A free-market energy blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Category — Climate Change

Common Core’s Climate Science Indoctrination

“Our science programs should stimulate students to have an inquiring mind–the very opposite of the science-is-settled, “consensus science” mindset. Obama’s Common Core is a Trojan Horse mixing propaganda with science in our youth…. [Such] one-size-fits-all learning smacks of collectivism in place of individual initiative.”

At a Chicago fundraiser May 29, 2013, President Obama chillingly stated, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”  At his swearing-in ceremony May 21, 2013, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz  declared he is “not interested in debating what is not debatable [in climate science].”  These remarks echo the long-standing assertion of climate alarmists that the “science is settled” in regard to the delirious effects of fossil-fuel burning on global climate. The oxymoronic ”consensus science” is another political sound bite in this genre.

Would these statements come from true scientists interested in pursuing the truth about whether carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel is a global threat?  These remarks make very clear the policies of the United States government with regard to education or research on climate science.  If proposed education material or research does not support abandoning fossil fuels, go somewhere else for financial support and airing your views.  Close the door on the way out.

The shared narrative is that man, not nature, has been the main driver of climate change for most of the last century. Support for the carbon-dioxide thesis is a series of five Assessment Reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released since 1990. 

NIPCC vs. IPCC

To counteract omissions, half-truths, and false statements in these reports, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in 2003.  Since 2009, the NIPCC has released 6 Reports that give authoritative, easily-read information about the vast amount of experimental data showing negligible influence of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels on climate, financial losses from mitigation, and proper role of adapting to climate change. [Read more →]

April 21, 2014   No Comments

Last Dance for IPCC Group II Report? (NYT’s Gillis, alarmism go wobbly)

“Natural forces causing climate change such as solar sunspots, earth’s orbit changes, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc. are considered unimportant during this period of increased fossil-fuel-produced carbon dioxide (mid-20th century to the present).  This is a serious distortion of the simple meaning of the term climate change.”

On March 31, the New York Times featured an article by Justin Gillis “Panel’s Warning on Climate Risk:  Worst is Yet to Come” that reported findings in the just released UN IPCC Working Group II report “Climate Change 2014:  Impacts, Adaption, and Vulnerability”.

The 44-page Summary For Policymakers defines climate change as follows:

Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

Thus “climate change” in UN IPCC Reports is changes in climate due to human-caused atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.  This marginalizes climate change that has occurred over the 4.5 billion-year history of the planet.

Natural forces causing climate change such as solar sunspots, earth’s orbit changes, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc. are considered unimportant during this period of increased fossil-fuel-produced carbon dioxide (mid-20th century to the present).  This is a serious distortion of the simple meaning of the term climate change. [Read more →]

April 9, 2014   1 Comment

Adults Reject Climate Catastrophe, Alarmists Bring In the Children (thoughts on Hansen’s latest)

“Beware, the youth should also be told, of Climate Kings, Climate Queens, Climate Duces, and worse masquerading as infallible purveyors of truth. Climate Planning is the fatal conceit of Economic Planning on stilts.”

As has been well reported in the media, public opinion polls rate climate-change concerns at the bottom of environmental issues, not just issues in general (Gallup: 14 of 15, analyzed here). And the other side is getting increasingly desperate in their activism, which is even alarming climate alarmists.

One might argue that American adults are either misinformed, dumb, or ecologically uncaring. But a more rational explanation is that adults have heard both sides of the issue (ad nauseam) and reject climate alarmism. One way to interpret this is to understand that there are here-and-now real problems (the economy; budget deficits); energy prices matter (which means carbon rationing is a negative); global warming has flat-lined in the last decade (and more), contrary to predictions.

Indeed, confident predictions of catastrophic global warming have been waylaid by reality, while government attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions have been a colossal waste and power-grab. And Al Gore? His “inconvenient truth” has turned out to be a convenient exaggeration.

“Denier” Charge

To up the rhetoric, the other side coined the term “denier” and used it liberally: those rejecting climate alarmism are “deniers” as in Holocaust deniers.

Climate alarmist Joe Romm is one of the guilty. But in a pang of conscience, he once swore off using the term. In “Climate Science Disinformers are Nothing like Holocaust Deniers” (2012) Romm explained:

Since I lost many relatives in the Holocaust, I understand all too well the unique nature of that catastrophe. The Holocaust is not an analogue to global warming, which is an utterly different kind of catastrophe, and, obviously, one whose worst impacts are yet to come.

But the emotive, inflammable Romm is back to using the term—and in full ridicule (e.g. “What Is The Difference Between A Psychic And A Climate Science Denier” (March 2014). [Read more →]

April 3, 2014   7 Comments

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Doubling Down on Climate Alarmism (and taking science down a notch with it)

“The NAS … should be an organization that promotes careful examination of all factors involving climate change and not take sides on areas of controversy.  Global temperature history and lack of climate model validation demonstrates lack of objectivity.  Merging of science with politics may damage trust in the scientific community for decades.”

Last month, the United States National Academies of Sciences (NAS) issued the following news release inviting the public to a joint meeting with the UK Royal Society:

Join NAS and The Royal Society for the Launch of a Joint Publication on Climate Change Science

On Thursday, February 27th, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The UK’s Royal Society cordially invite the public to the release of Climate Change: Evidence & Causes, a new publication produced jointly by the two institutions. Host Miles O’Brien from the PBS Newshour will guide a discussion about the publication with authors Dr. Eric Wolff of the University of Cambridge (UK lead), Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California, Berkeley (US lead), Sir Brian Hoskins* of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and Dr. Benjamin Santer* of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, and Professor Sir Paul Nurse,* President of the Royal Society, will kick off the event. [Read more →]

March 27, 2014   No Comments

Obama’s 2015 Budget: Wish List Climate Spending ($10.8 billion for what?)

The federal government is $17.5 trillion in debt with this amount increasing at more than a half-trillion per year. Yet the Obama Administration has just proposed a budget that increases spending. It’s business as usual in D.C.!

President Obama Fiscal Year 2015 Budget, released last week, is a wish-list for the Administration’s pet programs. It has already been derided by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, but that does not make it irrelevant. It signals the goals of the Obama Administration going forward.

Included in the $3.9 trillion budget is $10.8 billion earmarked for climate change-related initiatives in addition to the $7.9 billion EPA budget. That makes a total of $18.7 billion of your money.

Where would this money go?

Climate Resilience Fund: $1 Billion

The Climate Resilience Fund, created to aid Americans preparing for a changing climate. What does that mean exactly? Among other things, research into anthropogenic global warming-induced natural disasters such as sea level rise, wildfires, and drought.

That means a cool billion dollars is going to prevent a problem that doesn’t exist. The earth has not appreciably warmed in 17 years, and since 2002 it has been cooling. The fear is that glaciers will melt and the sea will rise—but glaciers aren’t melting, and in fact are growing.

Droughts can be expensive and cause wildfires and higher food costs. Droughts happen, but currently they’re not nearing the severity or length of past droughts. However, they can be prevented by storing appropriate amounts of water for the local population. [Read more →]

March 12, 2014   1 Comment

Ad Hominem against MasterResource: Climate Alarmism at Wit’s End?

 “The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.)”

- David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm |

Judith Curry at Climate, Etc. posted about a new analysis by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok, “A sensitive matter:  How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming” (Global Warming Policy Foundation: press release here; short version here), for which she wrote an introduction (see Appendix B below).

Several hundred comments followed. A critical, emotive thread of comments toward Lewis/Crok, and by implication Curry, was coming from David Appell, a highly credentialed journalist with a widely read blog, Quark Soup, that focuses on climate issues from an alarmist perspective.

I noticed this comment from Dr. Appell in response to pokerguy (aka al neipris) | March 5, 2014 at 7:16 pm who argued that at lower climate sensitivity, the external effects would “more likely … be overwhelmingly positive in its effect.”

I commented: Rob Bradley | March 5, 2014 at 10:06 pm | Reply

David Appell: There is mainstream climate economics that concludes that CO2 emissions are a positive externality on net to about a break-even point of 2C (world). See here.  Robert Mendelsohn of Yale is probably the most respected single person in his field of cost/benefit analysis with all aspects of CO2 (agriculture, recreation, etc.). One of his findings is that freer, wealthier countries adapt better to climate change, which warns against government carbon rationing programs.

Appell immediately responded: | March 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm |

Rob: The Master Resource people are whores of the fossil fuel industry. (Yes, that certainly includes you.) Are there no legitimate papers you can cite?

and (David Appell (@davidappell) | March 5, 2014 at 10:35 pm | )

How about a full list of IER’s funders, Rob, with amounts for each. Let’s start there, OK?

and David Appell (@davidappell) | March 6, 2014 at 12:27 am |

Let’s be sure to note how Rob Bradley will decline to even discuss who funds him, because that’s the one big bad topic they can’t dare be honest about. And we all know why.

To which I responded: Rob Bradley | March 6, 2014 at 10:41 am | [Read more →]

March 11, 2014   3 Comments

Is the Environmental Movement Net CO2 Positive? (James Hansen wants to know)

“Has Big Environmentalism increased net CO2 emissions by retiring existing or discouraging new nuclear (and hydro) capacity that would have produced more kilowatt hours than that being generated by new wind and solar capacity? It is time to do the hard math. Let the games begin!”

James Hansen is an energy realist amid his climate alarmism. And fortunately, we can use the analysis of the former to debunk the politics of the latter. And even more fortunately, the physical science of man-made climate change is moving away from Hansen’s high-sensitivity estimates to “global lukewarming” (the analysis of Chip Knappenberger, Roy Spencer, John Christy, and others—seconded by the very influential Judith Curry in numerous blogs for the mainstream.

In his just released analysis, “Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?, Hansen once again speaks energy/political truth to Big Environmentalism. This is at least the fourth time he has done so.

Inconvenient Truths: 2009, 2011, 2012

 In 2009, Hansen eviscerated Big Green for supporting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill with the memorable words: [Read more →]

February 24, 2014   3 Comments

U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Still More Climate Alarmism (pause, what pause?)

On February 12, the United States National Academies of Sciences (NAS) issued a news release inviting the public to a joint meeting with the UK Royal Society:

On Thursday, February 27th, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The UK’s Royal Society cordially invite the public to the release of Climate Change: Evidence & Causes, a new publication produced jointly by the two institutions. Host Miles O’Brien from the PBS Newshour will guide a discussion about the publication with authors Dr. Eric Wolff of the University of Cambridge (UK lead), Dr. Inez Fung of the University of California, Berkeley (US lead), Sir Brian Hoskins* of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and Dr. Benjamin Santer* of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences, and Professor Sir Paul Nurse,* President of the Royal Society, will kick off the event.

The publication, which is written by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists and reviewed by climate scientists and others, is intended as a brief, readable reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative information on some of the questions that continue to be asked. The publication makes clear what is well-established and where understanding is still developing. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national academies, as well as on the newest climate-change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As Captain Renault said in the classic 1942 movie Casablanca, “Round up the usual suspects.” Yes,  the report “Climate Change:  Evidence & Causes” has as authors a familiar crew of fuel alarmists. [Read more →]

February 17, 2014   No Comments

CO2 Benefits Exceed Costs by … 50:1, more?

Cap-and-trade, carbon taxation, net social cost for carbon: all assume that increasing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by mankind have injurious effects that are not accounted for in private activity.  But the politically incorrect is intellectually correct: CO2 emissions make life better – even possible – for people, the economy, and the ecosphere.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Weighing risks, costs and benefits is fundamental to life. We do it every day – when walking, driving, showering, heating our homes, and using stairs, ladders and tools; and when balancing the cost of new payments versus the benefits of a better home or car. The alternative is hunkering down in a bedroom or cave – until a lightning bolt, tornado, hurricane or armed burglar disturbs our false sense of security.

That is why government agencies are required to assess the benefits and costs of proposed regulations. Otherwise, officials could simply tout and exaggerate the supposed benefits of a rule, minimize its heavy costs, or ignore the values of the activity or product they want to regulate.

They could focus on the alleged risks of using a chemical, while disregarding the many ways it enhances and safeguards lives. They could abuse their power, to drive agendas that actually reduce our health and welfare.

Fed’s ‘Social Cost of Carbon’

That is now happening with the federal government’s efforts to “prevent dangerous climate change.” [Read more →]

February 11, 2014   1 Comment

Flat Temperatures, Still More Ills

“When the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about ‘extreme weather’.”

- Matt Ridley, “Nobody Even Calls the Weather Average,” July 9, 2013.

Last summer, global warming was blamed for firefighter deaths, more thunderstorms, and poor lobster catches.

Last fall and so far this winter, the list has grown to include:

A cartoon illustrates the hilarity of the ever-expanding, often contradictory list: [Read more →]

February 5, 2014   5 Comments