President Obama was playing to his most extreme “green” constituency in his climate and energy speech at Georgetown University today, blasting global warming skeptics as “flat-earth society” ostriches with their heads in the sand. President Obama said he does not have “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.” Obama claimed that the call for urgent action to stem the threat of global warming is based on the “overwhelming judgment of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements.”
The president apparently has not gotten the memos; his Oval Office staff must be keeping him in the dark concerning very important recent developments in climate science and even more significant developments in climate and energy policies. As we reported yesterday, some of the leading voices in the global warming alarmist choir have been admitting that the climate catastrophes predicted by the computer models have not materialized and that the alleged “scientific consensus” is a fraud. The influential British journal, The Economist, suggested in an article on June 20, that “the public has been systematically deceived” for years with all this talk of certainty and consensus about dire consequences attributed to man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW), and the supposed urgent need for drastic, costly, painful public policies to address the “crisis.”
“The planet is warming. Human activity is contributing to it,” Obama said in his Georgetown speech.
The president seems to be unaware that even top climate alarmists have admitted that there has been no evidence of global warming for at least the past 15 years. This absence of warming has been the source of much head scratching, debating, and theorizing in the climate activist circles. As we have reported, the UK Met Office and Professor Phil Jones, the former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, are among the many alarmists who have been forced to acknowledge the reality of the lack of any warming trend or crisis. The New American’s recent articles (see below) on the false consensus list dozens of top scientists who have defected from the alarmist ranks, and provide links showing literally thousands of scientists contest the warming theories President Obama champions as the basis for his energy policy proposals.
The president’s energy program, outlined in this White House Fact Sheet and detailed in “The President’s Climate Action Plan,” both released today, would place onerous new restrictions on coal fired power plants and other fossil fuels and would direct billions more dollars into funding “renewable energy” sources, such as solar and wind. As we have reported, these are policies that have already proven to be enormously wasteful here in the United States, and in Germany and other European nations (see hereand here) have proven to be disastrous.
Spain has already shown us the destruction that can be wrought by the kind of government-mandated “green jobs” President Obama is proposing. Dr. Gabriel Calzada Álvarez is an Associate Professor at King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain, where he teaches Applied Economics at the Environmental Science Faculty. In March 2009, along with two colleagues from the same University, Dr. Calzada released a major study on the Spanish experience with “green jobs.”
In testimony to the U.S. Congress, before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Prof. Calzada presented highlights from the study, including these sobering facts:
• For every 1 green job financed by Spanish taxpayers, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost.
• Only 1 out of 10 green job contracts were in maintenance and operation of already installed plants, and most of the rest of the working positions are only sustainable in an expansive environment related to high subsidies.
• Since 2000, Spain has committed €571,138 ($753,778) per each “green job,”
• Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs.
• Each “green” megawatt installed on average destroyed 5.39 jobs elsewhere in the economy, ?and in the case of solar photovoltaics, the number reaches 8.99 jobs per megawatt hour installed.
“Spain has already attempted to lead the world in a clean energy transformation,” Dr. Calzada told the congressmen. “But our research shows that Spain’s policies were economically destructive. When the president of a country with a relatively low unemployment rate like the US decides to learn how to create jobs from a country like Spain with the highest unemployment rate among developed countries, it should be in a field where that country has a demonstrable track record of job creation. Unfortunately, this is not the case of job creation in Spain through public support for renewable energy.”
James Lovelock, considered by many to be one of the “founding father” scientists of the environmentalist movement in the U.K., has been unsparing in his criticism of wind power and his former global warming alarmism, which he now says grossly exaggerated the non-crisis of climate change. Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s most famous “greens” and a longtime AGW alarmist and champion of renewable energies, has likewise admitted to having been very, very wrong on these matters. Like Lovelock and many other leading scientists, Vahrenholt is calling for an end to the climate change hysteria and an end to the “green” lobby attacks on conventional fossil fuels.
“The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience,” by the American Enterprise Institute, is one of many reports that surveys the economic and environmental disasters caused by renewable energy policies in the EU. This report focuses on the renewables follies in Denmark, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Even MSM organs such as USA Today, which normally hew to the climate catastrophist line, have reported on Europe’s renewables debacle. Instead of trying to ridicule renowned scientist skeptics by recycling Al Gore’s tired and discredited quips about scientific consensus and “flat-earth society” opponents, President Obama’s speechwriters would serve him better by acquainting him with more of the latest climate research and analyses of the failed energy policies of those countries that have already gone down the road the president is proposing for us.
A flock of Geese fly past the smokestacks at theJeffrey Energy Center coal power plant as the suns sets near Emmett, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
(CNSNews.com) – In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.”
“That hasn’t happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) – a value very close to zero.”
Spiegel asked Storch why the Earth’s temperature has not risen significantly in the past 15 years despite 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere from human activities.
“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” said Storch, a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany.
“We’re facing a puzzle,” Storch said. “Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.
“As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years,” he added.
“That hasn’t happened,” Storch said. “In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.
Storch said the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would have to address these facts in its next climate assessment report due out late next year.
The interview includes this exchange about what this 15-year data showing virtually no rise in the Earth’s temperature means going forward.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
In the interview, Storch also addressed the “hysteria” over global warming by some advocates.
“Would you say that people no longer reflexively attribute every severe weather event to global warming as much as they once did?” the interviewer asked.
“Yes, my impression is that there is less hysteria over the climate,” Storch said. “There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, ‘Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!’ over any natural disaster.
“But people are now talking much more about the likely causes of flooding, such as land being paved over or the disappearance of natural flood zones — and that’s a good thing,” Storch said.
Storch, however, did not dismiss global warming completely when asked if changes in how scientist measure and predict the Earth’s climate will throw the whole concept into doubt.
“I don’t believe so,” Storch said. “We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-close-zero-over-15-years#sthash.Gm9MlU6h.dpuf
There’s been so much stormy weather around the White House in recent weeks that it’s no wonder that President Obama has heeded the radar and returned to the familiar, vapid region of climate change.
On Tuesday, Mr. Obama heads to Georgetown University in the nation’s capital to remind his green-minded pals, global alarmists and fierce critics alike that he has not forgotten a promise of five months ago.
“In my inaugural address, I pledged that America would respond to the growing threat of climate change for the sake of our children and future generations,” the president says in a new video that is punctuated with nice piano music and outdoor imagery that Al Gore would certainly approve of.
“This Tuesday, I’ll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go – a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it,” Mr. Obama says. “This is a serious challenge – but it’s one uniquely suited to America’s strengths.”
What’s missing so far is any authentic discussion of the flawed science and data manipulation that has gone into much climate warming reasoning. The jury is still out of whether mankind or cow-emitted methane has caused either the rising or falling of the planet’s temperature. Also missing is that fact that opportunists have arrived: federal spending on climate warming “research” is approaching $2 billion a year, according to some press reports.
Also in the mix: environmental concerns and climate change languish at the bottom of the list of public worries say several opinion polls, bested by, oh, you know. The economy, jobs, national security.
Mr. Obama will call for the help of scientists, farmers who can grow the plants for biofuel, engineers with an eye for new energy, and workers to “build the foundation for a clean energy economy.”
125 International Scientists Rebuke UN for Climate Claims in Open Letter: ‘Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused extreme weather of past few years’ Read the Full Article
‘Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence. The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased’
“We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not.”
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.
The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.
The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.
There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.
The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.
Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Selenometria project on the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
Bjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”, Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (physics (thermodynamics) and chemistry), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
J. Scott Armstrong, PhD, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, focus on analyzing climate forecasts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
James R. Barrante, Ph.D. (chemistry, Harvard University), Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, focus on studying the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2, Cheshire, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science, Birmingham, U.K.), FInstEng Aus Principal research scientist (ret.), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia…for entire list read more>>
New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change: ‘Ice sheet melt massively overestimated, satellites show’
‘The possible acceleration in ice losses is barely perceptible: it may not really be happening at all…At current melt rates, Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea-level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters). Put another way, in that scenario we would be looking at 5cm of sea level rise from Greenland by the year 2130: a paltry amount’
tAs Hurricane Irene whimpers off to Canada, earlier suggestions that it and predictions of a harsh 2011 hurricane season can be linked to global warming are being slammed in a new report from skeptical scientists.
While “Climate Change Reconsidered” from the Heartland Institute, does agree that man has hurt his environment, causing events like flooding, it’s not because of pollution or other greenhouse gasses cited by proponents of global warming like former Vice President Al Gore. In the case of flooding, the report argues, it’s mostly because mankind is bad at construction. “Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding,” it says.
As for hurricanes, like Irene, the skeptical scientists report that storm frequency does not track with global temperature fluctuations and they add that historical trends show that storms were worse during the Medieval period of about 950–1250 AD.
The scientists who headed the project are well-known in their field and are led by global warming critic Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Their report, provided to Whispers today, comes as the war over global warming is getting hot. Gore, for example, last week called skeptics this generation’s racists, and Democrats andRepublicans are still fighting over President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal and new anti-pollution regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency. Also, global warming is making a debut on the presidential stage with GOP candidates like Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioning it. [See political cartoons about the 2012 GOP presidential field.]
Like those who say science proves the existence of man-made global warming, the skeptics also are armed with historical trends and science that suggest that current global warming is just part of an up and down trend over centuries.
What’s unusual about the report is that it says temporary global warming has a human benefit in curbing weather-related deaths. “Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths,” concludes the report.
The Cap and Trade Con Exposed -
It’s your money they want – It’s a “Tax” for Goldman Sachs
(Reuters) – U.N. talks have run out of time to meet a December 2012 deadline to put in place a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol on curbing greenhouse gases, the U.N.’s top climate official said Monday.
The main aim of the U.N. talks process was to agree a legally binding deal by 2012 but it has gradually turned to mobilizing voluntary action and funds to fight global warming.
The Kyoto Protocol binds almost 40 industrialized countries to emissions cuts from 2008-2012. Poor and emerging economies want to extend the pact, while industrialized nations prefer to replace it. READ MORE>>
Is the air getting Hotter…
or is it just a lot of Hot Air Propaganda?
Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts
Jan. 28 2011 -
By LARRY BELL
This column was originally published on Dec. 27, 2010.
As 2010 draws to a close, do you remember hearing any good news from the mainstream media about climate? Like maybe a headline proclaiming “Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed”? Or “NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase: Alarmists Fear Climate Science Budgets in Peril”? Or even anything bad that isn’t blamed on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming–of course other than what is attributed to George W. Bush? (Conveniently, the term “AGW” covers both.)
Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season? Opportunities to capitalize on those disasters were certainly not lost on some U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change officials. A special press conference called by IPCC spokesman Kevin Trenberth announced “Experts warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.”
But there was a problem. Christopher Landsea, a top U.S. expert on the subject, repeatedly notified the IPCC that no research had been conducted to support that claim–not in the Atlantic basin, or in any other basin. After receiving no replies, he publicly resigned from all IPCC activities. And while the press conference received tumultuous global media coverage, Mother Nature didn’t pay much attention. Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.
Much global warming alarm centers upon concerns that melting glaciers will cause a disastrous sea level rise. A globally viewed December 2005 BBC feature alarmingly reported that two massive glaciers in eastern Greenland, Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim, were melting, with water “racing to the sea.” Commentators urgently warned that continued recession would be catastrophic. READ MORE:
LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON
CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT
How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
Feb. 3 2011 – 10:39 am |
By LARRY BELL
My new book, Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax, is dedicated to Al Gore, whose invention of the Internet made it possible–and whose invention of facts made it necessary. Beginning with the aggressively hyped 1988 U.S. Senate hearings he organized, no one has done more to melt down complacent minds with stoked-up claims of fossil-fueled climate peril.
In 2006 Gore launched an initial three-year, $300 million “Alliance for Climate Protection” media campaign to promote greenhouse gas reductions. While ads appearing in national television, print, radio, and online outlets were directed to diverse audiences, the ultimate target group was government legislators. As he stated, “NASCAR fans, churchgoers, labor union members, small businessmen, engineers, hunters, spokesmen, corporate leaders, you name it–where public opinion goes, federal policy will follow.”
An example is an early TV segment, narrated by William H. Macy, showing footage of American soldiers storming beaches of Normandy during World War II, a civil rights march, and a moon landing. The message linked these critical historic events to an urgent call for action. “We can’t wait for someone else to solve the climate crisis. We need to act, and we need to do it now. Join us. Together we can solve the climate crisis”. READ MORE:
Global warming hoax & Cap and Trade Scam
Cap-and-Trade Fantasies In Disneyland
Feb. 15 2011 – 3:38 pm
California, marching to the beat of its own drum, is on the road to another economic minefield of its own making. On September 2, 2010, voters rejected an alternate Proposition 23 route, one that would have avoided the approved Assembly Bill 32 superhighway to disaster. Resulting cap-and-trade booby traps will be triggered in 2012 when the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is implemented. This legislation authorizes unelected officials at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish a program enabling companies that cut greenhouse gas emissions to sell “allowances” to others that need them to meet reduction regulations targeted at 15% by 2020.
Well, there is still an outside chance that this won’t happen. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith has recently ruled that CARB will be barred from implementing the proposed ARB 32 plan because it didn’t complete an environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act to determine if there are better ways to accomplish the same objectives. Want to hear the really funny part? Okay, get ready for this. According to Investor’s Business Daily, one of the plaintiffs in the case that originally backed ARB 32 passage, the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, joined the suit because it determined the proposed implementation of the plan was “too friendly to business.”
If ARB 32 goes forward CARB will give away allowances to the state’s 500 largest greenhouse gas emitters, letting those that reduce them sell excess allowances to others that don’t. CARB would later charge for those allowances to raise state revenues. They also seem inclined to allow up to 8% of the greenhouse gas reductions to be met through purchases of “offset credits” obtained from developing nations who purport to have realized emission reductions. Of course such transactions will lack transparency, and will most certainly be rife with fraud. In addition, they will not only increase energy costs, but also accelerate flows of capital and exports of jobs out of the state.
It’s not as if the state doesn’t have enough problems already. California has lost 34% of its industrial base since 2001, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (12.4%), and has run up unfunded pension liabilities for its state and local public employees that may be as much as $500 billion (roughly 17% of the nation’s $3 trillion total). A recent study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute predicts that AB 32 will produce an additional 150,000 state job losses by 2012, growing to 1.3 million by 2020. A 2009 study commissioned by the California Small Business Roundtable estimates that the new legislation will “result in a higher cost to California households of $3,857 per year”.
Cap-and-trade is typically promoted as an “environmental justice” initiative. This misleading claim is based upon three errant and deceptive premises: (1) that the legislation will help protect our planet from dangerous climate change and pollution; (2) that it is needed to wean California and the rest of the country and world away from excessive energy consumption; and (3) that it will incentivize energy technology and conservation innovations that will lead to independence from fossils and foreign oil. READ MORE…
DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF OUR ADVERTISERS TO EXIST…