Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #223

The Week That Was: 2016-04-23 (April 23, 2016) 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)

Three Groups: MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology Richard Lindzen is featured in a very clear four-minute video explaining the ongoing conflicts regarding the human influence on global warming, (now called climate change), primarily from emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). He divides the participants into three groups: 1) knowable scientists who largely agree with the findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its 5 assessment reports (ARs); 2) knowable scientists who largely disagree with the findings of the IPCC that burning of fossil fuels may cause dangerous global warming, and 3) politicians, environmentalists, and the media. [It should be noted that a number of scientists in group 2 participated in earlier IPCC reports, including Mr. Lindzen, and departed from it. Some stated that the IPCC has become too politicized.]

Lindzen notes that the two groups of scientists who disagree on the effects of burning of fossil fuels largely agree on a surprising number of points.

· The climate is always changing.

· CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

· Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

· Over the past two centuries, the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius.

· Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.

Some may find the last point surprising. But, the IPCC fourth assessment report (AR-4, 2007) stated that: “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Here we see a major problem between what the groups 1 & 2 scientists have articulated and what members of group 3, the politicians, environmentalists, and the media, have claimed. Unfortunately, the clamor created by group 3 has virtually drowned out the clear agreement between groups 1 & 2, and the sharp distinctions between them. According to Lindzen, group 3 have their own reasons –money, power, and ideology – to promote a catastrophic scenario. The impact of group 3 is making pure scientific research into the actual influence of carbon dioxide on the climate very difficult.

Adding to the difficulty is the participation of scientists who are not knowledgeable on the climate science issues and business interests hoping to benefit from the fear of global warming, mostly from subsidies or direct payments for “green” energy technologies, which governments continue to lavishly provide. Lindzen does not give this subset of group 3 a name, or label. He does state that they have joined the bandwagon of group 3 and are publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war.

If we term the scientific debates as the climate wars, the latter group can be termed as climate war profiteers, or climate profiteers. These include scientists who contribute little or nothing to the scientific issues, frequently incorrectly stating the issues, and who hope to advance their careers by making a fuss out of little. Examples include those who attack climate skeptics for irrelevant reasons, such as being allegedly paid by tobacco interests, and those who manufacture a non-existing consensus, or use inferior polls to declare a consensus or an agreement where one does not exist. Of course, politicians and state attorneys general who are calling for investigation of private individuals and groups skeptical of dangerous human-caused global warming fall into this group of climate profiteers.

Lindzen’s short video greatly clarifies the myriad of motivations of those advocating political policies in the name of “climate science” and make anyone reading an article that states “scientists say” very skeptical. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Challenging the Orthodoxy – NIPCC.


Quote of the Week: Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. – Bertrand Russell-Unpopular Essays


Number of the Week: $315 Billion


National Security: A disturbing trend in the Department of Defense is its alternative energy programs under the claim that these are needed for national security. As explained under Number of the Week in the April 16 TWTW, less than 13% of the petroleum products (crude oil, gasoline, etc.) consumed in the US in 2015 came from outside of North America (US., Canada and Mexico). This shift in oil production, with no thanks to the administration, which limits production on Federally controlled lands and waters, renders the need for alternative energy programs in the name of national security obsolete, including the US Navy’s “Green Fleet.” [How bio-fuels can be ramped up to meet sudden military needs still remains to be a mystery.]

In striking testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works on April 13, 2016, US Army retired Major General Robert H. Scales stated what he thought about global warming/climate change as a threat to national security:


“The common spark for all wars is jealousy and greed [,] amplified by centuries-long animosities and political ambitions. The catalyst for war is the ignorance of leaders that leads them to misjudge. Humans start wars believing they will be profitable, short, glorious and bloodless. These truths never change. None are affected in the least by air temperature.


“But the myth of climate change as an inducement to war continues to curry favor among Washington elites. One source for connecting war to temperature comes from the political closeness between environmentalists and the antiwar movement. Their logic goes like this: ‘Global warming is bad. Wars are bad. Therefore, they must be connected.’ Remember, prior to the 1991 Gulf War, environmentalists warned of a decade of global cooling that would come from burning Kuwaiti oil fields…

“In its zeal to follow orders the military might deflect resources away from fighting the war against global terrorism to fight a contrived war against global warming. Every dollar spent on initiatives that don’t apply directly to fighting the enemy and keeping our soldiers and Marines safe on the battlefield is a dollar needlessly wasted. Again, no soldier should die in battle for the sake of political correctness. [Boldface added]

“Our men and women in uniform are smart and perceptive. They can spot phoniness in a heartbeat. Think of a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq returning from a dangerous and exhausting mission being obliged to listen to a senior defense official lecture them on the revelation that fighting climate change is their most important mission.


“These men and women see the realities of battle all around them. The military threat of rising temperatures is not one of them.”

The Pentagon’s emphasis of global warming/climate change is becoming too similar to its previous claim that the US can win in Southeast Asia purely by committing enough manpower, without a strategic plan. See Article # 1.


Need for Fossil Fuels: At the same hearing as General Scales, Alex Epstein, the author of the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, testified:

“Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and air-conditioning, drought relief, and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, overwhelmingly from fossil fuels.”

A moral energy policy is one that liberates all the energy technologies, including fossil fuels,

nuclear, and large-scale hydro, and lets them compete to the utmost to provide the most

affordable, reliable energy for the most people.

Epstein’s testimony also stated: “The United States should learn from the failed German experiment; instead, our President is doubling down on it many times over. And, just as ominously, he is leading global initiatives that call for even the poorest countries to be forced to use unreliables instead of reliables.


“This, in a world where 3 billion people have almost no access to energy and over one billion people have no electricity.”

[The last sentence is confusing. The source states: “An estimated 1.2 billion people – 17% of the global population – did not have access to electricity in 2013, 84 million fewer than in the previous year…In 2013, more than 2.7 billion people – 38% of the world’s population – are estimated to have relied on the traditional use of solid biomass for cooking, typically using inefficient stoves in poorly ventilated spaces.”] See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/


Letter to Secretary of State Kerry: As described in the March 19 TWTW, the US State Department diverted $500,000,000, largely marked for economic development, to the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund established in the Paris Agreement, without Congressional approval.

On March 17, 2016 the “State of Palestine” became a full member of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). On April 18, 2016, 28 Senators signed a letter to Secretary of State Kerry stating:

“In 1994, Congress passed and the President signed into law a prohibition on the distribution of U.S. taxpayer funds to ‘any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have internationally recognized attributes of statehood.’

The letter argues further:

“The U.S. government does not recognize the ‘State of Palestine,’ which is not a sovereign state and does not possess the ‘internationally recognized attributes of statehood.’


“Therefore, the UNFCCC, as an affiliated organization of the UN, granted full membership to the Palestinians, an organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood. As a result, current law prohibits distribution of U.S. taxpayer funds to the UNFCCC and its related entities.”

This demand may severely impact on the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and the $500,000,000 diverted to the Green Climate Fund. The newspaper reports thus far reviewed do not mention the $500,000,000. We shall see how the State Department honors the law stated in the letter. See links under: After Paris.


International Mother Earth Day: UN declared the formal signing by some countries to the Paris Agreement on April 22, 2016 as International Mother Earth Day. Perhaps in celebration of, the Majority Staff of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a white paper, “Lessons From Kyoto: Why The Paris Agreement Will Fail National Economies and the Climate.” See links under After Paris


RIP William Gray: By Christopher Essex; Professor; Department of Applied Mathematics; The University of Western Ontario; London, Canada N6A 5B7

As George Orwell famously wrote, “Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”

It is the job of research scientists to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy—no point to the job otherwise, is there. Thus scientists can and do quite naturally find themselves outside of fashion and the fair treatment that it affords, including any potential largesse of government research funding. If you are really pushing the envelope, you will probably be on your own and funding things out of your pocket or the pocket of a trusted patron. It has always been this way. It is human nature.

Bill Gray pushed the science fashion envelope fearlessly. It closed in on him, but he would have none of it. I admired his extraordinary persistent, unflinching courage. It is no small thing to stand your ground publicly again and again in a harsh spotlight aimed by unsympathetic ignorant fools. I overheard CSU people even talking about him behind his back like he was a crazy uncle. It made my blood boil. But if I had any questions about all things hurricane he was my go to person. He earned my confidence every single time. The man deserved a medal.

I loved talking to him. You always knew which way was up with him, and the deep comprehension arising from a combination of intelligence and extraordinary hands-on experience exuded from him. I learned a lot from Bill. Without him and people like him the scientific world would stagnate and be a very dull place.

If you conclude that Bill was wronged, you would be right. But do not be too sad about it, or complain too much. Bill knew what he was doing and the consequences that would accrue. It goes with the territory, and there are no simple fixes to flaws in human nature. There is the choice that we all must face at times: do good or do well. Bill did good. If more of us would make that choice, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Rest in peace, Bill.


Additions and Corrections: Last week, TWTW discussed the four freedoms articulated by President Roosevelt: freedom of speech, worship, from want, and from fear. Reader Craig McCulskey took exception to the statement that the first two are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. He stated that the freedom of religion is in the First Amendment; but, freedom of religion may be different from freedom of worship. “There is a vast difference in freedom of worship (being able to talk about religious things in one’s church or other house of worship) and freedom of religion, which is the free expression of one’s faith in the public square and, in particular, in relation to the way we are governed”

We thank all those who make additions and corrections to TWTW.




SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving, following 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.

The four past recipients, Lisa Jackson, Barrack Obama, John Kerry, and Ernest Moniz are not eligible. Generally, the committee that makes the selection prefers a candidate with a national or international presence. The voting will close on June 1. Please send your nominee and a brief reason why the person is qualified for the honor to Ken@SEPP.org. Thank you. The award will be presented at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness on July 9.


Number of the Week: $315 Billion. According to calculations by Bloomberg the foreign exchange reserves of major oil exporting nations have fallen by $315 billion since oil prices started slumping in November 2014. Almost one-half of the decline in reserves came in Saudi Arabia. This is an illustration of the effect of increased US petroleum production from horizontal drilling and hydraulic multi-port fracturing of dense shale, which is denounced by many US politicians and the Administration.


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




Climategate Continued

Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Apr 19, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Similar to an analysis by Roy Spencer, but with additional details. McIntyre shows why John Christy’s presentation of the discrepancy between models and measurements of atmospheric temperatures over the tropics is entirely acceptable, while the criticism by Schmidt, the head of NASA-GISS, would be considered laughable in a different context, such as a horserace.]


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry – The Witch Hunt – Push-Back

Author Tells Dem Senator To Apologize For Vilifying The Fossil Fuel Industry

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Apr 14, 2016


George Will: The ‘settled’ consensus du jour

By George Will, Washington Post Writers Group, Daily Camera, Apr 21, 2016 [H/t Cooler Heads]


“Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 20 state attorneys general, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.”

Email bombshell: Attorneys General worked with Green groups to punish political opponents

By Chris Horner, Fox News, Apr 18, 2016


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately below.]

Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show

By Valerie Richardson, Washington Times, Via GWPF, Apr 17, 2016


“Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute’s Matt Pawa spent 45 minutes each providing talking points behind the scenes on ‘the imperative of taking action now’ and ‘climate change litigation,’ according to a cache of emails released over the weekend by the free market Energy & Environmental Legal Institute.”

Exxon Fights Subpoena in Widening Climate Probe, Citing Violation of Its Constitutional Rights

The company has turned over more than 10,000 pages of records to the New York attorney general, but is resisting a new demand filed under anti-racketeering laws.

By Bob Simison and David Hasemyer, Inside Climate News, Apr 14, 2016


The Exxon Climate Papers

By Andy May, Climate Etc. Apr 19, 2016


“The key problem is that ExxonMobil management and most, if not all, of their researchers do not think the idea of dangerous man-made climate change has been proven. Further, one of them said [in an] internal document …: ‘we have time to evaluate the uncertainties even in a worst-case scenario.’ This is still true, especially considering the very slow pace of warming over the last twenty years.”

The case against Exxon and CEI will not stop with Exxon and CEI

By Kevin Williamson, National Review, Apr 17, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]


The Great Green Game: China to Supply Paris Agreement Sanctioned Coal Power to Europe?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Apr 17, 2016


The Paris Agreement: An Assessment

By Julian Morris, Reason Foundation, April 2016


‘The Usual Suspects’ in the Persecution of Global Warming Skeptics

By Russell Cook, American Thinker, Apr 22, 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


Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

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


Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

By Richard Lindzen, Prager University, Apr 18, 2016 [Facebook Video]


Green Pork Cronyism Invades Science

By Doug Domenech, Real Clear Energy, Apr 20, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Review of Lindzen’s video and an example of climate profiteers.]

Epstein’s Truth to Boxer’s Power: An Energy Highlight of 2016

By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Apr 19, 2016


Link to Testimony: Examining the Role of Environmental Policies on Access to Energy and Economic Opportunity

Including Alex Epstein, Center of Industrial Progress, Apr 13, 2016


Dangerous Global Warming – Fact or Fiction?

By Des Moore and Tom Quirk, Australian Climate Sceptics, Apr 15, 2016


Five points about climate change

Guest essay by Professor Philip Lloyd, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, WUWT, Apr 8, 2016


Defending the Orthodoxy

Breaking Free from Fossil Fuels

By Payal Parekh, Program Director at 350.org. Project Syndicate, Apr 18, 2016


“Most governments are still clinging, to varying degrees, to destructive fossil fuels, with their volatile prices and devastating environmental impact, even as this dependence destabilizes their economies.”

[SEPP Comment: It may be more correct to say that people demand reliable energy, including electricity, not unreliable wind and solar.]

Good news! Coal bankruptcies point to a better future for our climate

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website, WUWT, Apr 17, 2016


“Coal is dirty and dangerous to mine, moderately expensive to transport (by train or barge), and dirty to burn.”

[SEPP Comment: In Western nations most of the problems associated with coal have been solved. Ash disposal are often legacy problems rather than ongoing problems.]

The Domestic Threat to US Leadership

By Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, previously served as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers., Project Syndicate, Apr 13, 2016


[SEPP Comment: It does not bother the author that the president is acting without Constitutional authority in the agreement and has diverted funds. Also, the author ignores that the success of the China led international bank came with the willingness to make loans for coal-fired power plants, which the World Bank and the IMF, with US urging, denied.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.

By John Coleman, USA Today, Apr 22, 2016


Three Little Known Scientists Who Changed Our World View of Climate

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball, WUWT, Apr 18, 2016


Climate Alarmism and the Muzzling of Independent Science

By Ari Halperin, American Thinker, Apr 21, 2016


Energy Efficiency (and Conservation) and Climate Policy Cost

By John Constable, GWPF, Apr 17, 2016


“A key element in worldwide climate policies is the belief that improvements in the efficiency with which energy is converted into goods and services will tend to offset the costs of climate policies. In the UK these claims have been particularly extreme, with some ministers even claiming that their policy driven efficiency measures would more than offset other policy costs, such as renewables subsidies, and have the net effect of actually reducing bills.”

[SEPP Comments: Problems with energy decisions made by bureaucrats – all too often bureaucrats greatly underestimate the costs of their solutions to the consumers.]

After Paris!

Palestine is latest GOP offensive in climate change wars

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Apr 23, 2016


Letter to Secretary of State Kerry

By 28 Republican Senators, April 18, 2016 [H/t Myron Ebell, CEI]


Lessons From Kyoto: Why The Paris Agreement Will Fail National Economies and the Climate

Majority Staff White Paper, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Via GWPF, Apr 21, 2016


Link to report: Lessons From Kyoto: Why The Paris Agreement Will Fail National Economies and the Climate

Majority Staff White Paper, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Apr 21, 2016


The Paris Climate Treaty Signing Debacle

By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Apr 22, 2016


“The report [Majority Staff, immediately above] points out that the US reductions have been much greater than other developed countries that did ratify Kyoto as a result of the action of the market mechanism, which encouraged the use of fracking and other improved technology to lower the cost of producing natural gas. This resulted in the substitution of cheaper natural gas (with half the carbon content) for coal for generating electricity. This happened even though the US never ratified the Protocol.”

You Ought to Have a Look: Paris Climate Agreement

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Cato, Apr 19, 2016


COP21 Pledges for greenhouse gas emissions

By Tom Quirk, Australian Climate Skeptics, Apr 15, 2016


“Finally the best summary for COP21 is to be found in the Bolivian submission where capitalism is ‘a system of death’, carbon markets are rejected and a call for a world carbon budget between countries, with 89% allocated to the developing world.”

Climate Change: Obama Is Making Promises He Can’t Keep

By Paul “Chip” Knappenberger, Newsweek, Apr 19, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The editors included a photo of a paper mill plant emitting what appears to be steam – as if it has anything to do with the issue.]

U.N. members fear U.S. ‘sabotage’ of Obama’s climate commitments

By Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Apr 20, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: There is no “sabotage” in a court finding the Administration acted without Congressional authority. The only “sabotage” is the Administration blatantly exceeding the powers authorized by the Constitution.]

Crunch time: Will Congress rescue America from the Paris Agreement?

By Marlo Lewis, The Hill, Apr 20, 2016


Paris Agreement: signing ushers in a long wait-and-see

By Staff Writers, Wood Mackenzie, Apr 21, 2016


Social Benefits of Carbon

Could climate change lead to more food? Increased carbon dioxide could help wheat, rice and soybeans grow more efficiently

By Abigail Beall, Daily Mail, UK, Apr 18, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The journalist at the Daily Mail understands something that the government types at the US Global Change Research Program do not – including the Department of Agriculture.]

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Climate Alarmists Alarmed Public No Longer Panicked About The Climate, Demand More Doomsday Headlines!

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt Translated by P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Apr 22, 2016


Most countries ignore EU’s climate homework deadline

By Peter Teffer, Eurobserver, Apr 1, 2016 [H/t Catherine French]


Seeking a Common Ground

The paradox of the climate change consensus

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Apr 17, 2016


“In our view, the fact that so many scientists agree so closely about the [causes of the] earth’s warming is, itself, evidence of a lack of evidence for [human caused] global warming. – D. Ryan Brumberg and Matthew Brumberg.”

The Flaw of Averages

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 22, 2016


The Classifications of Climate Change Thinkers

By Richard Muller, (Berkeley Earth), Huffpost Green, Apr 19, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


The Promise of E-Procurement

By Bjørn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, Apr 23, 2016


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

Atlantic Coccolithophores Thrive as the Air’s CO2 Content Rises

Rivero-Calle, S., Gnanadesikan, A., Del Castillo, C.E., Balch, W.M. and Guikema, S.D. 2015. Multidecadal increase in North Atlantic coccolithophores and the potential role of rising CO2. Science 350: 1533-1537. Apr 22, 2016


[The authors] “showed that the abundance of coccolithophores (one-celled marine plants that live in large numbers throughout the upper layers of the ocean) in the North Atlantic ‘increased from ~2% to more than 20% from 1965 through 2010.’”

The Ability of Tropical Reef Fish to Acclimate to Global Warming

Veilleux, H.D., Ryu, T., Donelson, J.M., van Herwerden, L., Seridi, L., Ghosheh, Y., Berumen, M.L., Leggat, W., Ravasi, T. and Munday, P.L. 2015. Molecular processes of transgenerational acclimation to a warming ocean. Nature Climate Change 5: 1074-1078. Apr 21, 2016


“In concluding the report of what they learned from their experiments, therefore, Veilleux et al. were able to state that ‘the plasticity of these genes and their strong correlation to known acclimating phenotypic traits suggests that they may be critical in aiding reef fishes, and possibly other marine organisms, to survive in a warmer future environment.’”

Never-Ending Biases of Models Projecting Tropical Climate Change

Zhou, Z.-Q. and Xie, S.-P. 2015. Effects of Climatological Model Biases on the Projection of Tropical Climate Change. Journal of Climate 28: 9909-9917. Apr 20, 2016


Aerial CO2 Enrichment Turns an Air Pollutant into an Air Fertilizer

Kitao, M., Komatsu, M., Yazaki, K., Kitaoka, S. and Tobita, H. 2015. Growth overcompensation against O3 exposure in two Japanese oak species, Quercus mongolica var. crispula and Quercus serrata, grown under elevated CO2. Environmental Pollution 206: 133-141. Apr 19, 2016


“The five Japanese researchers report that both of the oak species showed significant growth enhancements (twice those of the ambient-treatment trees) under the combination of elevated CO2 and O3…”

[SEPP Comment: Will those proclaiming a combination of increase temperatures from CO2 and Ozone (O3) are deadly ignore this study?]

Models v. Observations

Faulty Climate Models: “Drought Forecasts Are Barely Trustworthy

By Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online, Via GWPF, Apr 21, 2016


Measurement Issues — Surface

[Updated] Do the Adjustments to Land Surface Air Temperature Data Increase the Global Warming Rate?

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Apr 24, 2016


“Quick Answer to the Title Question: Over the long term, the answer is yes, the adjustments to land surface temperature data increase the reported global warming rate, and the differences between datasets are noticeable. Over shorter terms, the answer depends on the dataset.”

GISS Temperature Data Website Changes (For The Better!)

By Ed Caryl, No Tricks Zone, Apr 20, 2016


Link to NASA-GISS Surface Temperature Analysis


[SEPP Comment: The lack of coverage for much of the globe should make anyone hesitant about discussing “global surface temperatures” with certainty.]

Changing Weather

April 2016 ENSO Update – La Niña Alerts Issued for Later This Year and NINO1+2 SSTa Are Near Zero Deg C

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Apr 18, 2016


Many extreme weather events can be traced back to an atmospheric ‘traffic jam,’ study suggests

By Andrew Freedman, Yahoo, Apr 15, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Revisited

By Newman, et al, AMS Journal, Mar 10, 2016


“Research over the last fifteen years has led to an emerging consensus: the PDO is not a single phenomenon, but is instead the result of a combination of different physical processes, including both remote tropical forcing and local North Pacific atmosphere/ocean interactions, which operate on different timescales to drive similar PDO-like SST anomaly patterns. How these processes combine to generate observed PDO evolution, including apparent regime shifts, is shown using simple autoregressive models of increasing spatial complexity.”

[SEPP Comment: There is much we do not know!]

What is the Polar Vortex, and How Does It Influence Weather?

By Waugh, Sobel, and Polvani, American Meteorological Society, Mar 10, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]


“There are separate stratospheric and tropospheric planetary-scale circumpolar vortices, with differing structure, seasonality, dynamics, and impacts on extreme weather.”

Weather and Climate in Megacities

By Ernst Rauch, Munich Re, Apr 18, 2016


US weather ‘preferable’ for most thanks to climate change; but there’s a catch

Research finds most Americans have seen a pleasant mix of warmer winters and tolerable summers since 1974, but the situation is set for a radical reversal

By Oliver Milman, The Guardian, UK, Apr 20, 2016 [H/t WUWT]


Link to paper: Recent improvement and projected worsening of weather in the United States

By Egan & Mullin, Nature, Apr 20, 2016


Changing Seas

“Climate McCarthyism” May Backfire As Large Body Of New Science Shows Claims Of “Consensus” Are An Illusion

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Apr 16, 2016


“On the world’s 225 long-term tide gauges, according to Dave Burton of SeaLevel.info site here: 197 of 225 stations (87.6%) have recorded less than 3.3 mm/yr sea-level rise. At 47 of 225 stations (20.9%) sea level is falling rather than rising. Just 28 of 225 stations (12.4%) have recorded more than 3.3 mm/yr sea-level rise.”

Sea Level Hysteria: German Climate Experts Call Claim Antarctica Could Melt Faster “Crazy Climate Alarmism”!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Apr 18, 2016


Earth Day: New insights into coral health hidden in reefs’ microbiomes

Inner microbial ecosystems keep reef-building corals and other animals ‘in the pink’

By Cheryl Dybas, NSF, Apr 18, 2016


Where are America’s Drowned Cities?

By Robert Zubrin, American Thinker, Apr 20, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Examples of filling-in of seas to create usable land, now largely denied by the US government.]

Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

A Historic Perspective on the Greenland Ice Sheet and its Contribution to Global Sea Level

By Craig Idso, Cato, Apr 21, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The data, current and historic, does not support the cries of alarm of melting of Greenland Ice Sheet.]

Save the Polar Bears? They’re Fine, Actually

By Patrick J. Michaels, Cato, Apr 21, 2016


“This Earth Day, it’s time to give the polar bear the respect it deserves. Nothing humans can do to the climate is going to wipe it out.

“That’s because we can’t change the Arctic as much as Nature has during the bear’s existence.”

No evidence that long-distance swimming contributed to Beaufort Sea polar bear population crash of 2004-2006

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Apr 21, 2016


Changing Earth

Bubbles lead to disaster

By Staff Writers, Zurich, Switzerland (SPX), Apr 18, 2016


Link to paper: Bubble accumulation and its role in the evolution of magma reservoirs in the upper crust

By Parmigiani, et al. Nature, Apr 13, 2016


Study claims: Ancient tectonic activity was trigger for ice ages

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Apr 20, 2016


Link to press release: Study: Ancient tectonic activity was trigger for ice ages

Continental shifting may have acted as a natural mechanism for extreme carbon sequestration.

By Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office, Apr 18, 2016


“Both [tectonic plate] collisions took place in the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), an atmospheric region hovering over the Earth’s equator, in which trade winds come together to generate a region of intense temperatures and rainfall.”

[SEPP Comment: Unable to link to paper.]

What massive volcanic eruptions say about climate change

“We wanted to see how the Earth system responded from a rapid rise of CO2,” said researcher Frank Corsetti.

By Brook Hays, UPI, Apr 15, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: But what happens quickly may have a more drastic effect than what happens slowly with an increase in CO2.]

Un-Science or Non-Science?

Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2C

By Roz Pidcock, Carbon Brief, Apr 21, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Another computer exercise. Any influence of increased carbon dioxide would most likely be in nighttime temperatures in arid regions.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Great Barrier Reef Hysteria.

By Anthony Cox, Australian Climate Sceptics, Apr 22, 2016


Communicating Better to the Public – Do a Poll?

Poll: Australians more skeptical. Climate change “dropped off” political radar

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 20, 2016


Poll: Just 6 percent of people say they trust the media

By Carole Feldman and Emily Swanson, AP, Apr 18, 2016


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

A Few Facts For Climate Alarmists Waging War Against Astrophysicist Willie Soon

By Ron Arnold, Somewhat Reasonable, Apr 20, 2016 [H/t ICECAP]


Questioning European Green

EU 2020 Renewable Energy Targets: Part I

By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Apr 18, 2016


“The original 2010 EU energy bill makes for interesting reading:

“’ The price of failure is too high.

Energy is the life blood of our society. The well-being of our people, industry and economy depends on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy. At the same time, energy related emissions account for almost 80% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The energy challenge is thus one of the greatest tests which Europe has to face. It will take decades to steer our energy systems onto a more secure and sustainable path. Yet the decisions to set us on the right path are needed urgently as failing to achieve a well-functioning European energy market will only increase the costs for consumers and put Europe’s competitiveness at risk.’” [Boldface added]

Earth Day: some reflections

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Apr 22, 2016


Anti-Green Divestment: Poland Threatens To Kill Wind Industry

By Henry Foy and Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Via GWPF, Apr 17, 2016


Energy prices are set to rise – and UK industry could suffer, experts say

Energy prices have played a role in the steel crisis, and experts in the region fear other sectors could be affected

By Peter McCusker, Chronicle, Apr 20, 2016


Green Jobs

Big Wind’s Big Spin

By Lisa Linowes, Master Resource, Apr 20, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Green-job growth is not as claimed by the lobby.]

EPA and other Regulators on the March

Ovens facing new efficiency standards

By Tim Devaney, The Hill, Apr 18, 2016


“As proposed, the Energy Department estimates it would cost manufacturers more than $86 million but save consumers as much as $11 billion over 30 years.”

[SEPP Comment: Imaginary numbers from DOE?]

Energy Issues – Non-US

How 315 Billion Petrodollars Evaporated

By Javier Blas, Bloomberg, Apr 14, 2016


“The 18 nations set to gather in Doha on Sunday to discuss a production freeze have spent $315 billion of their foreign-exchange reserves — about a fifth of their total — since the oil slump started in November 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

In the last three months of 2015, reserves fell nearly $54 billion, the largest quarterly drop since the crisis started.”

Oil’s Price Collapse Is Quickly Draining Petrostate Coffers

By Staff Writers, The American Interest, Apr 15, 2016


Dense Energy: True Green (time to get realistic)

By Viv Forbes, Master Resource, Apr 22, 2016


54 million Europeans must choose between eating and heating

By James Crisp, EurActiv.com, Apr 19, 2016


Costs of blackout emergency plan soar as coal plants paid to keep warm

By Emily Gosden, Telegraph, UK, Apr 17, 2016


Scotland generated most of its electricity in 2015 through renewables

By Shawn Price, Edinburgh, Scotland (UPI), Apr 7, 2016


[SEPP Comment: Unable to find data supporting the claim. The latest data available from the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change was done on Mar 31, 2016 and did not give the breakdown needed. The biggest change was the conversion of the Drax facility form coal to biomass.]


Cheap Oil’s Silver Lining for the Gulf

By Nasser Saidi, former Chief Economist of the Dubai International Financial Center, most recently, authored the OECD report “Corporate Governance in the MENA Countries”, Project Syndicate, Apr 22, 2016


[SEPP Comment: As revenues are drastically falling, the author thinks it is an ideal time to cut government-funded programs.]

Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Low oil prices don’t cut into US production by much

By John Schoen, CNBC, Apr 18, 2016


Return of King Coal?

Coal power on the rise: Will China end up selling electricity to Germany?

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 18, 2016


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

As Expected, More Fear

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Apr 22, 2016


Nuclear Energy and Fears

New England’s CO2 Emissions Rise as Vermont Yankee is Shuttered

By Staff Writers, Institute for Energy Research, Mar 2, 2016


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Offshore Wind Decommissioning: The Bad End of a Bad Technology

By Kent Hawkins, Master Resource, Apr 21, 2016


[SEPP Comment: The turbines in the project did not last long as promised, thus the levelized capital costs are higher than initially calculated.]

AWED Energy & Environmental Newsletter: April 18, 2016

By John Droz, Jr. Master Resource, Apr 18, 2016


The Under-reported Disaster Of Renewable Energy Schemes

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Apr 15, 2016 [H/t ICECAP]


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

Edmunds: EV, Hybrid Owners Ditching Vehicles for SUVs

By Staff Writers, Auto Dealer, Apr 21, 2016


“The analysis found that only 27.5% of all hybrid and EV trade-ins in 2016 have been applied to the purchase of another hybrid or EV.”

Fraud Leaves China’s Electric Car Demand in Doubt

By Jie Ma and Craig Trudell, Bloomberg, Apr 21, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Carbon Schemes

Is EOR a Dead End for Carbon Capture and Storage?

By Thomas Overton, Power Mag, Apr 12, 2016


“From where I’m sitting, if the point of CCUS is to reduce CO2 emissions, EOR is about the last thing it should be used for. On the other hand, if the point is to redistribute vast amounts of money, it’s off to an excellent start.” [CCUS: carbon capture, use, and sequestration]

Health, Energy, and Climate

A man to be honoured

By John Brignell, Number Watch, Apr 18, 2016


“A new breed of public health dictators finds it easier to combat imaginary threats rather than real ones…”

Terminix and Methyl Bromide: Sometimes There’s a Good Reason Chemicals Are Banned

By Lila Abassi, ACSH, Apr 5, 2016


Environmental Industry

7 Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong

By Andrew Follett, Daily Caller, Apr 21, 2016


Energy Industry Gets Sierra Clubbed

Editorial. IBD. Apr 22. 2016


Leaked email shows website Climate Feedback plans a propaganda push under guise of #StandWithScience

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Apr 21, 2016


California’s coal war pits economic survival against environmental justice

Proposed terminal to export coal to Asia creates tense showdown in port city as key players cite potential health risks, yet industry could provide needed jobs

By Maria La Ganga, Guardian, UK, Apr 21, 2016


“Environmentalists refer to California, Oregon and Washington state as “the thin green line”, a barrier they hope will prevent coal from being exported to more polluting countries in Asia.”

[SEPP Comment: Is forcing others to suffer without affordable electricity now called “environmental justice?’

Inside the echo chamber: Left-wing activists spent years planning climate investigations

By Simon Lomax, The Complete Colorado, Apr 15, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Other Scientific News

Big Science is broken

By Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, The Week, Apr 18, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


Why Science Is Broken, and How To Fix It

It comes down to bad politics, bad money, and bad philosophy.

By William Briggs, The Stream, Apr 20, 2016


Scientific Regress

By William Wilson, First Things, May 2016


“The greatest friends of the Cult of Science are the worst enemies of science’s actual practice.”

What If GPS Dies?

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Apr 19, 2016


Other News that May Be of Interest

The passing of a giant of a man – a great loss to meteorology [Bill Gray]

By Phil Klotzbach, ICECAP, Apr 16, 2016


The ‘deep and disturbing decline’ in global press freedom

By Niraj Chokshi, Washington Post, Apr 20, 2016


[SEPP Comment: May part of the cause be a lack of access by those not politically fashionable?]

Time to panic! The world is running out of (fill in the blank)

What explains our insatiable appetite for stories about shortages?

By Jason Kirby, Macleans, Apr 16, 2016 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Could the blank be practical sense?]



“The Illusion Of Debate”: A History of the Climate Issue—Part 1

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 20, 2016


[SEPP Comment: A bit of humor.]

Underwater umbrellas

By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Apr 17, 2016


Underwater ‘umbrellas’ should be used to protect Great Barrier Reef says report.

Professor Ove Hoegh-Gukdberg of Queensland University, Australia, writing with Greg Rau from the University of California and Elizabeth McLeod from The Nature Conservancy, calls for “unconventional, non-passive methods to conserve marine ecosystems”. Daily Telegraph(UK), 20 Aug 2012

[SEPP Comment: To provide shade is particularly funny because, according to the IPCC, the warming is not coming from increased intensity of sunlight.]



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. Notable & Quotable: Climate Change and War

Our men and women in uniform are smart and perceptive. They can spot phoniness in a heartbeat.

By Robert H. Scales, Major General US Army, (ret), WSJ, Apr 18, 2016

http://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-climate-change-and-war-1461021491 and


SUMMARY: The following excerpt is from April 13 testimony by Robert H. Scales, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works. It pertains to the Defense Department and the administration linking of climate change with national security. [As stated in the April 16 TWTW, the argument that the US needs imports from unstable nations is obsolete.]


“The common spark for all wars is jealousy and greed [,] amplified by centuries-long animosities and political ambitions. The catalyst for war is the ignorance of leaders that leads them to misjudge. Humans start wars believing they will be profitable, short, glorious and bloodless. These truths never change. None are affected in the least by air temperature.


“But the myth of climate change as an inducement to war continues to curry favor among Washington elites. One source for connecting war to temperature comes from the political closeness between environmentalists and the antiwar movement. Their logic goes like this: ‘Global warming is bad. Wars are bad. Therefore, they must be connected.’ Remember, prior to the 1991 Gulf War, environmentalists warned of a decade of global cooling that would come from burning Kuwaiti oil fields…


“Because the administration has elevated climate change to the status of a primary threat, the military has become an unwitting agent for propagandizing the dangers of climate change to the American people…


“The administration’s contention that climate change is a national-security threat would be just another example of mindlessly applied political correctness if it were not for the potential impact of this silliness on our actual security.


“The military follows orders and intuitively embraces the spoken intent of their commander in chief. A politically correct embrace of climate change as a national-security threat might in time cause our military to embrace alternative sources of energy before these technologies are proven. Should this happen, our men and women in uniform might well be fighting a war with underpowered and poorly performing weapons.


“In its zeal to follow orders the military might deflect resources away from fighting the war against global terrorism to fight a contrived war against global warming. Every dollar spent on initiatives that don’t apply directly to fighting the enemy and keeping our soldiers and Marines safe on the battlefield is a dollar needlessly wasted. Again, no soldier should die in battle for the sake of political correctness.


“Our men and women in uniform are smart and perceptive. They can spot phoniness in a heartbeat. Think of a soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq returning from a dangerous and exhausting mission being obliged to listen to a senior defense official lecture them on the revelation that fighting climate change is their most important mission.


These men and women see the realities of battle all around them. The military threat of rising temperatures is not one of them.


“Our young military leaders are already jaded and discouraged by an administration that seems to be out of touch with their real world, day to day, life or death needs. Do we really think that they will become more confident about the wisdom of their leaders if they are obliged to turn away from ISIS and fight a war against rising temperatures? Somehow I don’t think so.”


2. Berning the Clinton Establishment

Hillary entered the race hoping to revive the Clinton era. Now she has betrayed it.

By Kimberley Strassel, WSJ, Apr 21, 2016


SUMMARY: The author writes about the difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton in their views about energy and fossil fuels: “Bill’s was the party that increased permits for oil and gas drilling by more than 50%—even as it hailed the Kyoto Protocol. Hillary’s is the party that now opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, opposes offshore drilling, and even opposes one of the country’s greatest economic engines—fracking. ‘By the time we get through all of my conditions,’ she promised in March, ‘I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.’ Climate isn’t simply the left’s new religion, but core unfinished business for the White House, and Mrs. Clinton would make it a hallmark of her presidency.”


3. Climate Crowd Ignores a Scientific Fraud

A defective radiation-risk standard holds back our most important low-carbon energy source.

By Holman Jenkins, WSJ, Apr 15, 2016


SUMMARY: The author writes: “Green activists, some masquerading as attorneys general of New York and California, want to prosecute Exxon as a climate heretic. Its sin? Saying impeccably true things about climate science: The range of uncertainty is high. Climate models are not the climate, and show themselves to be unreliable guides to future warming. There is a cost-benefit test that policy must pass, and it doesn’t.


“The AG case is a spinoff of “investigative” journalism by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News, which we now learn was directly underwritten by climate activists at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund.


“‘It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions. It’s not really about Exxon,’ explained a Rockefeller official about a January meeting to coordinate the legal and journalistic attack.


“The journalists involved in this travesty, we’re sorry to say, are of the dumber sort—confused about what science is. But their clottedness comes at a poignant moment.


“Honest greens have always said nuclear power is indispensable for achieving big carbon reduction. James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who has been chaining himself to fences since the first Bush administration, was in Illinois last week lobbying against closure of a nuclear plant…


“Nuclear (unlike solar) is one low-carbon energy technology that has zero chance without strong government support, yet is left out of renewables mandates. It’s the one non-carbon energy source that has actually been shrinking, losing ground to coal and natural gas.


“What keeps nuclear costs high? Why do so many opponents misread the Fukushima meltdown, where 18,000 deaths were due to the earthquake and tsunami, none to radiation exposure, and none are expected from radiation exposure? Why has the U.S. experience of spiraling nuclear construction costs not been matched in South Korea, where normal learning has reduced the cost of construction?


“The answer increasingly appears to be a real scientific fraud. In a series of peer-reviewed articles, toxicologist Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts Amherst shows how a cabal of radiation geneticists in the 1940s doctored their results, and even a Nobel Prize acceptance speech, to exaggerate the health risk from low-level radiation exposure. At the time, Hermann Muller, their leader, was militating against above-ground atomic-bomb testing. “I think he got his beliefs and his science confused, and he couldn’t admit that the science was unresolved,” Mr. Calabrese told a UMass publication.


“Data developed to show high-dose effect on fruit flies, Muller claimed, showed a proportional low-dose effect. Thus was born LNT—the “linear no-threshold” model of radiation risk that has become the world’s go-to standard for nuclear safety, source of repeated (and unfulfilled) forecasts of thousands of cancer deaths from Chernobyl or Fukushima. LNT is why nuclear plants shoulder artificially huge costs not to protect against accidents, but to protect against trivial emissions. Coal-plants, which don’t have to meet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, actually put out thorium and uranium far in excess of what nuclear plants are allowed to emit.


“We detailed some of the health evidence in a December piece about efforts to wake up the NRC. The New York Times wrote a similar piece last September looking at Japan’s foolish evacuation of thousands of Fukushima residents against a nonexistent radiation threat.


“Dr. Carol Marcus, of the UCLA medical school, and two other nuclear-medicine specialists last year petitioned the NRC to re-evaluate its standards. Now the Environmental Protection Agency and several green groups have filed defenses of LNT, which since the 1950s has been adopted not only as Washington’s unscientific model of radiation risk, but as the EPA’s unscientific model of chemical risk. It shouldn’t be overlooked that, for these green groups and the EPA, nuclear is also anathema because it competes with solar and wind.


“OK, science seldom fares well in high-stakes political controversies, but it’s bizarre to watch green campaigners attack anybody who questions their thinly based climate predictions, then attack anybody who questions the thinly based science that keeps down our best carbon-free energy choice.


“An environmental reporter with an ounce of independence would actually be doing his or her green friends a favor. Pushing the greenies to confront their nuclear contradictions is probably the best possible way right now of making progress on the climate conundrum.”


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 25, 2016 3:59 am

“In striking testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works on April 13, 2016, US Army retired Major General Robert H. Scales stated what he thought about global warming/climate change as a threat to national security”
Hmm. And when what they claim is going to happen doesn’t then who is held accountable?
For example:
“US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016”

David Marks
April 25, 2016 4:40 am

Is there a link to the 4 minute video with Richard Lindzen mentioned in the first paragraph?

Steve Case
April 25, 2016 4:50 am

MIT Professor Emeritus of Meteorology Richard Lindzen is featured in a very clear four-minute video explaining the ongoing conflicts regarding the human influence on global warming…
And the link to the video ?

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
April 25, 2016 4:53 am

After a short search:

David Marks
Reply to  Steve Case
April 25, 2016 9:20 am

Thanks Steve! I couldn’t find it. Much appreciated.

April 25, 2016 4:54 am

Call me nuts and off topic but any chance of someone trademarking all the usual names associated with man made global warming and then suing anyone who uses them in print .
And I do mean warmists only.

April 25, 2016 7:26 am

‘Lindzen notes that the two groups of scientists who disagree on the effects of burning of fossil fuels largely agree on a surprising number of points.
· The climate is always changing.’
What definition of “climate” is the good doctor using? Climate, by definition, cannot be ‘always changing.’ Weather is always changing. Climate is generalized weather over time. The only place on earth where climate is changing at all is the Sahel.
‘Alex Epstein testified:
“Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous.
It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make
Ditto. Weather changes. Climate doesn’t.
Epstein again: ‘“The United States should learn from the failed German experiment;
instead, our President is doubling down on it many times over.’
Would that be like quadrupling? Yogi Berra lives in Epstein.

April 25, 2016 9:09 am

In a war, the objective is to win. This should be the ONLY objective.
All options should always be available to the leaders of the combat.
In mathematics there is the so-called Optimization Problem, in which the optimum solution to a given problem is sought.
Mathematical theory tells us that adding more than one objective to an optimization problem adds complexity. When two objectives conflict a trade-off must be created. The set of possible solutions involving trade-offs cannot be improved upon according to one objective without hurting another objective.
Any restriction on military options comprises an additional objective. The politically correct term for this hobbling of an army in the field is ‘Rules of Engagement’.
Certain groups of soldiers (i.e. Ghurkas) have become well-known for their success on the battlefield, mainly because they don’t burden themselves with secondary considerations that limit their options, and therefore their tactical and strategic effectiveness.
While it may be emotionally, morally, and ethically gratifying to a government, a military command structure, and a civilian population to ‘play by the rules’ (whatever they are perceived to be), it also has the effect of weakening the army and increasing the chance of losing the war.
Losing a war is the only option that should NEVER be available – it should be unthinkable.
Read “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu (ca. 500 BCE) if you wish to understand why wars that should have been won were lost.

April 25, 2016 9:25 am

Anthony, tips won’t load for me….wanted you to see this, so had to put it here
Rising carbon dioxide is making the Earth GREENER: Extra plant growth caused by greenhouse gases could cover the USA twice
Scientists used satellite data over the past 33 years to measure leaf cover
Planet has got greener as plants have flourished in rising carbon dioxide
Additional plant growth is equivalent to covering the US twice in greenery
Rising carbon dioxide is responsible for 70 per cent of the extra greening

April 25, 2016 10:29 am

There is a comet heading towards the sun
It is the white dot about 7 o’clock position at approximately distance from disk’s rim equal to disk’s radius. Image is updated from time to time (min to hours). By returning back and refreshing the link we might see it disappear behind the disk and if doesn’t reappear you know it’s fate.
You should able to see it in this movie hurtling towards the sun, but it takes some time to download

Reply to  vukcevic
April 25, 2016 11:42 am

Comet has now become invisible, either sunlight is to bright to see it against any longer or it has met its maker (melted), but it has not fallen into the sun, at least not yet.
If it misses the sun it might become visible again sometime tomorrow.

Reply to  vukcevic
April 25, 2016 1:31 pm

If you refresh the video link above it can be seen that the comet has reached the blue disk, if it survives it may be visible in few hours (note the movie is refreshed after considerable delay)

Reply to  vukcevic
April 26, 2016 4:40 am

Comet did not survive

April 25, 2016 10:41 am

Calling Dr. Viner, calling Dr. David ““Children just aren’t going to know what snow is..” Viner!!!!
“Forget April showers… it’s spring snow! Parts of the UK including London woke up to icy flurries as temperatures dip to just 3 and the unseasonal chill is here to stay all week”

Reply to  rah
April 25, 2016 1:54 pm

It’s been cold in Canada also. Most of April has been well below average. Today (April 25) and tomorrow in Toronto high temperature of 7°C – average high temperature is 14°C.

Reply to  3¢worth
April 25, 2016 2:58 pm

London Ontario is worse..We are going down to a windchill of -1 , and we are South of Toronto ! Avg hi is 16c…

Reply to  3¢worth
April 26, 2016 5:58 am

From my experience driving the 401 London to Kitchener or Guelph, ON is usually the coldest part along the road in Ontario. Last time I was up that way it was raining until I got to London then went to sleet and freezing rain and the roads didn’t get better until I got well past Guelph.

April 25, 2016 11:16 am

From the article: ” Over the past two centuries, the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius.”
Well, for the last 80 years of those last two centuries, right up to the present, the global mean temperature has decreased.
Can’t tell you exactly how much of a decrease it is because I don’t have an accurate figure for the 1930’s high temperature spike. The Climate Change Gurus are hiding those numbers and keeping them to themselves.
One thing we *do* know though, the 1930, temperature number is higher than the 1998, benchmark. The Climate Change Gurus said so. That’s good enough for me.

April 25, 2016 11:36 am

Keep in mind when thinking about the craziness the Left can go to in pushing their agenda, such as wanting to put people in jail for not believing in CAGW, that Liberals, in my experience, deal with the world through emotions, not objectively, and they have a big tendency to stereotype their opponents into one big group-think bunch of demons. Liberals always have to have a demon to confront. This allows them to get all that emotion inside them out.
That’s why they have the demon “Koch” brothers, and the evil corporations, and the evil this and that. And a scary number of Liberals really do believe they are dealing with evil. They are true believers, and they get worked up about it.
Liberals incorporate their indoctrination internally pretty quickly, and very many of them never question the theory once they get on board. And when they get on board, they are on all the way, and if you get in their way, you better look out, because they consider that they have the moral high ground and if you oppose them, then you are just about pure evil, and they can use any tactic, ethical or unethical, to stop you in your tracks.
It’s like dealing with a bully: If you tell the bully something he doesn’t want to hear, he is very likely to react violently and emotionally. Bullies and Liberals don’t like being told they don’t know what they are talking about. It makes them want to lash out.

Reply to  TA
April 25, 2016 2:52 pm

‘evil this and that’
Agreed. They are fascists who demonize their opposition. In other words, Nazis.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights