral economics and public policy.

[SEPP Comment: Uncritically accepts the official assertions of highly questionable health benefits, and the social cost of carbon, which is calculated without any benefits to agriculture from enhanced carbon dioxide.]

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Aug 3, 2015


The Administration’s New Plan – Independent Analysis

The President’s Clean Power Plan is Built Upon a Pack of Lies

By Craig Idso, CO2 Science, Aug 3, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Idso’s contributions on the benefits of CO2 supports his assertion, without the assertion being considered a personal attack.]

Obama’s New Climate Plan: Key Issues & Challenges

By Staff Writers, GWPF, Aug 5, 2015


Spin Cycle: EPA’s Clean Power Plan

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, Cato, Aug 5, 2015


“The EPA’s own policy analysis model, called MAGICC*, tells us how much global warming will be prevented by the new plan: 0.019°C by the year 2100.”

Obama’s Final Carbon Rule Combines Fake Carrots and a Big Stick

By Alex Fitzsimmons, Institute for Energy Research, Aug 4, 2015


EPA’s Carbon Rule: Huge Economic Burden for No Climate Benefit

By Staff Writers, Institute for Energy Research, Aug 5, 2015


New Analysis Suggests Obama’s Power Plant Regulations Will Almost Quadruple US Power Costs

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Aug 5, 2015


Obama’s New Energy Plan Could Cost $2.5 Trillion in Lost Economic Growth

By Nicolas Loris, The Daily Signal, Aug 3, 2015


What Is The Real Price Of Obama’s CO2 Plans?

By Euan Means, Oil Price.com, Aug 6, 2015


The Administration’s New Plan – Push-Back

The trouble with Obama’s Clean Power Plan

By Chip Knappenberger, CNN, Aug 4, 2015


Barack Obama’s green plans could cripple America’s economy

The economic costs of the President’s ill-conceived climate change drive will dwarf any benefits

By Richard Wellings, Telegraph, UK, Aug 3, 2015 [H/t GPWF]


Consumers in Kentucky, where over 90% of electricity is generated from coal, enjoy electricity prices roughly 50% lower than in the UK – an indication of the huge potential cost of Obama’s plans.

Rebutting the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan’s Claims

Plan is likely to harm public health, increase energy bills, destroy jobs, and cause blackouts in communities across the country

By Julian Morris, Reason Foundation, Aug 3, 2015


The EPA Doubles Down

Its latest regulations show an agency captured by environmental activists.

By Steven Hayward, The Weekly Standard, Aug 17, 2015


Obama’s $2.5 trillion plan to kill jobs, coal, make a 0.1% reduction in CO2, and cool world by zero degrees

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 4, 2015


Climatistas Forced to Abandon Their Own BS

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Aug 7, 2015


Obama Announces Global Warming Plan: We’re Saved!

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Aug 3, 2015


Obama’s New EPA Rules: A Green Assault On Red States

Editorial, IBD, Aug 3, 2015


Three lines of attack against Obama’s climate change rule

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Aug 4, 2015


[SEPP Comment: States can defy; legislate to delay, or litigate to stop – all in anticipation of a change in Administration.]

Obama’s Cunning Plan Is Worthless

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 8, 2015


What’s True and What’s False in Obama’s Latest Global Warming Claims

By William M Briggs, The Stream, Aug 5, 2015


Problems in the Orthodoxy

No Study Supports Global Warming Affecting Himalayas

By Staff Writers, Indo-Asian News Service, Aug 7, 2015 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Seeking a Common Ground

The OAS becomes a signatory for the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines initiative

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 29, 2015


Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!)

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Aug 5, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Does embracing uncertainty include embracing ignorance by avoiding study of natural causes of climate change?]

Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jul 29, 2015


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

Sea Level (Global Measurements) — Summary

By Staff Writers, CO2 Science, Jul 29, 2015


“So as things stand currently, it would appear that real-world sea level rise has been far less dramatic over the course of the Industrial Revolution than what has typically been claimed to be the case by the world’s climate alarmists.”

Positive Responses of Tropical Seagrasses to Ocean Acidfication

Ow, Y.X., Collier, C.J. and Uthicke, S. 2015. Responses of three tropical seagrass species to CO2 enrichment. Marine Biology 162: 1005-1017. Aug 5, 2015


“Ow et al. say the results of their study ‘demonstrated that tropical seagrasses can increase their photosynthetic rates, adjust photosynthetic performance and increase growth rates in response to CO2 enrichment’”

Dying from Heat and Cold in Various Countries Around the World

Gasparrini, A., Guo, Y., Hashizume, M., Lavigne, E., Zanobetti, A., Schwartz, J., Tobias, A., Tong, S., RocklÖv, J., Forsberg, B., Leone, M, De Sario, M., Bell, M.L., Guo, Y.L.L., Wu, C.F., Kan, H., Yi, S.M., de Sousa, Z., Coelho, S. M., Saldiva, P.H., Honda, Y., Kim, H. and Armstrong, B. 2015. Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study. The Lancet: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0. Aug 4, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Discussed in the May 30 TWTW – Excellent graph]

Invasive Plants in a CO2 Enriched and Recently Warmed World

Thomas, C.D. and Palmer, G. 2015. Non-native plants add to the British flora without negative consequences for native diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 112: 4387-4392., Aug 3, 2015


…”the diversity of native species is increasing in locations where the diversity of non-native species is increasing, suggesting that the high diversities of native and non-native plant species are compatible with one another.”…”negative effects of non-native plants on British biodiversity have been exaggerated, and may also have been exaggerated in other parts of the world.”

Ocean Acidification Database

By Staff Writers, CO2 Science, Aug 3, 2015


In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above.

CO2-Temperature Correlations

By Staff Writers, CO2 Science, Accessed Aug 8, 2015


Atmospheric CO2 and Global Temperature: Which Leads Which When Change Occurs?

By Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso, CO2 Science, Jul 10, 2015


Models v. Observations

New study narrows the gap between climate models and reality

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 30, 2015


July Data Rolls In…Consensus Of Datasets Agree: Warming Has Stopped… Global Temperature Firmly Stuck!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, from wobleibtdieglobaleerderwärmung, No Tricks Zone, Aug 4, 2015


[SEPP Comment: One commentator states there has been no statistically significantly reduction in 18 years. However, the assertion of the IPCC and the US government is that warming would continue, and it has not.]

Thoughts on aerosols

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Aug 7, 2015


Climate models fail to model accurately – again: ‘decision makers [should] not rely on a single model for predicting what the future of the Arctic’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 29, 2015


Model Issues

Feynman Has Something to Say About “Is Consistent With”

By Staff Writer, Econospeak, Aug 2, 2015 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Keeping It Simple: The Value Of An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model. New Paper

By William Briggs, His Blog, Aug 5, 2015


Link to paper: Keeping It Simple: The Value Of An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model.

By Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Brigs, Science Bulletin, Aug 6, 2015


Measurement Issues

HADCRUT Cool The Past Yet Again

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 5, 2015


HadCRUT4 joins the terrestrial temperature tamperers

By Christopher Monckton, WUWT, Aug 4, 2015


How good is the NASA GISS global temperature dataset?

Guest essay by Rud Istvan, WUWT, Aug 3, 2015


Changing Weather

El Niño ‘Strongly Correlated with Positive Yields’ [in US]

By Jessie Scott, Agriculture.com, Aug 3, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Link to report: El Niño: Could This Cyclical Extreme Be Good for Corn and Soybean Production?

By Staff Writers, AgriBank, July, 2015


“If predictions are correct, this could signal higher than expected corn and soybean yields this year.”

New study asks: More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 6, 2015


Link to paper: More tropical cyclones in a cooler climate?

By Sugi, Yoshida, and Murakami, Geophysical Research Letters, Jul 31, 2015


NOAA: Increased likelihood of below-normal Atlantic hurricane season

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 6, 2015


Dominant role of greenhouse-gas forcing in the recovery of Sahel rainfall

By Dong and Sutton, Nature Climate Change, Jun 1, 2015


Changing Climate

Figuring Out Ice Ages

By Doug Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, Via GWPF, Jul 28, 2015


Changing Seas

Ocean Heat: New Study Shows Climate Scientists Can Still Torture Data until the Data Confess

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Jul 26, 2015


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Ice cores and climate change

Slices of ice core, drilled from the depths of the Earth’s ice sheets, reveal details of the planet’s past climate.

By Staff Writers, British Antarctic Survey, May 15, 2015 [H/t Bishop Hill]


Arctic and Antarctic Ice Growing

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Aug 4, 2015


Hudson Bay, Davis Strait and Fox Basin sea ice highest since 1992

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jul 29, 2015


Pacific walrus sob stories begin again

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Aug 6, 2015


[SEPP Comment: More special pleading!]

Acidic Waters

Crucial ocean-acidification models come up short

Poorly designed studies leave future uncertain for sea dwellers.

By Daniel Cressey, Nature, Aug 5, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Highly questioning the “overwhelming evidence.”]

Corals are survivors

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jul 31, 2015


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

No excuses to be against science now: Monsanto patent expires

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Aug 3, 2015


[SEPP Comment: The irrational fight against GMOs must find a different whipping-boy than Monsanto’s profits.]

Neonicotinoid ban based on precautionary principle, not science

By Gill Ross, ACSH, Jul 27, 2015


The perfect storm for environmentalists: GMO engineered rice reduces greenhouse gas emissions to near zero

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 29, 2015


Un-Science or Non-Science?

Another climate scare story about New York City; climate models say it will ‘resemble Oklahoma City today’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 4, 2015


Well, if CO2 reduction won’t matter, let’s not worry about it

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 3, 2015


Lowering Standards

World Bank rejects energy industry notion that coal can cure poverty

World Bank’s climate change envoy: ‘We need to wean ourselves off coal’

Bank has stopped funding new coal projects except in ‘rare circumstances’

By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, UK, Jul 29, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Staggering, unsupported health claims by the World Bank envoy.]

The madness of the greens

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Aug 3, 2015


In a speech in Washington DC Rachel Kyte, the head of climate change at the World Bank, argued that the destitute of the developing world, who currently cook on wood and dung fires, would suffer increased levels of respiratory diseases if they got access to coal-fired grid electricity:

Spectacular Climate Fraud From National Geographic

By Tony Heller, Real Science, Aug 8, 2015


[SEPP Comment: The term omission may be more acceptable than fraud.]

What a shower! The more money the Met Office gets, the more ludicrously inaccurate its doom-mongering on climate change

By Christopher Booker, Daily Mail, UK, Aug 6, 2015


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

Claim: Glaciers melt faster than ever

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 4, 2015


Link to paper: Historically unprecedented global glacier decline in the early 21st century

By Zemp, et al, Journal of Glaciology, Jul 30, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Estimates dating back to 1600 or 1850 are not historically unprecedented!]

Britian’s Climate Policy Is Killing Thousands Every Year

By Staff Writers, From Sunday Times & Financial Times, GWPF, Jul 26, 2015


[SEPP Comment: The government policy of “dash for diesel” may be harmful. Question assertion: “About 50,000 people die annually because of air pollution…” Not clear where?]


Psychology and Climate Alarm: how fear and anxiety trump evidence

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 7, 2015


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Coal, Death Trains, Climate, and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Guest essay by Charles Battig, M.D., WUWT, Aug 4, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Exaggeration is acceptable from Greens but not from others?]

The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%

By Staff Writers,Fabius Maximus website, Jul 29, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jul 30, 2015


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda

Geotargeting: Climate Change Lobby Advises Location-Based, Tailored Propaganda to Convince More People

By Donna Rachel Edmunds, Breitbart, Jul 28, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Expanding the Orthodoxy

Pentagon Spent $22,000 to Write 14-Page Report on Climate Change

Report says climate change ‘urgent and growing threat to national security’

By Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon, Jul 29, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to report: National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate

By Staff Writers, Pentagon, Jul 23, 2015


[SEPP Comment: The cost of the report is trivial compared to its unsupported assertions.]

Expanding the Orthodoxy – The Pope – Loyal Opposition

The Religion of Climate Change

By Nicholas Hahn, WSJ, Via GWPF, Aug 7, 2015


Questioning European Green

Out of Europe: Steel Industry Plans Great Exodus

By Carsten Dierig, Die Welt, Translation By Philipp Mueller, GWPF, Jul 30, 2015


Germany’s Neighbors Rankled by Its Energiewende

By Staff Writers, American Interest, Aug 4, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: German wind power is causing power surges in other countries.]

European Renewable Energy performance for 2014 falls far short of claims

Summary: By 2014 European Union countries had invested approximately €1 trillion, €1,000,000,000,000, in large scale Renewable Energy installations.

Guest essay by Ed Hoskins, WUWT, Jul 31, 2015


Great Graphics

Non-Green Jobs

Making Environmentalism Divisive

By Salena Zito, Real Clear Politics, Aug 2, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Funding Issues

America in the Way

By Joseph Stiglitz, Project Syndicate, Aug 6, 2015


[The Nobel laureate in economics apparently does not grasp that financial markets respond to security of investment and rates of return.]

Banking on Green Investment Means Political Risks

Fund might lose its advantages after privatization

By Paul Davies, WSJ, Via GWPF, Jul 25, 2015


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

The Political Games Continue

Senate panel votes to block Obama’s climate rule

By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry, The Hill, Aug 5, 2015


GOP: Climate rule came from improper green input

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Aug 4, 2015


Link to report: OBAMA’S CARBON MANDATE::An Account of Collusion, Cutting Corners, and Costing Americans Billions

By Majority Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Aug 4, 2015


Litigation Issues

States to sue Obama administration over climate rules

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Aug 3, 2015


Top US coal company vows five lawsuits against climate rules

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Aug 3, 2015


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

If wind energy is ‘strong,’ why does it need subsidies?

The US Senate Finance Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of continued tax policies that incentivize the building of more US wind farms, as construction and investment are spiking in the private sector.

By Kelsey Warner, Christian Science Monitor, Jul 29, 2015


Wind Subsidies Cost Taxpayers Big

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Aug 3, 2015


More Wasted Subsidies for Failed Technologies

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jul 28, 2015


The Right Time to Reform Fuel Pricing

By Jeffrey Frankel, Project Syndicate, Aug 7, 2015


[SEPP Comment: A professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government calling for reform – meaning government control, which worked so well for the Soviet Union.]

EPA and other Regulators on the March

Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 30, 2015


EPA diktats: Pushing back

Editorial, Tribune-Review, Aug 1, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


EPA Promotes Worst Case, Scare Scenario

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jul 24, 2015


Energy Issues – Non-US

Shale oil, gas production lead to pollution, global warming: Study

Editorial, Times of Oman, Aug 5, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: The study by the Arab Monetary Fund is probably as reliable as those being used by the US Administration.]

Environmental studies begin in British shale areas

British Geological Survey setting a baseline in area said to be rich in shale natural gas.

By Daniel J. Graeber, UPI, Aug 6, 2015


How Russia’s Energy Giant Imploded

By Eurasianet, Oil Price.com, Aug 5, 2015


Energy Issues — US

Consumers Will Pay Big for Obama’s Alternative Energy Push

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Jul 27, 2015


Fact or Fiction?: Natural Gas Will Reduce Global Warming Pollution

Has burning natural gas instead of coal helped the U.S. economy decarbonize? It’s complicated

By David Biello, Scientific American, August 3, 2015


[SEPP Comment: The phrase: “all those power plants that burn natural gas will still spew CO2” (boldface added) is a dead give-away of the ideological bent of the author.]

Microgrids and “Clean” Energy

By Planning Engineer and Rud Istvan, Climate Etc. Jul 28, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Possible, but very expensive and do not necessarily reduce fossil fuel use.]

Hopewell NJ votes gas pipeline off the island; why not shut down your entire energy supply to save Mother Earth?

By Gill Ross, ACSH, Jul 30, 2015


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Low oil prices are lasting a lot longer than petro-rulers thought they would

By Steve LeVine, Quartz, Jul 31, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Saudi Arabia may go broke before the US oil industry buckles

It is too late for OPEC to stop the shale revolution. The cartel faces the prospect of surging US output whenever oil prices rise

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Telegraph, UK, Aug 5, 2015 [H/t GWPF]


Oil Sands: Is Utah The New Alberta?

By Andy Tully, Oilprice.com, Jul 27, 2015


Return of King Coal?

World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On

By Stephen Moore, IBD, Aug 6, 2015


Nuclear Energy and Fears

ThorCon Tries to Scale Down Nuclear

By William Tucker, Real Clear Energy, Aug 7, 2015


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Electricity Cost v Renewable Capacity [EU]

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 3, 2015


Link to post with data: EU Electricity Prices & Renewable Energy

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Aug 1, 2015


Renewable Energy May Be Doomed to be Unprofitable Forever

By Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Via GWPF, Aug 3, 2015


[SEPP Comment: A twist on the future value of electricity from solar and wind.]

AWED Energy & Environmental Newsletter: August 3, 2015

By John Droz, Master Resource, Aug 3, 2015


Renewables Fail Even When They Succeed

By Staff Writers, American Interest, Aug 3, 2015


Wind energy provides 8 percent of Europe’s electricity

By Staff Writers, Brussels, Belgium (SPX), Jul 28, 2015


Link to report: 2014 JRC wind status report

By Lacal Arantegui and Serrano Gonzalez, EU Joint Research Center, 2015


Annual Report, Energinet.dk, 2014

By Peder Østermark Andrease, President and CEO, Energinet.dk, July 2015


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

Want to Fly? Bring Garbage

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Jul 31, 2015


Observations on DOD’s Investments in Alternative Fuels

By Staff Writers, GAO, Jul 27, 2015 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to report: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives: Observations on DOD’s Investments in Alternative Fuels

By Staff Writers, GAO, July 2015


[SEPP Comment: If the test is for validation purposes, why is it so widely touted by the DOD, with the high costs glossed over — $29.3 per gallon v. 3.35 per gallon?]

Environmental Industry

Climate: The (Flabby) Arms of Krupp

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Aug 4, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Analysis of the special pleading in the Wall Street Journal by the president of the Environmental Defense Fund.]

Greenpeace fines: $2,500 / hour, for blocking a Shell Oil ship from leaving Portland

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jul 30, 2015


Why GMO labeling is confusing, misleading, and ultimately pointless

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Jul 27, 2015


No One Is Denying a ‘Right to Know What’s in My Food’

The misleading argument for mandatory GMO labeling, in full force this week

By James Hamblin, The Atlantic, Jul 24, 2015


Other Scientific News

Scientists track monster waves below the ocean surface

By Staff Writers, Miami FL (SPX), Jul 27, 2015


Other News that May Be of Interest

The great filter

The silence of universe seems ominous. Was Earth lucky

By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, Aug 7, 2015


Obama’s Economic Growth Gap Now Tops $2 Trillion

Editorial, IBD, Jul 30, 2015


8 Craziest Mega-Engineering Projects We Could Use to Rework the Earth

By George Dvorsky, IO9, Aug 4, 2015 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


US Billionaire Tom Steyer to candidates: Back 50% renewables by 2030, if you want my financial support

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Jul 25, 2015




Washington, DC sinking fast, adding to threat of sea-level rise

By Staff Writers, Burlington VT (SPX), Jul 30, 2015


[SEPP Comment: Apparently unknown to the researchers and reporter, Washington DC ranges from the sea level (coastal plain) to about 430 feet above sea level (Piedmont). Drillings in the coastal plain in Maryland have little bearing on most of Washington.]

Sucking carbon from the sky may do little to slow climate change

By Eli Kintisch, Science Mag, Aug 3, 2015


WikiLeaks docs show the US spied on Japan

By Julian Hattem, The Hill, Jul 31, 2015


“American spies covertly monitored top officials within the Japanese government and business sector to gain insight into trade plans and climate change policy, according to new documents released by WikiLeaks.” [Boldface added]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel O'Bryan
August 9, 2015 11:12 pm

On the Worst US President Ever’s “Clean Power Plan”:
All I can muster out of my anger is “F You, just “F You” Mister President!!!”
Sorry, but I can not think straight when I think of how horrible this US president for our future.
Maybe this CPP could be implemented by Congress… if it was truly worthy of the People’s acceptance and he could sell it as so. The reign of King Barack Obama is a Dark Time in US history.
Our Dictator-in-Waiting is trying to cram this CO2 plan down US citizens’ throats with only executive action. Obama violates his constitutional oath every day now. Obama is criminal committing high crimes and treason.
Obama is truly a Piece of S##t.
Joel O’Bryan

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2015 8:16 am

The current occupant of the White House does not seem to have a good sense of priorities.
What is troubling is why the warmist believers advocate such destructive policies based on such little evidence.
They can’t even prove that 3°C warming is harmful, or that CO2 forcing can even supply the 3.7W/m2 to make a 1°C.
Further – they don’t acknowledge that more CO2 has any benefit, let alone that the increased plant growth and water conservation from more CO2 is needed to avoid future starvation.
It is time for Congress to mandate a fair evaluation of the cost/benefits of more CO2 by the GWPF or some other group that is not in bed with dishonest environmental activists like Greenpeace, WWF, the NSF, NOAA, GISS, etc..

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 10, 2015 6:15 pm

Hooray for BHO. He’s the only POTUS yet with the B**Ls to reduce CO2 emissions.

August 9, 2015 11:19 pm

I was looking at the nomination for the Jackson and my attention was drawn to the comparison of a golf ball to the earth’s climate; which is stated to be more than 10^5. Well yes, but it’s at least 3000 times 10^5. If you’re just dealing with linear dimensions and figure a golf-ball as about 8 to a foot we get 8 x 5280 ft/mi x 8000 mi diameter of the earth which gives 3.3 ^ 8. And if you’re comparing volume it’s 3 x 10^25. Granted the climate is only the outer few miles of the earth, the dimples on a golf ball is only on the skin of the golf ball.

Ian Macdonald
August 10, 2015 12:37 am

He’s climate crazy
He’s climate mad
Greenpeace has robbed our President
Of the wee bit o’ sense he had
Ten thousand dollars worth o’ leccy
tae mak’ oor houses warm and snug
Since Obarmy became a member
of that terrible Al Gore Club

August 10, 2015 4:42 am

Part of the answer can be found in the Pentagon Papers. Ordered in secret by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, … this collection of documents reveal views of many members of the administration and in the Pentagon. … The Pentagon Papers reveal a lack of critical thinking coupled with ignorance and arrogance. These characteristics that can be found in this Administration’s war on climate change.

In his book Voltaire’s Bastards, John Ralston Saul points out the damage done by McNamara. Saul’s thesis is that folks like McNamara are good at reason but seem incapable of tempering it with reality. It’s as though they can’t remember what happened before.
This disconnect with reality explains how Michael Mann could construct his hockey stick in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is completely at odds with history, and other proxy evidence.
This disconnection with reality is a lot like schizophrenia. It infests liberals but is, by no means, limited to them. It nicely explains this Administration’s war on climate change.

August 10, 2015 7:10 am

Note reference USA domestic focused oil companies (the so called frackers): most of them are having serious difficulties, they have reported large 2Q losses. As of today I think it’s likely the USA crude oil and condensate production hit a peak earlier this year, and won’t recover to such a peak for the rest of the year.
I read a lot of bragging by oil companies about reduced costs. But such costs are caused in part by squeezing service companies. We are also seeing better personnel performance due to the large number of layoffs and the growing experience level.
However, oil prices will have to increase at least 50 % above today’s levels if production is to recover to the peak seen in the first semester 2015. Regarding world wide production, non OPEC nations in total have also peaked. Saudi Arabia and Iraq appear to be increasing production. The Saudis are being forced to withdraw money from their investment funds, because oil prices are too low to allow them to balance their accounts. This means the oil price will have to increase to allow the Saudi regime to survive.

August 10, 2015 7:20 am

Perhaps the most news-worthy event of the last week, is the creep-show melt-down over at the Deltoid blog. The whole deal began with a sanguinary comment, obviously hand-crafted with loving-care, so as to make mummy proud of her little homicidal-maniac junior-boy, appearing on the blog’s June Open Thread (comment no. 71 on page 16). The comment’s author being no less than “wow” (a pseudonym evidently chosen for it’s resonance with “mom”. WOW is MOM; MOM is WOW), one of Deltoid’s leading, alpha-mouth, chekist-wannabe malevolent-nerds:
“The puling little cockgobbler [wow says of an unwelcome “denier”] ought to be taken out [and] shot in the head. And no, this isn’t rhetorical.”
Subsequently, the ball gets really rolllin’ with comment no. 5 (by “bill” who is so bad that I’ve got a sneakin’ suspicion that he’s actually a provocateur wrecker-bot, secretly working for us lovers of liberty and ethical science) on page 1 of the Deltoid blog’s August open thread. That is, bill’s comment prompts the Dolt-toids’ standard-issue pack-attack to spontaneously form up and join wow in a leg-humpin’, ankle-bitin’, bezerker-frenzy of “denier”-cide mayhem-mongering. So far, pretty much just standard fare for the ‘toids.
Things liven up a bit, then, with comment no. 11, following, as the ever prissy, pursed-lipped FrankD shows up, throwing off “WUWT-ard” zingers and “ol’ fart” put-downs as his calling-cards, in an obvious attempt to establish his “good comrade” bona fides with his hive-mates prior to unloading his little, milquetoast critique (think ATTP) of the “Red Terror”, blood-lust turn the thread has taken. In response, “things” quickly go “South” for FrankD, as his lefty-buddies turn on him in a ferocious display of the one activity in which the “hive-bozos” truly excel–savaging and back-stabbing one another. Good Stuff!!!
Whimsically, I’d like to portray FrankD’s doofus misadventure, above, in the figurative terms of some workin’-stiff with six kids and a barking dog, steppin’ over to a neighbor’s house to suggest that the party-line, party-time blasting-music (a karaoke vinyl of CCCP vintage: “The Red Army Band’s Greatest Hits”), although really, really great music, and all, is just maybe, you know, like, just a teensy-weensy bit too loud for 2 a. m. on a school-nite, and everything–only for the over-bold whiner, FrankD, to discover to his chagrin, that his very own name is on the Bolshevik’s secret hit-list, and that the “organs” have been lookin’ for him, and that he’s marked for summary execution on sight–BAM!!!BAM!!! double-tap. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
P. S. HotWhopper maintains a link to the Deltoid blog. Who knew!

August 10, 2015 7:25 am

Peter Urs Bender explains all. Obama, McNamara, etc., are Expressives.

August 10, 2015 7:34 am
CD in Wisconsin
August 10, 2015 8:11 am

….”The CPP promotes the development of solar and wind, far more expensive and unreliable forms of electricity generation than coal, which the plan seeks to curtail. Also, the plan appears to favor wind and solar over natural gas for electricity generation, although previously government agencies bragged that under Obama carbon dioxide emissions were falling by the use of natural-gas-fired power plants. The New Plan raises the percentage of power to be generated by solar and wind from 22% to 28%.”
Assuming it does take 29.3 billion solar panels manufactured over a period of 900+ years to power the USA at the 100% level (as the above post states) in the absence of fossil fuels and nuclear, even cutting those numbers by 72% leaves us needing 8.2 billion solar panels which will require 258 years to manufacture at current production levels. And Obama and the EPA are setting a 32% CO2 reduction target date of 2030 to prevent how much warming? With wind turbines and solar panels playing a prominent role?
Clearly we have a POTUS and an EPA here with their heads up high the clouds in an energy fantasy world that cannot be and never will be. All they would have to do is to look across the Atlantic to Germany (with their less-than-stellar Energiewende) to realize how irrational the wind and energy component of this CPP really is. One would think that that Obama and the EPA are capable of seeing what is going on there and evaluate it rationally before imposing a similar measure on the U.S. But no, thinking in rational terms (when it comes to energy matters at least) does not appear to be on Obama’s list of skills.
Here in the U.S., we can only hope that the next president will be one with his (or her) feet planted firmly on the ground and will demonstrate the ability and commitment to addressing energy and climate issues using sound science and engineering. I however am not going to hold my breathe waiting for that to happen.
God help the U.S. if it doesn’t

August 10, 2015 12:18 pm

in the name of protecting the planet from
human-caused climate change, even though climate
change has been occurring long before humanity existed.

Oh dear. Yes, the climate has been changing for long
before humanity existed, but human-caused
climate change?
Maybe it’s been putting in some practise … until man-kind
finally arrived, just so it could scare the be-jayzus out of that
arrogant primate.

August 10, 2015 6:23 pm

I’m a Republican, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run…
Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  warrenlb
August 10, 2015 9:27 pm

Really??? Really?? Have you stidied the science of Climate Change? It is pathetic. It is clearly and an agenda driven fabrication. The climate may be warming in reponse to additional CO2, but every shred of evidence says it is a sensitivity below 2.0 C, and likely below 1.5 C. A Modern Climate Optimum is where the planet is headed if that is the case.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 11, 2015 5:53 am

I spent my career as VP of Technology for a Fortune 200 Corporation, teach science in retirement, and find the evidence for AGW compelling, as do over 99% of peer-reviewed science research papers.
In comparison, the arguments against, seen here on this forum, are loaded with conspiracy theories, paranoia about liberals and government overreach, and amateur analysis that wouldn’t pass muster in a 6th grade science class.
I suggest you ask yourself why, if as you say the science is ‘pathetic’, that every Science Academy in the world ..US, UK, China, Germany, France, Japan, and all others , every major research university, every scientific professional society, plus NASA and NOAA, all conclude –without exception — that AGW is happening and represents a real danger to mankind.
In my opinion, instead of saying that the science is ‘pathetic’, you ought to be asking yourself if you really understand the evidence and the physics behind it.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights