Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #215

The Week That Was: 2016-02-13 (Feb 13, 2016)  Brought to You by SEPP www.sepp.org The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)


Quote of the Week:

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Aldous Huxley [H/t Timothy Ball]

Number of the Week: 15%


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

Surprise? Background: President Obama’s power plan, and similar environmental regulations, are based on executive orders. Since the defeat of cap-and-trade during a Congress dominated by his own party, he has not reached out to Congress for the legislative authority to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. When cap-and-trade failed, Mr Obama famously stated there are other ways to skin the cat (accomplish what he seeks). Using a very broad concept of executive powers, he and selected agencies, namely the EPA, issued orders to various states and companies to take steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Many industries are affected by these orders, including appliance manufacturers who must redesign products to conserve electricity, often with little government regard of costs to the consumers.

Other industries, namely coal-fired power plants are being forced to cut-back on emissions in order to “protect health and welfare.” The EPA has been extremely imaginative in its statistical techniques to claim that emissions of mercury from coal-fired plants are a threat to human health. The studies supporting these claims are vague or speculative, at best. On December 21, 2011, the EPA issued a rule called Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. The rule sets maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for coal and oil generating stations for removing mercury, acid gasses, and a variety of toxic metals from the flue gas for coal and oil-fired utility boilers. On December 21, 2012, the EPA issued the final standards, even though a significant portion was vague and there was no demonstrated commercially available technology by which coal-fired plants could achieve the standards.

The regulations led to litigation that eventually went to the Supreme Court. “Michigan led a coalition of states and industry groups in arguing that the EPA did not properly consider the costs of compliance for the MATS regulations when crafting the rules. The Clean Air Act, a 1970 law on which MATS is based, requires the agency to issue regulations that it deems ‘appropriate and necessary,’ but offers little guidance as to what that means. Industry groups have argued since the rule was proposed that it would be the costliest regulatory package ever, and could even result in rolling blackouts.”

On, June 29, 2015, a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the MATS regulations. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority: “EPA must consider cost – including cost of compliance – before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.”

However, the MATS regulation had a compliance deadline of April 16, 2015, and power companies had already largely chosen to retire or retrofit coal plants at considerable costs coal plants that would be impacted by the rule, despite the uncertainty of its legality. The EPA bragged about its effective success, in spite of being overturned, on its web site.

This background sets the stage for what may have been a shocking opinion to the Administration for the Supreme Court to “stay” the executive orders, mainly from the EPA, to limit CO2 emissions through what the Administration calls its Clean Power Plan, pending judicial review. Issued on February 9, the “stay” order is less than one page, but loaded with legal meaning. See links under The Administration’s Plan and


The Impact of the Stay: Based on his actions, Mr. Obama considers his climate program, including his power plan and the Paris accord, his legacy. Litigating through the stay will take 2 to 5 years, at least. The outcome is very uncertain. It is doubtful that Mr. Obama can sidestep this prolonged litigation. His efforts to avoid litigation, and to present an accomplished fact by regulation through executive orders, have met a limit, no matter what brave front he may present.

According to reports, in February 11 hearing before a House sub-committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who played a major role in the CO2 regulations, said the stay was “a pause in terms of the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Power Plan.” This is ironic because the advocates of such regulations have dismissed the pause in rising temperatures that has occurred in the early 21st century. The impact of the stay on the Administration’s power plan is discussed at length in Articles # 2 and #3, and in the links under The Administration’s Plan. Article # 3 has the views of two of the attorneys representing the successful states.

On-to-Paris? Thus far, there has been little written on how the stay on Mr. Obama’s power plan might affect the agreement reached by the 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on December 11. As stated in the Dec 19 TWTW, there were last minute changes insisted on by the US Administration that raise questions whether the agreement is a treaty or part of a treaty process, or what?

“Among the key provisions in the final agreement are: there are no binding monetary commitments, there are no binding commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and the next big accounting of progress will be in 2023, with ongoing meetings in between. In short, it is an agreement to perpetuate the appearance of doing something, while spending public funds. The big surprise is that any Party [to the agreement] can withdraw after three years, effective 1 year later.” (TWTW 12-19-15)

As of now, the agreement is to be formally opened for signature on the UN named “Mother Earth Day”, April 22, 2016. Already, there are suggestions that some nations will not be fooled into signing an agreement which does not include the United States, as they did in the Kyoto Protocol (1997). Given the Supreme Court’s stay, delegates from other countries may consider commitments by the Obama Administration, or its delegates, without Congressional approval, to be pure bluster with no substance. No doubt, the Administration will blame Congress if the Paris agreement fails. However, the Administration chose not to seek Congressional consent for any of its commitments in Paris, and made last minute changes to the agreement to avoid Congressional consent. The blame is on its unilateral actions, believing it needed no consent.

Perhaps a future administration may learn from this one. It takes more than authoritarian executive orders to build a lasting, positive legacy in the United States. See links under After Paris.

Impact on Science: The stay may be beneficial for American science in general, and for science societies that have been led by the ideologically inclined. US government funding has focused on the impacts of carbon dioxide on climate and not understanding all the causes of climate change, particularly natural variation. Without pressure to conform exerted by a politically motivated administration, there may be a greater recognition that natural variation in climate is poorly understood and may be far more dominant than the influence of carbon dioxide.

For example, John Christy’s written testimony discussed in last week’s TWTW should be an eye-opener for all but the most ideologically blinded. The greenhouse effect takes place in the atmosphere. That is the first place to understand the impact of greenhouse gases, not the surface or the deep oceans. Any warming of the atmosphere may be from increases in greenhouse gases, or from natural variation such as the warming of sea surface temperatures from an El Niño, which is occurring now. This may result in an atmospheric warming with some lag time of about three-to-six months.

However, Christy’s findings that global climate models overestimate atmospheric warming by 2.5 times over the globe and by 3 times over the tropics clearly demonstrate that the models cannot make accurate predictions over the past 37 years. If they cannot explain temperatures over this term, there is no logical reason to assume they can make predictions for the next 100 or 200 years. Funding of science should be focused on understanding all the causes of climate change, including natural variation, human local and regional influence, and human global influence.

Craig Idso discusses a new study from China that attempts to tries a 2,130-year record of the economy in China and compare it with climate variation. In general, times that were warm and wet were prosperous, times that were cool and dry were not. The warming and prosperity are consistent with the findings of H.H. Lamb for Europe.

In addition, the leadership of some of the science societies appear to be taken in by some published surveys which claim dire human-caused global warming is supported by 97% of scientists, including the recent survey by Cook, et al. An objective survey, poll, requires that those responding are not influenced by those conducting the poll. Yet in Cook, et al. those conducting the survey classified papers after the survey, according to their own opinions. George Gallop would be appalled. See links under Changing Climate and Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?

Funding Issues: The chief executive of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Larry Marshall, has proposed a restructuring of jobs at CSIRO, effectively wiping out its climate modeling division. This is causing quite a back-lash among the climate scientists, who are considered by some as among the best climate modelers in the world. Of course, their emphasis minimizes natural variation. When one claims the science is settled, there are consequences. In general, CSIRO has a distinguished 85-year history, but has been tarnished by its embrace of human-caused global warming to dominate climate variation.

Writing in Quadrant about the controversy, Michael Kile, brought up a January 29, 2009, conference hosted by the US University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The sponsors include U.K. Science and Innovation Network of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and was organized in collaboration with NOAA and the Hadley Center. The objectives included attributing climate change and extreme weather events to human activities (emissions of carbon dioxide) and providing authoritative (single-minded) assessments of extreme weather events.

The draft brochure, “Reanalysis and Attribution: Understanding How and Why Recent Climate Has Varied and Changed” by the US Climate Change Science Program [now, USGCRP] sounds fine, until it gets to Attribution – determining the most likely cause of observed variation in climate. Here the brochure asserts that “more than half of the warming averaged over North America is likely (more than 66 percent likelihood) the result of human activity.” This assertion is without evidence.

The brochure displays the symbols of 15 government agencies, including the EPA, NASA, NOAA, State Department, etc. Early in the current Administration there is an effort to blame human activity for global climate change and extreme weather events. See links under Questioning the Orthodoxy, Expanding the Orthodoxy, and Funding Issues.

Corrections and Additions: Professor of Applied Mathematics Christopher Essex correctly writes that modeling is not theory, and observations are not experiment. TWTW certainly agrees. But, one can only test the global climate models by their predictive capabilities, which John Christy shows are poor. Further, even if the models should show highly accurate skill, that does not mean the underlying theory is correct.

Number of the Week: 15% The peak oil hypotheses and the fear of running out of oil seemed to hit Congress, again, in full force around 2005 to recently. The staff of the Fabius Maximus web site report that total world liquid fuel production increased by 15% during the decade after 2005. Yet, in his budget, Mr. Obama is calling for a 21% increase in funding for renewable energy. See links under Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past? and Funding Issues.

ARTICLES: The Articles section is now at the bottom of TWTW.


Science: Is the Sun Rising?

New Science 22: Solar TSI leads Earth’s temperature with an 11-year delay

We’re launching headlong back into the New Science series with a major post

By David Evans and Jo Nova Her Blog, Feb 13, 2016


A TSI-Driven (solar) Climate Model

Guest essay by Jeff Patterson, WUWT, Feb 8, 2016


Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Solar Report January 2016 …Current Solar Cycle Quietest In Almost 200 Years As “Triple Whammy” Approaches!

The Sun in January 2016!

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated/edited by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Feb 10, 2016


Climategate Continued

A Return to Polar Urals: Wilson et al 2016

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Feb 8, 2016


“The Briffa 2013 MXD chronology, though lacking a distinctive HS [Hockey-Stick] shape, is nonetheless the produce [product] of an unintelligible and bizarrely complicated series of adjustments. Ironically, these adjustments produce a chronology that is functionally indistinguishable from a chronology of annual effects produced from a random effects model – further supporting the longstanding Climate Audit thesis that analysis of tree ring data ought to be done within the framework of random effects statistics.”

Marvel et al. – Gavin Schmidt admits key error but disputes everything else

A guest article by Nicholas Lewis, Climate Audit, Feb 11, 2016


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry

Is New York’s Climate-Speech Probe Constitutional?

By Walter Olson, Cato, Feb 9, 2016


Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015


Download with no charge


Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013




Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014




Governments should address Climate Hazards instead of futilely trying to stop Climate Change

By Bob Carter, Posted by Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Skeptics, Feb 8, 2016


Flipping two coins “That is as statistically accurate as CSIRO’s computer models. That is a result of chance and that is what the computer models also produce. No proven skill.”

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Long -Term Climate Change: What Is A Reasonable Sample Size?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Feb 7, 2016


The Profiteers of Doom Were Wrong About Climate

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon and David R. Legates, Breitbart, Feb 9, 2016


Defending the Orthodoxy

Here’s what climate scientists and activists would ask at the next presidential debate

By Tim McDonnell, Grist, Feb 11, 2016


Questioning the Orthodoxy

Marcott discovers that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” while saying “it’s worse than we thought”

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 8, 2016


Phytoplankton suck CO2 out of sky, dump to ocean floor

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 11, 2016


Link to paper: Plankton networks driving carbon export in the oligotrophic ocean

By Guidi, et al. Nature, Feb 12, 2016


The Climate Monkeys Howl

By Michael Kile, Quadrant, Feb 10, 2016


John Christy – Feb 2

“We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by pre-selected groups. This is not science.”

The record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965 -2014

Guest post by Ed Hoskins, Energy Matters, Feb 8, 2016 [H/t Anne Debeil]


After Paris?

Obama’s FY2017 Budget Includes $750 Million for ‘Green Climate Fund’

By Patrick Goodenough, CNS News, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


The Supreme Court May Have Nuked the Paris Climate Deal

By Nick Stockton, Wired.com, Feb 9, 2016


The Administration’s Plan

Supreme Court Stays Implementation of Clean Power Plan

By Thomas Overton, Power Mag, Feb 9, 2016


Link to order: North Dakota v. EPA et al. Supreme Court, Feb 9, 2016


The Motion that Won the Stay

By Marlo Lewis, Global Warming.org, Feb 11, 2016


Link to motion: State of West Virginia, State of Texas, et al., United States Environmental Protection Agency,


SCOTUS Stays EPA Clean Power Plan: The Good News And The Bad

By JV DeLong, Forbes, Feb 10, 2016


Spin Cycle: White House Spins SCOTUS Stay on Climate Plan

By Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, and Ilya Shapiro, Cato, Feb 12, 2016


Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperial Paris Climate Accord

By Coral Davenport, NYT Feb 10, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Does not discuss the administration’s failure to seek Congressional approval of its UN commitments. A new propaganda photo of cooling towers from a coal-fired power plant looming over private homes – probably taken with a telephoto lens giving a misleading perspective.]

You Ought to Have a Look: SCOTUS Stays Clean Power Plan, Paris Accord Imperiled, UN 1.5°C Nonsense.

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, Cato, Feb 12, 2016


More on the Supreme Court vs the EPA

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Obama: ‘Don’t despair’ over Supreme Court halting climate rule

By Devin Henry, The Hill, Feb 11, 2016


How Obama picked up the pieces on climate change

By Devin Henry, Timothy Cama and Jordan Fabian , The Hill, Feb 10, 2016


Obama to set first-ever climate rules for airlines

By John Siciliano, Washington Examiner, Feb 8, 2016


EPA is expected to finalize its endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions from commercial airliners this summer, the White House says. The finding represents the final step EPA must take before regulating aircraft emissions.

The Administration’s Plan – Independent Analysis

How Much Will Climate Change Rules Benefit Americans?

By Susan E. Dudley, Art Fraas, Ted Gayer, John Graham, Randall Lutter, Jason F. Shogren, & W. Kip Viscusi, Forbes Opinion, Feb 9, 2016


“A better approach would be to estimate and report the expected foreign benefits separately and transparently. The federal government has a duty to provide information about the reductions in domestic climate damages that may result from federal regulation. The current approach of reporting only the global benefits without providing estimates of the domestic benefits neglects that duty.”

The Administration’s Plan – Push-Back

Attorneys general say states should ignore Obama’s climate plan

By John Sciliano, Washington Examiner, Feb 10, 2016



Domenech: The EPA’s carbon rule will hurt Virginia

By Doug Domenech, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Feb 6, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Seeking a Common Ground

Debunking some myths about private sector scientists

By A Chemist in Langley, His blog, Feb 6, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


(Mis) communicating science in public controversies

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Feb 7, 2016


The politics behind the anti-fossil fuels campaign

Elites seek to transform the global economy

By Donn Dears and H. Sterling Burnett, Washington Times, Feb 10, 2016


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

Combined Ocean Acidification and Warming Effects on Sea Urchins

Garcia, E., Clemente, S. and Hernandez, J.C. 2015. Ocean warming ameliorates the negative effects of ocean acidification on Paracentrotus lividus larval development and settlement. Marine Environmental Research 110: 61-68., Feb 12, 2016


P. lividus was (1) “widely tolerant to a range of temperature and pH scenarios, representative of current and future predicted conditions,” that (2) “the species’ performance, in terms of larval growth and development, was enhanced by a slight increase in temperature, up from the control temperature of 19°C,” and that (3) “a slight increase in temperature even mitigated the negative effects of low pH (7.4),” which further suggests, as they write, that (4) “rising sea surface temperature may counteract some of the negative effects of ocean acidification for this species.”

Microclimates Reduce Extinction Rates Driven by Climate Change

Maclean, I.M.D., Hopkins, J.J., Bennie, J., Lawson, C.R. and Wilson, R.J. 2015. Microclimates buffer the responses of plant communities to climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 24: 1340-1350. Feb 10, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Do not overgeneralize based on what occurs in one location.]

Dying from the Summer Heat Waves of 1996-2012 in Slovakia

Vyberci, D., Svec, M., Fasko, P., Savinova, H., Trizna, M. and Micietova, E. 2015. The effects of the 1996-2012 summer heat events on human mortality in Slovakia. Moravian Geographical Reports 23: 58-70. Feb 9, 2016


However, they also report that “the most extreme heat periods were commonly followed by a deficit in mortality,” due to the deaths of “people with poor health,” who would have died “in a very short period of time anyway, regardless of the weather” (see figure below), as had earlier been found to be the case by Gosling et al. (2014). And so they confirmed that “an extreme weather event in fact does not cause true excess mortality, but only a short-term shift in deaths among terminally-ill people,” as had also been found to be the case by Martiello and Giancchi (2010).

The Ability of CMIP5 Models to Hindcast Basic Climate Features

Hidalgo, H.G. and Alfaro, E.J. 2015. Skill of CMIP5 climate models in reproducing 20th century basic climate features in Central America. International Journal of Climatology 35: 3397-3421. Feb 8, 2016


Measurement Issues

Are land + sea averages meaningful?

By Staff Writer, Climategrog, Feb 9, 2016


Assessing U.S. temperature adjustments using the Climate Reference Network

By Zeke Hausfather, Climate Etc. Feb 9, 2016


Decline in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Overestimated by More Than a Third

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Cato, Feb 10, 2016


Hottest year ever update: El Niño effect in 2015 was 20 times larger than the global warming signal

Guest essay by Sheldon Walker, WUWT, Feb 4, 2016


Study proves urban heat islands exist, even in the Arctic

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 10, 2016


The Pause hangs on by its fingernails

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, WUWT, Feb 6, 2016


Changing Weather

El Niño is a record breaker: Phenomenon has smashed 1997 record in past three months, scientists confirm

The phenomenon, which causes extreme weather, is triggered by a warming sea surface in the Pacific Ocean

Past 3 months score 2.31 on oceanic Niño index – one of the measures of changes in sea surface temperatures

This compares to 2.26 for the previous strongest El Niño in 1997, claims Jan Null, a Californian meteorologist

By Ellie Zolfagharifard, Daily Mail, UK, Feb 5, 2016


NASA Global Hawk to Begin NOAA El Nino Storm Mission

By Staff Writers, Edwards AFB CA (SPX), Feb 09, 2016


Changing Climate

A Two-Millennia Relationship Between Climate and Economic Data

By Craig Idso, Cato, Feb 11, 2016


“Against this backdrop, Wei et al. set out to investigate the long-term relationship between the climate and economy of China. More specifically, they derived a 2,130-year long record of the Chinese economy based on 1,091 records extracted from 25 books on Chinese history and economic history, spanning the period 220 BC to 1910 AD.”

The Younger Dryas

By Staff Writers, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Accessed Feb 13, 2016


“The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade.”

Geoffrey Parker’s Account Of The Little Ice Age – Part II

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 11, 2016


Part I:


Melting of massive ice ‘lid’ resulted in huge release of carbon dioxide at the end of the ice age

A new study of how the structure of the ocean has changed since the end of the last ice age suggest that the melting of a vast ‘lid’ of sea ice caused the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

By Staff Writers, Science News, Jan 4, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Link to paper: Evolution of South Atlantic density and chemical stratification across the last deglaciation

By Roberts, et al. PNAS, Jan 19, 2016


New ‘Little Ice Age’ coincides with fall of Eastern Roman Empire and growth of Arab Empire

By Staff Writers, Washington DC (SPX), Feb 09, 2016


Link to paper: Cooling and societal change during the Late Antique Little Ice Age from 536 to around 660 AD

By Buntgen, et al. Nature Geoscience, Feb 8, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Well-known to students of climate history.]

Long Cold Spell Dooms Climate Agenda

By Larry Bell, Newmax, Feb 8, 2016


@NCAR claims: U.S. Southwest sliding into a drier climate, and it’s all your fault

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 11, 2016


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Arctic Sea Ice Trend May Have Turned The Corner As Ice Volume Picks Up Over Past 5 Years

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Feb 12, 2016


Atlantic Sea Ice Could Grow in the Next Decade

Changing ocean circulation in the North Atlantic could lead to winter sea ice coverage remaining steady and even growing in select regions.

By Lily Strelich, EOS, Feb 4, 2016


Link to paper: Predicted slowdown in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss

By Yeager, Karspeck, and Danabasoglu, Geophysical Research Letters, Dec 29, 2016


Un-Science or Non-Science?

Tail Wind

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Feb 10, 2016


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

Record Missouri flooding was manmade calamity

By Staff Writers, St. Louis MO (SPX), Feb 09, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Failed to state: unrelated to human caused climate change!]

Study asks: How stable is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? Then says doom ahead.

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 10, 2016


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Sea turtles with tumors fill Florida hospital

By Kerry Sheridan

Marathon, United States (AFP) Feb 7, 2016


“Green sea turtles were first listed as endangered species in 1976, but are now nesting in record numbers – 28,000 nests counted last year in Florida, up from fewer than 500 decades ago.

‘Experts still don’t understand quite how the virus [infecting turtles] spreads, or what causes it, though some research has pointed to agricultural runoff, pollution and global warming.”

[SEPP Comment: Global warming – the cause of all ills, now that atmospheric nuclear testing has stopped.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?

The outrage! One third of US teachers bring climate denial to the classroom

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 12, 2016


Link to report: First nationwide survey of climate change education

How is climate change being taught in America’s public schools? The answers may shock you

By Staff Writers, Science Daily, Feb 11, 2016


Link to paper: Climate confusion among U.S. teachers

By Plutzer, McCaffrey, Hannah, Rosenau, Berbeco, and Reid, Science, Feb 12, 2016


“Until today’s release of NCSE’s comprehensive nationwide survey, no one knew. The survey, conducted in concert with the respected nonpartisan Penn State University Survey Research Center, grilled over 1500 middle and high school science teachers. The results may floor you.

[SEPP Comment: Was Mr. Mann “grilled”?]

These Academics Are Pissed There’s Too Much Global Warming ‘Denial’ In Science Classes

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Feb 12, 2016


Expanding the Orthodoxy

About Attribution of Climate Events

By Staff Writers, ACE/NCAR, No date (2012?) [H/t Michael Kile]


Full Brochure: Reanalysis and Attribution: Understanding How and Why Recent Climate Has Varied and Changed

By Staff Writers, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, [now USGCRP] No Date (accessed 2-13-16)


Pentagon orders commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions

By Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, Feb 7, 2016


Intelligence Director: Climate Change Could Lead to Larger Refugee Crisis

By Melanie Hunter, CNS News, Feb 9, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


SEC’s Plans to Determine If Additional Action Is Needed on Climate-Related Disclosure Have Evolved

By Staff Writers, GAO, Feb 8, 2016


Questioning European Green

DECC Must Resume Publication of Policy Price Impacts

By John Constable, GWPF, Feb 7, 2016


Greens blighting communities

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Feb 10, 2016


Questioning Green Elsewhere

Military’s Green Push Is A Threat To America’s Security

Editorial, IBD, Feb 8, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Survival International accuses WWF of involvement in violence and abuse

Press Release by Staff Writers, Survival International, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Link to Complaint: Survival International Charitable Trust v. The World Wide Fund for Nature under OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Lodged with the Swiss National Conct Point, (.. “legal responsibility for WWF operations in Cameroon rests with WWF in Switzerland.”)

Funding Issues

CSIRO wipes out climate division – 350 scientists to go – since it’s “beyond debate” who needs em?

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Feb 4, 2016


Delicious Irony Re CSIRO and Prof Bob Carter

By Goeff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Feb 8, 2016


Climate Science Is Settled, Except When It’s Not

By Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph, UK, Via GWPF, Feb 11, 2016


CSIRO scientist on climate: “We don’t know what the heck is waiting for us”

By Jo Nova, Here Blog, Feb 9, 2016


CSIRO boss defends shake-up, says politics of climate ‘more like religion than science’

By Jake Sturmer, ABC, Feb 11, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Clean energy research central to Energy Dept budget request

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Feb 9, 2016


“The Obama administration is highlighting a 21 percent increase in clean energy research funding as a top priority in its Department of Energy (DOE) budget request.

“The agency wants $5.85 billion in fiscal year 2017 for clean energy research as part of its $32.5 billion request to Congress. The overall budget is a 10 percent increase from the previous year.”

The Political Games Continue

Clinton Proposes to End Use of Fossil Fuels, All for No Purpose

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Feb 10, 2016


House passes bill to establish stricter limits for scientific research grants

By Cristina Marcos, The Hill, Feb 10, 2016


Qatar-Funded Brookings Institution Scraps Annual Doha Energy Conference

Gulf countries and their supplicants under financial pressure due to plunging oil prices

By Alana Goodman, Washington Free Beacon, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: No calls for investigation of Brookings of its funding from oil interests?]

Litigation Issues

Welsh village to sue government over ‘alarmist’ rising sea level claim

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 12, 2016


Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

Obama proposes $320B for ‘clean transportation’

By Keith Laing, The Hill, Feb 9, 2016


Obama’s New Oil Tax – Dead on Arrival

Editorial, IER, Feb 9, 2016


Obama’s budget will not lead to $10 oil tax: Kemp

By John Kemp, Reuters, Feb 5, 2016


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

NREL to Universities on Solar PPAs: The Whole Story?

By Glenn Schleede, Master Resource, Feb 9, 2016


EPA and other Regulators on the March

EPA chief downplays ‘covert propaganda’

By Jennevieve Fong, The Hill, Feb 11, 2016


[SEPP Comment: To this EPA, a GAO finding against it is propaganda?]

A Green Mess: Is EPA in Hot Water Over Alaska’s Bristol Bay?

Obama wants clean-power cars while the EPA undermines the mining of copper needed for their motors.

By Ned Mamula and Patrick J. Michaels, American Spectator, Feb 11, 2016


EPA: Mine spill dumped 880,000 pounds of metals in river

By Dan Elliott, AP, Feb 5, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Energy Department seeks stricter light bulb efficiency standards

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Feb 12, 2016


Emails: EPA Rushed to Resolve Tesla’s ‘Million Dollar’ Bureaucratic Snafu

CEO Elon Musk enlisted agency chief to preserve Tesla customers’ federal tax break

By Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Energy Issues – Non-US

BP Energy Outlook 2016

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Feb 12, 2016


Outlook to 2035

Energy consumption is expected to increase by 34% between 2014 and 2035, according to BP’s Energy Outlook

By Staff Writers, BP, February 2016


“Fossil fuels are expected to provide around 60% of the increase in energy to 2035”

“Renewables are projected to be the fastest growing fuel, up 6.6% p.a. to 2035”

World’s Largest Energy Trader Sees a Decade of Low Oil Prices

By Javier Blas and Ryan Chilcote, Bloomberg, Feb 8, 2016


The Middle East Solar Market Is Set for a Big 2016, But Experts Worry About Risks

By Jason Deign, Green Tech Media, Feb 11, 2016


Energy Issues – US

Electric Co-ops Launch “Community Storage” Initiative

By Gail Reitenbach, Power Mag, Feb 10, 2016


Link to report: The Hidden Battery: Opportunities in Electric Water Heating

By Hiedik, Chang, and Lueken, The Brattle Group, Jan 2016


“This report was prepared for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Peak Load Management Alliance (PLMA).”

Initial production rates in tight oil formations continue to rise

By Michael Mobilia, Jozef Lieskovsky, Richard Yan, EIA, Feb 11, 2016


Washington’s Control of Energy

TransCanada posts $2.5-billion loss on Keystone charge, hikes dividend

By Rebecca Penty, Bloomberg, Feb 11, 2016


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Important lessons we can learn from the hysteria about peak oil (2005-2013)

By Staff Writers, Fabius Maximus, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


The Villain in the Wings

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Feb 12, 2016


New study finds no methane from drilling in Ohio water wells

By Bob Downing, Ohio.com, Feb 10, 2016


“I’m really sad to say this but some of our funders, the groups that had given us funding in the past, were a little disappointed in our results. They feel that fracking is scary and so they were hoping our data could point to a reason to ban it.”

BP outlook: American shale gas revolution to go global by 2035

By Collin Eaton, Fuel Fix, Feb 10, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Crude Hits Hurdle as U.S. Gasoline Glut Puts Brakes on Refining

By Dan Murtaugh and Barbara Powell, Bloomberg, Feb 11, 2916


Return of King Coal?

In about-face, environment ministry to OK coal plants [Japan]

By Staff Writers, Nikkei Asian Review, Feb 6, 2016


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

Workers close off methane leak in California

By Devin Henry, The Hill, Feb 12, 2016


Nuclear Energy and Fears

Opinion: Don’t go nuclear on climate change just yet

By Yousaf Butt, Climate Etc. Feb 11, 2016


Competition to Achieve Viable Nuclear Fusion Heating Up

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Feb 6, 2016


Fusion vs fission: clean, green nuclear energy technologies explained

By Stuart Gary, ABC News, AU, Feb 8, 2016


That’s cute, Germany – China shows the world how fusion is done

Heats hydrogen more than three times hotter than the sun

By Iain Thompson, The Register, Feb 6, 2016


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

(Guaranteed) power to the people

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Feb 11, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Comparing two energy projects: one reliable, the other not reliable and subsidized. The unreliable one appears to be more costly to consumers and the public]

Solar from Space? (DOE subsidies here too)

By Donn Dears, Master Resource, Feb 10, 2016


The High Cost of Renewables

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Feb 9, 2016


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Other

Why Japan Wants to Fell and Burn Its Forests

By Staff Writers, American Interest, Feb 8, 2016


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles + Airplanes

An Inconvenient truth: Electric-car battery materials could harm key soil bacteria

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 10, 2016


Piloted, Electric Propulsion-Powered Experimental Aircraft Underway

By Jay Levine, NASA Armstrong Flight Center, Feb 8, 2016 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


California Dreaming

California Utility Axes Big Pumped Storage Project

By Thomas Overton, Power Mag, Feb 9, 2016


Link to statement: SMUD cancels Iowa Hill project

By Staff Writers, SMUD, Feb 5, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The stated options include compressed-air energy storage, microgrids and small, flexible generating units fueled by natural gas as well as adding a new transmission line to bring power (mostly hydro) from the Pacific Northwest.]

California’s push for clean energy is paying off

By David Hochschild and Matthew Freedman, Sacrament Bee, Feb 11, 2016


“Since adoption of the first renewable portfolio standard in 2002, increases to average retail rates charged by utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co., have been lower than the rate of inflation. During this same period, with innovation from Silicon Valley and elsewhere, solar power costs have declined to one-tenth of what they were. Today, utility-scale solar and wind have reached cost parity with fossil fuels.”

[SEPP Comment: No statement on who provides back-up and at what cost?]

Other Scientific News

Flint water crisis: profiles in scientific courage

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Feb 8, 2016


Other News that May Be of Interest

Early humans NOT climate change were responsible for wiping out Australia’s giant prehistoric animals, new evidence shows

By Charlotte Mortlock For Daily Mail Australia, Feb 12, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Unable to link to paper


Fossilized Thinking

In a simplistic and tedious new book, Andreas Malm argues that full Communism is the only cure for global warming.

By Robert Bryce, City Journal, Feb 5, 2016


The EPA is out of control – now they want to ban hobby race cars

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Feb 9, 2016


Saved, but the party’s still over

By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions, Feb 9, 2016


“According to climate scientist James Hansen, we are never going to see another ice age, ever. When the ice melts it will not be replaced. Ice extent will fluctuate from year to year, and some climate change deniers will selectively point to recovery years, but there is only a downward escalator. Which means, unless dangerous climate change is addressed, for some of us today, and many more tomorrow, the party will definitely be over.” The Conversation, 20 Sep 2013


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 Goldilocks Approach to Global Warming

By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Feb 8, 2016


SUMMARY: Activists who advocate controlling carbon dioxide emissions chose a 2⁰C in temperatures. Based on the history, Singer describes his views on how this number came about. It is not too high or not too low – just right.

2. A Supreme Carbon Rebuke

The Justices issue an historic stay on Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

Editorial, WSJ, Feb 10, 2016


SUMMARY: The editors write: “When President Obama hasn’t had his way on climate, immigration and so much else, he’s rewritten the law and dared critics to stop him. Well, the Supreme Court has accepted his invitation with an extraordinary rebuke.”

“On Tuesday the High Court put a legal stay on the Administration’s rules to control carbon emissions in the states, known as the Clean Power Plan, pending judicial review. Challengers seeking stays must overcome fearsome legal criteria, and they are rarely granted.

“Yet for the first time five Justices blocked what’s known as a “generally applicable regulation.” The one-page order prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Clean Power Plan until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the merits, presumably with the Supreme Court as the final word.

“The Clean Power Plan nominally applies to power plants, but the EPA is instructing states to reorganize their energy economies across industries and even households. The Court did not explain its reasoning, and the four liberal Justices dissented. David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman, among the counsel to the 27 states that brought the suit, have more legal details nearby.” Article # 3

“The stay is an important rebuke to the political method of the anticarbon activists in the EPA and White House. Ditching fossils fuels will be a capital-intensive and generation-long transition, to the extent it is possible, and states must submit compliance plans as soon as this September that are supposed to last through 2030, or be subject to a federal takeover.

“The legal challenges will take years, but the EPA hopes to engineer a fait accompli by bullrushing the states into making permanent revisions immediately. Once the Clean Power Plan starts, it becomes self-executing. If the EPA loses down the road, it will laugh that the opinion is too late and thus pointless.

“The White House has been right about the success of its damn-the-law strategy – so far. Last year in Michigan v. EPA the Court voided a 2012 rule on mercury emissions. The chief EPA air administrator then gloated on the EPA website that the ruling didn’t matter because “the majority of power plants are already in compliance or well on their way to compliance” and “we are still on track.”

“The stay suggests that a majority of the Court won’t allow this deliberate gaming of the slow pace of the legal process to become de facto immunity for anything the EPA favors. It’s especially notable because courts tend to be highly deferential to executive regulation.

“The stay is also a warning to the D.C. Circuit, which will hear the case in June. Harry Reid packed that appellate court with liberal judges to serve as adjuncts of the regulatory state. The panel hearing the Clean Power Plan case denied the states’ request for a stay. When the Michigan case was remanded last year, the D.C. Circuit even refused to vacate the mercury rule that the Supreme Court said was illegal – on the circular logic that most power plants had already obeyed. The Justices seem more willing to defend the authority of the Constitution’s Article III courts.

“The stay means in practice that the Clean Power Plan is stopped cold through Mr. Obama’s Presidency, and states can safely ignore the EPA’s threats until the courts rule on the merits. Even Democratic Governors may decide to wait given the uncertainty and billions of dollars their taxpayers would have to foot.

“Credit here goes to some rebellious state Attorneys General like West Virginia’s Patrick Morrisey who haven’t acquiesced when Mr. Obama’s government has violated sovereign state prerogatives. Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt deserves particular credit for developing the federalist arguments and exposing how the Clean Power Plan commandeers states.

“The larger point is that Mr. Obama’s six years of governance-through-executive-order make his a fragile legacy. Unilateral gambits can be reversed by the next President, and the other branches of government are finally reasserting their constitutional powers. As anarchic as politics can seem these days, the American system of government is still on track – sometimes.”

3. Pulling the Plug on Obama’s Power Plan

The Supreme Court sent a clear message: Your clean-energy strong-arming campaign must stop.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman, Feb 10, 2016


SUMMARY: Messrs. Rivkin and Grossman practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington, D.C., and are counsel in the case on behalf of plan challengers. The two attorneys write:

“President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is dead and will not be resurrected. The cause of death was hubris. As a result, the plan’s intended victims – including the national coal industry, the rule of law and state sovereignty – will live to fight another day.

“…the Supreme Court put President Obama’s signature climate initiative on hold while a lower court considers challenges brought by industry opponents and 27 states. That stay will remain in effect through the end of Mr. Obama’s presidency, until the Supreme Court has a chance to hear the case – in 2017 at the earliest..”

“Not since the court blocked President Harry Truman’s seizure of the steel industry has it so severely rebuked a president’s abuse of power.

“The dubious legal premise of the Clean Power Plan was that Congress, in an all-but-forgotten 1970s-era provision of the Clean Air Act, had empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to displace the states in regulating power generation. The EPA, in turn, would use that authority to mandate a shift from fossil-fuel-fired plants to renewables. The effect would be to institute by fiat the “cap and trade” scheme for carbon emissions that the Obama administration failed to push through Congress in 2009.

“The legal defects inherent in this scheme are legion. For one, in a ruling two years ago the court held that the EPA couldn’t conjure up authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance” absent a clear statement from Congress. Thus, the EPA may have the authority to require power plants to operate more efficiently and to install reasonable emissions-reduction technologies. But nothing authorizes the agency to pick winners (solar, wind) and losers (coal) and order generation to be shifted from one to the other, disrupting billion-dollar industries in the process.

“The agency also overstepped its legal authority by using a tortured redefinition of “system of emission reduction.” That statutory term has always been taken to give authority to regulate plant-level equipment and practices. Instead the EPA contorted the term to apply to the entire power grid. That redefinition, while necessary for the EPA to mount its attack on traditional power sources, violates the rule that federal statutes must be interpreted, absent a clear indication to the contrary, to maintain the existing balance of power between the federal government and the states. Federal law has long recognized states’ primacy in regulating their electric utilities, the economic aspects of power generation and transmission, and electric reliability.

“Worse, the Clean Power Plan commandeers the states and their officials to do the dirty work that the EPA can’t. The agency seeks to phase out coal-fired plants, but it lacks any ability to regulate electric reliability, control how and when plants are run, oversee the planning and construction of new generators and transmission lines, or take any other of the many steps necessary to bring the plan to fruition.

“Only the states can do those things, and the plan simply assumes that they will: Because, if they refuse, and the federal government forces coal-plan retirements, the result would be catastrophic, featuring regular blackouts, threats to public health and safety and unprecedented spikes in electricity prices.

“The EPA defended this approach before the Supreme Court during legal arguments leading up to Tuesday’s stay order as a “textbook exercise of cooperative federalism.” But the textbook – our Constitution as interpreted by the court in case after case – guarantees that the states can’t be dragooned into administering federal law and implementing federal policy. Their sovereignty and political accountability require that they have the power to decline any federal entreaty. The Clean Power Plan denies them that choice.

“No doubt the court was swayed by evidence that the states already are laboring to accommodate the plan’s forced retirement and reduced utilization of massive amounts of generating capacity. Given the years that it takes to bring new capacity online, not even opponents of the plan could afford to wait for the conclusion of judicial review to begin carrying out the EPA’s mandate.

“By all appearances, that was the Obama administration’s strategy for forcing the Clean Power Plan, legal warts and all, into effect. After the court ruled last term that the EPA’s rule regulating power plants’ hazardous air emissions was unlawful, the agency bragged that the judgment wouldn’t make a difference because the plants had already been forced to comply or retire during the years of litigation. The Clean Power Plan doubled down on that approach.

“It’s one thing for a rule to be unlawful – which happens, and rarely merits a stay – but another for it to be lawless. This one was lawless. That is why the court had to act: to reassert the rule of law over an executive who believes himself above it.”

[SEPP Comment: EPA’s claim of textbook Federalism is particularly rich. The idea of Federalism stems from the arguments in favor of adopting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, the nation was dissolving due to financial woes and bickering among the states. Federalism was built on the idea that central government was needed, but its powers are to be few defined and limited.]

4. As Oil Profits Plunge, Gulf Regimes Weigh the Unmentionable: Taxes

Era of oil-enriched budget surpluses all but past, as officials scramble for fresh sources of revenue

By Nicolas Parasie, WSJ, Feb 10, 2016


SUMMARY: The reporter writes: “After toying with the idea for nearly a decade, six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council group of countries – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – have agreed to introduce a value-added tax across the region in 2018” in the range of 3-5%.

There are large gaps in the budgets of most countries in the Middle East that the tax policies will change. “How to navigate these waters is shaping up as an enormous political challenge for the Gulf’s Sunni Arab monarchies. Most remain wary about adopting a heavier tax regime, reluctant to risk damaging the region’s status as a tax haven or alarming indigenous populations accustomed to often lavish, cradle-to-grave welfare systems.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 15, 2016 12:25 am

Supreme Court’s Blow to Emissions Efforts May Imperial [Imperil?] Paris Climate Accord

Reply to  lee
February 15, 2016 7:11 am

So, like, I was reading over the Climate Depot blog yesterday, when I happened to latch onto a link, there: (Google: “Climate Scepticism Oreskes Death Cult Tweet”). And so reading through the whole post, at the linked “Climate Scepticism” blog, I was delighted to find cited some urgent, little, Aaron McCright-genic twitter-boogers, in addition to Oreskes’ typical, attention-seeking tweets–the latter yet more examples of Oreskes’ incessant, pathetic, “Norma Desmond” copy-kat comeback-bids for the hive’s alpha queenbee-gig, she once owned, but lost to that insufferable, pushy, Pol Pot-wannabe “other Naomi”–and here, when I say the “other Naomi” I mean, like, the one, you know, with all the pantsuit-phobic, white-flaunt, FoxNews, hot-babe good-looks; you know, like, the “other Naomi” who could be easily mistaken for one of Trump’s ex-wives, for cryin’ out loud!; you know, like, the “other Naomi” who shamelessly schemed to get all that face-time with the Pope, and everything!–that perfect, little, conniving…I won’t say it!
But, anyways, back to the estimable Aaron McCright–remember that guy? No? Well, let me help everyone out. Aaron is the screw-up, little-operator, Gruber-clone hive-bozo who was the author of a paper that blew up in his face, and that was the subject of a blog-post, here at WUWT, a month or two ago. And that blog-post, in turn, inspired a rollicking pinata-party, in the attached comments section, that was all at the delightful expense of Aaron’s doofus, damage-control misadventures–yep!, that’s the guy!. So, anyway, one of Aaron’s more memorable tweets, noted in the “Climate Scepticism” blog-post, sought to, zinger-wise, disparage that most beloved icon of American manhood–sitting down?–“The Duke”, himself! But let Aaron speak in his own words: “in case you don’t know John Wayne was an angry, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, homophobic moist turd of a man”–CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!!
So like you, dear fellow reader, I was wonderin’ just what’s gotten into Aaron so that he would, outta nowhere, and kinda all tourette’s syndrome-like, go so completely spastic-dork, ape-shit crazy over a revered film-star of yester-year, and all. Hard to figure, but here’s my best shot: the young Aaron was a big “disappointment” to his dad, I’m thinkin’–and I mean, like, a really, really big “disappointment”, and everything. And so, like, all of those inevitable, unhappy memories, that Aaron consequently acquired in his youth , I’m further thinkin’, have since festered in Aaron’s now wrapped-too-tight, mutant pea-brain, so that they’ve assumed a warped, father-figure alignment with Rooster Cogburn and Sgt Stryker and the Ringo Kid and Davy Crockett, even! –you know, like, fictional characters who you just know didn’t disappoint their dads, even a little bit. In other words, Aaron is a real sick puppy.
But just to show Aaron that I harbor no hard feelings over his snot-nosed, PC-scold twitter-abomination, above, I’ve taken the time and effort to work up a special, little “item” for Aaron–his very own “body-excretion” metaphor, similar to the one he applied to John Wayne. In particular, I would like to “gift” Aaron with the sobriquet “pustule ooze”–and I employ this metaphorical moniker with no thought that it might refer to Aaron in terms of some sort of wanker-normative, manually-transmitted, incurable, but non-fatal STD (though I also don’t want to rule out the real possibility of such a thing), but rather, my characterization of Aaron as “pustule ooze” is only meant to capture the essence of his personality, with all its attendant “issues” that, I would speculate, so disappointed “John Wayne” (dad).

February 15, 2016 3:04 am

“modeling is not theory”
Wrong. A scientist creates a theory and embodies it into a computer model. The model is an incarnation of the theory.

Reply to  Hivemind
February 15, 2016 5:52 am

Gathering evidence, measuring actual situations and reconciling these back to the models.
This IS experimenting.
One is testing in order to disprove the models.
The Scientific Method, no?

Brandon M
February 15, 2016 3:44 am

Hi to all, I am an everyday all day reader here. I’m not a climate expert but I educate myself like I am. Lol
Any way I’d like to share a link with all you researchers and experts out there. That’s if you don’t already know about Sci-Hub( http://sci-hub.io/ ). It supposedly can get access to any paywalled research paper in the world, so long as you know what your looking for the Sci Hub boasts it can get it for you free of charge. I hope this helps in the fight for Truth in Science especially Climate Science.

Harry Passfield
February 15, 2016 4:27 am

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”Corollary: Ignorance does not cease to exist because of facts: Harry Passfield.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 15, 2016 4:28 am

screwed the /blockquote. Sorry mods.

Reply to  Harry Passfield
February 15, 2016 6:44 am

Sticky fingers ??

kevin kilty
February 15, 2016 6:05 am

I am sorry to have to dispute facts with Christopher Essex, prof. of applied mathematics, but if one can demonstrate that conditions under which observations were gathered cover a table of contrasts for likely causes, then the observations become experiments. Even if they do not cover the full table of contrasts the observations might reduce the effort involved in completing adequate experimentation. TWTW was too hasty in agreeing with his point.

Evan Jones
February 15, 2016 7:04 am

Look at it from a wargamers’ perspective:
CO2 is a likely suspect for a number of good reasons.
First, it has increased ~40%. And it’s not a matter of “twice nothing is still nothing” because it has a big effect. That first 100ppm is a whopper. We are at the diminishing-returns end of the curve, so the current raw effect is ~+1.1C per doubling. Not much. But not nothing, either.
Second, the oft-repeated lab experiments after Arrhenius (1906). It is not a field experiment, but it demonstrates the basic effect.
Third, the recent direct satellite observations of CO2 absroption/re-emission. So the effect does happen. But these observations do not include a systematic quantification. So the question remains, as always, “How Much?”
I think it is more likely that the models blew it on vapor vs. low-level cloud feedback than on the basic CO2 mechanism. We are warming medium-term at about the rate of raw CO2 forcing. But net positive feedback was supposed to triple that. Hasn’t happened.

February 15, 2016 8:27 am

I had a look through those heartland Institute publications for their projections of future climate but I did not see any. It is easy to poke holes in other’s work, but if you want to by taken seriously and think you understand the science better, then they should make a prediction, like a good scientist.
For example, they say “Evidence is accruing that changes in Earth’s surface temperature are largely driven by variations in solar activity.”
In that case it should be relatively easy to project the climate forward given certain solar activities. We can then look back and see if they were accurate. Testability they call it. Otherwise it is bluster.

spangled drongo
Reply to  seaice1
February 15, 2016 4:35 pm

Or then again, with the known degree of natural climate variability compared with the unknown effects of solar variations and ACO2 and nat var being at least the equal of current observed warming, it is up to the warmists to do the quantifying.

Reply to  spangled drongo
February 16, 2016 3:06 am

It is up to the scientists to explain climate. The only ones I see trying to do this are those that also think CO2 is a significanlt factor. Those that do not think CO2 is a factor have come up with nothing at all to explain climate except an extremely weak and unscientific theory “Its natural”.
Until they can come up with an actual explanation of what aspects of nature are causing climate changes, I don’t think they can be taken seriously.
If it is mostly down to the sun, as claimed in the heartland institute publication I quoted, then it should be quite simple to predict what comes next – or to publish projections based on different solar scenarios. The fact that they do not do so is a huge red flag to me that they don’t have much faith in the “its mostly the sun” hypothesis.

Allan MacRae
February 16, 2016 2:59 am

This post on SC24 is interesting:
Question: When will natural global cooling start?
In 2002 we wrote that global cooling would start by 2020 to 2030.
We now say global cooling will start before 2020, probably by 2017.
[Definition: The commencement of global cooling is deemed to start when the Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperature anomaly as measured by UAH satellite data starts to decline below the +0.2C anomaly and the trend then declines further.]
Bragging rights to whoever gets it right.
Ladies and germs – faites vos jeux!

February 17, 2016 5:00 am

“Corrections and Additions: Professor of Applied Mathematics Christopher Essex correctly writes that modeling is not theory…”
Bogus! A model, since it is an embodiment of a theory, itself is theory. Saying that a model is not theory is a corruption of truth and science.

February 17, 2016 5:22 am

Don’t assume that the Clean Power Plan is Dead!
I’ll bet that EPA wonks are working right this minute to write other regulations which will just happen to include everything in the CPP. When a stay of these regs gets to the SCOTUS, the vote will be 4 to 4, meaning that it will fail. (No autopsy indeed!)

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights