Category Archives: Natural gas

USA Frack Surpassing Saudi Arabia As Glut Producer

pg-32-fracking-graphic

As vivid as the gas flares in the Texas sky at night, is America’s new-found love affair with fracking. Environmentalists from both the left and among libertarians warn loudly of water contamination disasters and some home owners speak of being rattled by man-made earthquakes, but there is no giving it up the pace now. It’s a whole different world to 2008, when the US oil production snapshot was at a historical low and Sarah Palin was drawing liberal ire declaring that “Drill, Baby Drill!” was the answer to all of America’s problems. Suddenly she seems to have been right, and there is still the Canadian pipeline to be built.

America will see captured output touch 70 billion cubic feet a day in 2014, reaching over 100 billion cubic feet per day by 2040. In the past days, Bills have been tabled in both houses of Congress demanding that the federal government speed up the granting of licences to companies to export natural gas across the Atlantic precisely to reduce the dependency of Western Europe and Ukraine on Russian supplies. Among those wading in is House Speaker John Boehner. “The US Department of Energy’s excruciatingly slow approval process amounts to a de facto ban on American natural gas exports that Vladimir Putin has happily exploited to finance his geopolitical goals,” he said in a statement last week.

Building the infrastructure to export quantities needed to alter the energy politics of Europe will take several years. Nor will changes in America’s foreign policy stance because of its newfound oil fortunes become obvious overnight.

How long America’s shale boom will last is hard to forecast. In Texas, which on its own is set to increase production to 4 million barrels a day this year, the drilling peak still hasn’t been reached, says one expert. But, he suggests, “in the end it’s not the oil fields or the wells that will determine where all this goes. It’s the politicians around the world who set the price and make the markets.” Increasingly, the decisions that matter will rest with the US, as it adjusts to its new status as a glut producer.

Read it all.

The Climate Science Debate Is Not Over (Or It Is, And All The President's Men Lost)

"All Al Gore ever wanted was to run his own General Store selling you and me carbon credits, creating habits, retooling our children with common core..."

—Gabriel Thy

global-warming-hoax
Is man-made climate change under fire or is it under ice?

Not by a long shot if you are a cranky unbeliever. Don't let anyone tell you that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" and it's "beyond any reasonable doubt" when it really isn't. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the steady parade of alarmist hype and low-level panic about man-made global warming. (You should always be a little skeptical of anything you hear about environmental issues on weather channel television.) There are a plethora of atmospheric scientists, and others, who aren't buying the hype. There is no way to know whether we are really cooling or warming to the degree that global climate change activists preach, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now—we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.

  • Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming. There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday [2/25/2014]. Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.
  • GE Will No Longer Design Projects to Please Climate Change Advocates.  In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions.  The National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank which has been fighting GE for years because of GE's liberal bias under CEO Jeffrey Immelt, scored a huge victory after receiving the commitment from General Electric.
  • Fallacies about Global Warming.  The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. [...] But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter.   Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?
  • IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming.   The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 and has been trying very hard to demonstrate the threat of a dangerous human influence on climate due to the emission of greenhouse gases. [...] It is interesting that IPCC "evidence" was based on peer-reviewed publications — but (reluctantly) abandoned only after protracted critiques from outside scientists.  E-mails among members of the IPCC team, revealed in the 2009 'Climategate' leak, describe their strenuous efforts to silence such critiques, often using unethical methods.
  • IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming.   I will show here that the first three IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an argument that seems to be circular and does not support their conclusion.
  • "Stadium Wave" Phenomenon Defeats Climate-changers' Claims.  The climate-changers have been scrambling lately to explain away the fact that global temperatures haven't changed since 1998.
  • Fallacies about Global Warming.   It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is "settled".  This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details.  The allegation is profoundly untrue. [...] This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Proved: There is No Climate Crisis. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
  • Decision-Based Evidence-Making: More Disgrace From UN Panel on Climate Change. Most science teachers undergo the unpleasant experience of catching students fudging experimental data so as to yield desired results. If the data is not easily faked, students may simply run the experiment repeatedly until the "right" data are collected.  They then discard the contradictory data.  Some such cheaters make it right through the education system; perhaps some become politicians, willing to direct staff to find evidence supporting decisions they have already made for political reasons. So it goes with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which deserves to be disbanded following the release of their latest report.
  • Here Comes the Sun: Global Warming and the Perversion of Science. In denial, warmists continue to hawk recently discredited tenets:  mankind's (read: America's) profligate use
    of fossil fuels pumps enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere; naturally, Earth's temperature rises, exacerbating the so-called "greenhouse effect"; in time, our planet becomes a most inhospitable place.  "Settled science."  Until it wasn't.  These postulates were meant to frighten the naive and misinformed into supporting a radical correction that would (surprise!) hit the U.S. hardest.  Now that the warmists' case has come undone, we can see it for what it is —a perversion of science and the scientific method.
  • The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy.  IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused [the IPCC] of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence."  Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated, or both; [...]
  • New Climate Study Blows Away Anthropogenic Causation. Ahead of the soon to be released UN IPCC report, much of which has been leaked and destroyed already, and of which Nature stated that were "out of date by the time they hit the street", a new peer-reviewed report has been released that thrashes the Warmists and their Blamestorming of Mankind for releasing GHGs. The report is strong enough that Warmists immediately trotted out their "anti-science" meme without reading it.
  • New Report Undercuts Global Warming Alarmists. Events have failed to fulfill the prophecy. Preachers have suddenly been struck dumb by uncertainty. Believers are understandably nervous and some, under their breath, are abandoning the dogma. But the subject here is not Millerism, but another kind of religious faith: the faith of the global warming alarmists. And while it's not likely to have the impact of the Millerites' Great Disappointment, we could be seeing the beginning of something similar on September 27, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues its fifth assessment report in Stockholm.
  • Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report. When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."
  • 95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel. The irony is, of course, that the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports were all produced in a period of rising CO2 levels in which there has been no "global warming" whatsoever. You'd imagine that, had the scientific method been more highly valued by the IPCC, this rather glaring flaw in AGW theory might have been afforded more prominence. But this is not the IPCC Assessment Reports' job. As Christopher Booker and others have often noted, the IPCC's reports are essentially political artefacts rather than scientific ones.
  • Global warming report could backfire on environmentalists. Talk about bad timing. Last month, environmental activists launched a well-funded new attack on Republican "climate change deniers" in hopes of making global warming a big issue in 2014. But as the campaign gets underway, a new report from the world's leading climate scientists could leave environmentalists on the defensive,and the "deniers" more confident and assertive.
  • A science-based rebuttal to global warming alarmism. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error. Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and "reconsider" our commitment to fighting climate change?
  • Study: 114 Out Of 117 Global Warming Predictions Wrong. The Left is habitually on the wrong side of any issue. I've maintained that if these people were blindly flipping a coin to decide their policy positions, over the long term they'd be right half the time. Clearly they deliberately choose positions that are carefully calculated to cause harm. They been to the drawing board and they have conspired to promote a lie calculated to cause maximum harm to industrialized nations to fulfill a political agenda.
  • Beating the IPCC with Their Own Numbers. Many parts of the MSM are monolithic in their endorsement of any and every scheme to 'combat climate change' and our pseudo-intellectual elite would make Pavlov proud as they battle to be the most vocal to decry those who "deny" the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. But what we don't see much of are cold hard numbers. Oh we see lots of numbers of the rubbery or nebulous variety, the plucked almost from thin air variety, but very little in the way of actual hard sensible numbers that were arrived at in an actually sensible way.
  • Science Says So, Suckers! Just because climate science involves physics doesn't mean its conclusions are as certain as gravity.
  • Michael Mann Redefines Science. When I was going to school to earn my degree in chemistry, we were taught that science was indeed all about absolute truths and proofs at the end of the day. "Credible theories" is how you got to those truths, not an alternative to them.
  • The UN Climate Panel's 'Hot Spot' is Missing in Action. The Second Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's climate-science panel (IPCC-AR2, 1996), invented the Hot-Spot in the tropical atmosphere about 10km above the earth's surface and assumed, mistakenly, it was proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But the hotspot has never been demonstrated observationally. The Fifth IPCC Report (AR5, to be released on Sept 27, 2013) conveniently ignores this inconvenient fact.
  • If you still believe in 'climate change' read this. No one has ever doubted that climate changes. Pretty much everyone— probably more than 97 percent, even— agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities. But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists— certainly far, far fewer than 97 percent of them—would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim.
  • Al Gore's Global Warming Desperation. First, there's the recently revealed empirical evidence that the "global warming" movement's claim that climate change is causing increased extreme weather events isn't true. Second, there's a new summary of historical research which blows up the movement's infamous core "hockey stick" chart forecasting unprecedented, accelerating warming. Finally, there's a new report due to arrive in a month from an increasingly desperate United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  • Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama on Climate Change. During the July 18 Senate Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by California Democrat Boxer, "Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama's statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?" For several seconds, nobody said a word. After the period of deafening silence, Weather Channel meteorologist and global warming activist Heidi Cullen attempted to change the subject, saying our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama.  When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama's central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.
  • Global Warming Alarmism Memorably Debunked. Author Joe Fone of Christchurch, New Zealand has spent many years researching current and historical data on climate change, with the help of the finest scientists down under. His new book, Climate Change: Natural or Manmade? gives a clear, unbiased view of what is reasonably true and what is clearly incorrect. The book shows his strong intellect and unrestricted effort to find the truth wherever it lay. [...] Fone accurately calls global warming today's cause célèbre, "promoted by an army of enthusiasts from scientists and politicians to environmentalists, celebrities and now even theologians, all of whom declare it to be the most pressing issue facing us since the last such scare — the 1970s ice age panic promoted by a similar army."
  • Our Climate-Change Cathedral. To [Rupert] Darwall, "the science [of global warming] is weak, but the idea is strong." He duly discusses some of the scientific controversies that have arisen, but the underlying objection to today's scientific consensus on AGW set out in his book is more fundamental. [...] But even thoseconvinced of the reality of AGW and the danger it could pose should find Darwall's book a fascinating, if uncomfortable, history of climate change as a political and intellectual phenomenon.
  • Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming. Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser less than a month before directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, Obama said, "we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago. "I don't have much patience for people who deny climate change," Obama added. However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years.
  • Critical Thinking about Climate Change. As a life-long atmospheric and environmental scientist and long-time college-science educator, I am constantly bombarded with material from a variety of sources, including many environmental groups.  Take, for instance, what can be labeled "sales" literature that I recently received from the Environmental Defense Fund.
  • A dangerously deluded energy policy. Without question, it must have been one of the dottiest public utterances ever delivered by a British Cabinet minister. This was the extraordinary speech made on Monday at an event staged by the Met Office; by Ed Davey, our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. What inevitably attracted attention was Mr. Davey's attack on those 'sections of the Press' who dare question any aspect of the way his energy policy for Britain has become wholly skewed and dominated by the belief that the world is in the grip of global warming. The timing of his outburst against 'destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism' in the Press was not accidental: it was to preface yesterday's Commons debate on the mammoth Energy Bill by which he plans to 'decarbonise' our electricity industry.
  • Mr. Moniz is exactly the sort of person who should read this web page: New Energy Secretary on Climate Change: 'I'm Not Here to Debate What's Not Debatable'. Ernest Moniz, the nation's new Energy Secretary, said climate change is "not debatable" in one of his first speeches on the job. "I'm not here to debate what's not debatable," Moniz said at the White House Leadership Summit on Women, Climate and Energy on May 23. "The threat from climate change is real and urgent."
  • Climate Change: we really don't need to waste all this money . There's so much rubbish out there on the internet produced by lavishly funded Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF activists, junk scientists, rent-seeking corporatists and EU- and UN-funded environmental bodies. Time we hit back with the thing these eco-loons hate most: cold hard facts.
  • Who are the real climate deniers? We know, via proxies like ice core samples, fossil remains, marine specimens, temperature-dependent remanence measurements, as well as historical documents, etc., that there were periods in history when the earth was significantly warmer than it is today, though human beings were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere — CO2 levels during the Ordovician Age 440 million years ago were ten times higher than they are at present and happened to coincide with an ice age; closer to home, during the Medieval Warm Period the Scandinavians farmed Greenland and in the Roman Warm Period olive groves flourished in Germany. We know that the Northwest Passage was open during the early part of the 20th century and that the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, as recounted in his The North West Passage, navigated the strait between 1903 and 1906.
  • "A Sensitive Matter" — Flat Temperatures Flummox Climate Scientists. For its part, The Australian observed, "Debate about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from skeptical fringe to the mainstream." It continued, "But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted." Even the Global Warming Policy Foundation acknowledges the emerging evidence. Its spokesman David Whitehouse lamented, "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change."
  • Numeracy in Climate Discussions — how long will it take to get a 6 deg. C rise in temperature? In articles like [the one] by Sarah Kent in the Wall Street Journal on April 18, 2013, we see a graph with a 6 deg. C temperature rise by 2050, if we don't reduce "carbon intensity." Indeed, a 6 C temperature rise may well be cause for concern. But anyone with a little background in mathematics and physics should be able to understand how ridiculous a number like 6 C is.
  • The New Climate Deniers? When the liberals hang onto the neck of a cause, they don't let go. They have ignored murders, rapes, wars, nuclear proliferation, and everything wrong with the world to focus in on their little area — the horror of carbon emissions.  You'd think liberals would have learned from their earlier panic about overpopulation.
  • Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? I want warmer weather here in the Big City. But I've grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I'm 68, and there's still no sign of warmer weather. It's enough to make one doubt the "settled science" of the government-funded doom-sayers.
  • How the Hockey Stick Crumbled: A Post Mortem. But when real scientists, that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor, studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart. We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here. It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike,which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise, by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies.
  • Eco taxes are nonsense if the earth isn't warming. Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming: hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical. But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated.
  • Let's lose the dodgy climate advice — and save £165,000. Last week, as Britain and much of Europe were struggling through the coldest spring in decades, Sir John Beddington marked his retirement from his £165,000-a-year post as the Government's chief scientific adviser by touring the television and radio studios to terrify us all once more with his all-too-familiar message of how we are threatened by runaway global warming. In fact, it is far from clear why Sir John, as an expert in population biology, should be regarded as having any authority to pronounce on such matters.
  • Climate train wreck. There are now two kinds of people with some understanding of climate science, sceptics and liars. The climate change scam is turning into a train wreck and everyone keeping the score knows it. The most delightful thing about the climate train wreck is that it is happening so slowly. Global temperatures have not risen for about fifteen years which is not quite as predicted. Even worse, people are losing interest as the wild-eyed threats lose their potency.
  • The Engineer Behind the Climate Change Train Wreck: The individual is known in global warming skeptic circles as "Mr. FOIA" (aka. Freedom of Information Act), and he has been busy again. He just issued a password along with instructions to a select group that provides access to a new and much larger communications file: These files are ones that many of those researchers and their sponsoring organizations have worked very hard to suppress from legal FOIA requests.
  • Worse is better. Energy is a case in point. I think [Christopher] Booker is absolutely right to describe the crazy quest for CO2 reduction at all costs as "arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history." There is no logic to it. It's insanity. And I think everybody in the country—barring the spivs in the renewables industry, the green activists and the bubble-enclosed political class—is fully aware of this. Which, really, makes it only scarier still because if so many of us know it's wrong, how come this ugly business is able to carry on regardless?
  • Global Warming is [nonsense]. Recall when Michael Mann published the first hockey stick graph-we were all shocked. Al Gore made a movie and won an Oscar. Then, actual statisticians looked at the formula and realized no matter what data you put into it, the same graph was spit out. It was junk science dressed up as a serious theory.
  • In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their "Science". President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms." This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn't new.
  • No, David Attenborough: Africa hasn't warmed by 3.5 degrees C in two decades. 3.5 degrees C in two decades? That would indeed be a remarkable temperature rise in anybody's money. (Remember, since 1850 global mean temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C — and we're supposed to find that worrying and significant). Which is why, you might have thought, the BBC would have spotted so obvious an error and removed it before the programme went out. To his credit, this troubled Leo Hickman, too.
  • Global Warming: One NASA Scientist Vs. More Than 20. The most famous NASA scientist is James Hansen, the political activist and expert on the Venusian atmosphere who sounded the man-made global warming alarm at a 1988 congressional hearing. He's just one man, but the media and the political left have made him out to be an infallible voice on climate change. We live in a society where dissent from the left-wing narrative is not tolerated. So it's no surprise that more than 20 retired NASA scientists and engineers are not getting the same media treatment that a single doomsayer whose quarter-of-a-century-old prediction has not come to pass.
  • Lawmaker wants Obama to prove climate change. Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Mr. Massie, Kentucky Republican, said he was "disappointed" that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on "human activity" and accused some of "denying the evidence of scientists."
  • Global Warming Alarmists Pick and Choose Data to Support Theory. The "think globally" people become very parochial when the global warming story isn't as scary sounding as the local one. Climate change activists took the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) recent report showing 2012 to be the warmest on record for the continental United States, did a little geographic sleight of hand, and spun it into a Chicken Little story on global warming.
  • The Met Office— defending the indefensible, as per usual. The issue is with the Met Office's medium-range forecasts, which for years have persistently erred on the side of predicting non-existent warmth because they have been corrupted by exactly the same dodgy computer models which tell us that as CO2 rises so inexorably will "global warming."
  • 2012 probably not the hottest on record, after all. Last summer's headlines blared, "Hottest July in the history of the United States." Climate activists are linking this to man-made global warming, ignoring the fact that the area covered in the NCDC reports, the contiguous United States (excluding Alaska), comprises only 2 percent of the Earth's surface. Trends that may manifest in the United States in no way indicate global phenomena. In fact, the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office has said that there has been no global warming for 16 years and this week announced that temperatures are expected to stay relatively stable for another five years. Regardless, all NCDC temperature proclamations must be taken with a large grain of salt.
  • Climate Science vs Politics: The Road Ahead. There is good news and bad news about climate. The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record. The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science and are marching ahead full-speed with efforts to control CO2 emissions — thereby hurting the economy, destroying jobs, and stunting economic growth.
  • Global Warming? Not a snowball's chance. By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades.

NEXT: Revisiting The Climate Change Science

Used with permission.
Updated February 26, 2014.
©2014 by Andrew K. Dart

Revisiting The Climate Change Science

impact
Impact of Global Climate Change

MANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS driving the global warmists projections of future catastrophe are being debunked on a frequent basis lately. These assumptions include challenges to the theory that the Earth climate system is driven by a "greenhouse" effect, that the Sun and other galactic forces are irrelevant, that mathematics and computer science can "solve" the complex equations that the computer models use, and that the models are reasonably accurate representations of the climate system. These challenges are not being made by "deniers" but by independent and well respected mathematicians and physicists around the world.

Facts, however, will not deter President Obama and the True Believers. As happened with the banning of DDT, another ruse unsupported by real science, the environmentalists have made it politically incorrect to disagree and exceedingly embarrassing to admit they are wrong. Obama and other politicians around the world, believers or not, see this as an opportunity to further their own Socialist agendas and extract more money from those with means to distribute to those with needs.

—Tony M.

I think they call it man-made climate change now, but yes, your doubts are scientifically sound, Tony.

  • Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.'s Claims. While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group. Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen. The chart also shows that observed temperatures, rather than climbing ever upward, are where they were 15 years ago. Skeptic Anthony Watts calls the chart a bombshell. The media have yawned.
  • Man-made global warming: Even the IPCC admits the jig is up. [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.
  • New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce. The report is actually a massive compilation of scientific studies and news articles from both public and private sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).Together they indicate claims of "global warming," "climate change" and "climate disruption" are nothing but a ruse to usher in massive carbon taxes and crippling regulations. Like Pavlov's dog, politicians are conditioned to react to any harsh weather event by drooling for higher taxes, notes the study. Naturally, delegates at the UN conference were not interested in the conclusions of the CFACT study.
  • An assessment of current alarmist propaganda: It's been obvious for some time, that the science behind the most alarming claims about the effects of any putative global warming, is not only unsustainable but indefensible. We still of course get the occasional paper, trying to resurrect an old scare, which has already been demolished, but as happened with both the Shakun and Gergis papers, the climate skeptics simply tear them to pieces. Not only hasn't the paper succeeded in clawing back any ground, but because it gets eviscerated in public, it actually becomes a propaganda liability. This is the reason we're seeing fewer of such alarmist papers.
  • 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm. This is a gold mine of information that would take weeks to explore.
  • A global warming skeptic who's a lot smarter than Al Gore. Ever since the 1980s one of my favorite authors in the realm of science has been Freeman Dyson. The Princeton physicist has written books on a wide range of topic, from the potential perils of nuclear weapons to discoveries in the human genome. At the moment, I'm reading a book about him by his son George titled "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship. "It's impossible to delve into Dyson's career without concluding he is several orders of magnitude smarter than the Al Gores of the world.
  • The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria. Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly "alarmist" about climate change. The implications were extraordinary.
  • Global Warming's Killer: Critical Thinking. We're told that skeptic scientists lie about all of the "death by a thousand cuts" evidence. We're told that they work for big coal and oil—much like so-called expert shills were paid by tobacco industries to "manufacture doubt" about the hazards of smoking. Yet no reporter pushing that narrative bothers to show which peer-reviewed science journal-published paper written by a skeptic is an outright fabrication written in exchange for fossil fuel industry money. No reporter bothers to show how myriad examples of critical thinking reveal pre-existing—not manufactured—doubt about claims of evidence for global warming.
  • Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist. One of Germany's earliest green energy investors, is not convinced that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming. For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory.Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me.
  • Lord of the Skeptics. In the community of global warming skeptics, Lord Monckton is legendary.With his background in the newspaper industry and exceptional communications skills, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often targeted as a prominent "heretic" of the man-made climate change movement.
  • New paper shows Wyoming was warmer 6,000 years ago than the present. A paper published today [5/31/2012] in The Holocene finds that the elevation of the treeline in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming was higher than the present from 9000 to 6000 years ago, indicating the climate was warmer during that period as compared to present temperatures. The paper adds to thousands of others indicating that the current warming period is not unprecedented nor unusual compared to natural warming in the past.
  • It turns out the 'thought criminals' were right. The global warming scare has not continued to unfold as projected by those bent computer models on which it rested. Temperatures have not risen as predicted, the ice caps aren't melting, nor sea levels rising, nor hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves intensifying as we were assured they would.
  • Environmentalist Icon Says He Overstated Climate Change. Not many years ago, a celebrated scientist predicted a global warming disaster awaited humanity. Today, that same scientist admits his warning was too "alarmist." It's time Al Gore turned his limousine around, too.
  • 'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock. Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'. The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening—just not as quickly as he once warned.
  • Global warming icon: "we don't know what the climate is doing". Who is the latest global warming skeptic?James Lovelock, the man who 40 years ago helped develop the Gaia hypothesis. Just 6 years ago, James Lovelock forecast gloom and doom about the Earth in a fanciful article in the London newspaper, the Independent. Mankind would die off by the billions. Only a few survivors would be left, surviving in the Arctic area, which is odd since the Arctic is an ocean, not a continent.
  • More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report—updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus"—features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.
  • NASA rocked by global warming rebellion. Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery. The global warming emperor has no clothes, and people are finally saying so out loud and in public. The signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience.
  • NASA rebellion on global warming.The 85th Congress and President Eisenhower set up the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to explore space.Government bureaucrat James Hansen has used his position and NASA's reputation to advance an unscientific agenda that calls for government restrictions on all major industries and any other human activity in the bane of controlling carbon dioxide production. This junk science has made him a millionaire through income outside the government. He is a rogue government agent who no one seems able to supervise.Now 50 top former and current astronauts and NASA scientists and engineers have had enough. They want this crackpot stopped.
  • Astronauts condemn NASA's global warming endorsement. In an unprecedented slap at NASA's endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists—including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center—claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world's top space agency. Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency "refrain from including unproven remarks" supporting global warming in the media.
  • Former Astronauts Protest NASA's Global Warming Activism. With proponents of the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming becoming increasingly defensive of their flawed theory, the joint letter signed by NASA veterans—including several heroes of the space program—is one more blow to a theory which has been losing ground in the realm of public opinion. And the letter is particularly critical of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where both director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been particularly vocal proponents of the theory of manmade climate change.
  • 'Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters. The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them. "The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events. "Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations.
  • Queensland turns the tide of environmental lunacy. No administration was "greener" than the one run by departing Queensland premier Anna Bligh. She believed in environmentalism with such a passion she entrusted her beloved husband—Greg Withers: head of Queensland's Office For Climate Change—with the task of turning Queensland into the solar powered, low-carbon, eco-paradise it very nearly is today. I say "very nearly" because incoming premier Campbell Newman has put a stop to all that. One of Newman's first priorities—which is why, of course, Queenslanders voted him in—has been to cancel most of Bligh's green boondoggle programmes.
  • Monckton's Schenectady showdown. Traveling with Lord Monckton on the East Coast leg of his current whistle-stop tour of the US and Canada, I was looking forward to documenting the Schenectady showdown. I have had the pleasure of listening to His Lordship at previous campus events. He is at his best when confronted by a hostile audience. The angrier and more indignant they are, the more he seems to like it.
  • Poll: Most independents reject global warming. Democrats are out of the mainstream when it comes to global warming. A Gallup Poll found that only 28% of independents believe in global warming (only 19% of Republicans do). But the Democratic Party continues to languish in its unscientific superstition that the sins of man's materialism will cause Gaia to punish us by creating Hell On Earth. A plurality of Democrats—43%—believe in global warming.
  • Inhofe warns EPA moving to regulate carbon. If President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency proceeds with plans to bypass Congress and restrict carbon emissions through regulation, it will be even more costly to Americans than "cap and trade" legislation, Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK predicted in an interview with the Washington Examiner this week.Back in 2003, Inhofe stirred controversy when he declared, "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it. "Ever since, he's been one of the most recognizable and dedicated skeptics of global warming.
  • MIT prof: "there won't be much warming due to CO2". Here is one man who has studied global warming alongside all these super duper experts and he has come up to the same conclusion that 1973 Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever: The science is not there to support this theory. So why are we allowing our politicians to bully us into wholesale changes in our economy? Barack Obama is using this silliness as a cover to give $35 billion in loan guarantees to "green" companies such as Solyndra, which not only went belly up but left behind a bunch of barrels of unknown goo. This nation has never had as many college graduates—or as many intellectual sheep.
  • British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax. James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
  • Is catastrophic global warming a mistake just like the Millennium Bug?At a public meeting in British House of Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology has made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by "settled science". ... He gave us a slide with a series of familiar alarms—melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, rising sea levels. It was published by the US Weather Bureau in 1922.And one further element of the consensus:there's been no increase in temperature for 15 years.
  • AP calls out global warming scientist.For too long, proponents of the unproven and untested theory that man is causing global warming have received a free ride from the press, particularly Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. But global warmist Peter Gleick has not only turned Andrew Revkin against him, but Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press—another reporter who suspends disbelief whenever the topic of climate change pops up.
  • Germany's Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic. Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC. Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. "I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. I couldn't take it any more. I had to write this book."
  • Germany's top environmentalist turns skeptic."The CO2 Lies ... pure fear-mongering ... should we blindly trust the experts? "That's what Germany's leading daily Bild wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book—one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
  • Global Warming? No Natural Predictable Change. An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us.
  • 'Germany's George Monbiot' turns climate sceptic. According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation's Benny Peiser, himself a former member of the German green movement, [Dr. Fritz] Vahrenholt's U-turn represents a huge blow to the climate alarmist camp.
  • 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'. Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades? That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book. In an interview with Spiegel, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science.
  • U.Va. professor throws cold water on global warming. Earth might be slightly warmer, and sea levels might be slightly higher, but the changes are natural and should not be blamed on fossil-fuel emissions, a panel of scientists and skeptics said at a public forum Tuesday [1/24/2012]."Human influence on the climate is very, very small—barely detectable," S. Fred Singer, a critic of global warming and professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, told an audience at the Meyera Oberndorf Central Library.
  • Two more scientist change sides in the AGW debate. Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd's theory.
  • Children just aren't going to know what sun is. So, to recap: a scientist from arguably Britain's most discredited university department—the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA—made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to "decarbonise" the UK economy. His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called "climate change." [Dr.David] Viner is not the exception:he is the rule. We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed.
  • Scientists: Chill on global warming. Sixteen actual scientists have joined 1973 Nobel-winning physicist Ivar Giaever in calling global warming concerns overblown. In a letter published in the Wall Street Journal today, the scientists called for everyone to remain calm—and mocked the alarmism by UN bureaucrats over global warming and carbon dioxide. They recommended that the world do nothing about global warming for the next 50 years.
  • No Need to Panic About Global Warming. A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming. "Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
  • Signing Global Warming's Death Certificate. The combined credentials of these men represent some of the best minds on planet Earth in their respective fields.What brought them together? On the surface it was just another of the countless articles that have been published over the years as scientists of real merit and courage took on the juggernaut of those for whom global warming had become a vast flow of government and foundation funding. The effort was to "prove" that carbon dioxide (CO2) was building up in the atmosphere and would soon incinerate Earth by trapping the heat from the sun. It had not done that in the 5.4 billion years of the Earth's existence, but the "warmists" claims came day after day and year after year.They permeated every aspect of society and you can go into any school in America and find textbooks still selling this garbage.
  • The Coup de Grace for Global Warming Catastrophe? It is a typically dense article filled with all of the usual qualifiers, but several things make this a bombshell and a blow to the catastrophist narrative. First, this study was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis of Environment Canada, which is Canada's EPA, so the climate campaigners can't use their favorite talking point that this comes from a private, fossil-fuel funded skeptic outfit. Second, there is no disguising that the finding of this model, along with recent similar studies, that global warming is overestimated by roughly a factor of two in the usual models the IPCC uses.
  • Climate Change Doubts Heat Up the Classroom.Teachers reportedly are getting push-back on middle and high school curricula that fuel the speculation that man is warming the planet.Their frustration is almost worthy of a celebration.
  • Students rebel against Gorepaganda. Actually, most Americans accepted climate change/global warming on face value 20 years ago. Then came Climategate in 2009 which showed that far from being scientists, climatologists are propagandists who cherry-pick and manipulate data in concert with one another in order to push their agenda.
  • Heretics in the classroom. In the last few years school boards and state legislatures in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced a requirement that science teachers acknowledge in their classroom instruction that the theory of AGW isn't "settled" science and that climate skepticism is a valid scientific position.Los Angeles Times reporter Neela Banerjee, who like so many MSM reporters starts with the assumption that AGW is an incontrovertible fact, and that skeptics are self-evidently wrong, opens her news report by begging the question with a false equivalence.
  • Progressives Crave Energy Scarcities. An all-purpose rationale for rationing in its many permutations has been the progressives' preferred apocalypse, the fear of climate change.But environmentalism as the thin end of an enormous wedge of regulation and redistribution is a spent force. How many Americans noticed that the latest United Nations climate change confabulation occurred in December in Durban, South Africa?The futility of this nullity signaled the end—probably for decades, if not forever—of a trivial pursuit that began 14 years ago with the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate would not even bring to a vote.
  • Gingrich Kills Chapter on Climate Change in Upcoming Book. Newt Gingrich says he has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment. But the intended author of the chapter, who supports the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change, says that's news to her.
  • Modern-day climate change witch hunt. Perhaps the reason the public's cynicism towards environmentalism goes up a notch whenever it snows is because for the past 10 years, before the recent big freezes set in, environmentalists told us we'd never see snow again. "Snow is starting to disappear from our lives", declared the Independent in March 2000, quoting an expert from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia—a major producer of climate-change info—saying that "children just aren't going to know what snow is". Mark Lynas, one of Britain's chief climate-change alarmists, told us in 2004 to prepare for life on a "hotter planet" in which "the traditional British winter [is] probably gone for good".
  • Tent Collapsing on Climate Change Circus. The US "has" abundant energy supplies; the EU "has not. "The EU has to depend on schemes like carbon trading, about which Rob Elsworth of the climate-campaign group Sandbag in London said: "is a pretty important revenue stream for most member states. "He asks, "If you take away this green-economy narrative, what's really left of Europe? "The EU's economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the "haves" are expected to carry the "have nots."
  • Lead global warming author quits IPCC project. The UN's global warming unit, IPCC, is so discredited that "it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices" said Ken Caldeira in announcing that he is resigning as one of its leading authors on the next IPCC report. The previous one won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Outside of a few skeptical bloggers, you will not see this story anywhere else.
  • The Contrarians Have Better Data. Prof. Michael E. Mann writes ("Climate Contrarians Ignore Overwhelming Evidence," Letters, Dec. 5) that his 1999 "hockey stick" graph "showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years. "But Mr. Mann's paper only covered the northern hemisphere. It included the questionable use of annual bristlecone-pine tree rings for temperature reconstruction. Even then, it replaced some tree-ring data with estimates. Tree-ring series that showed a 20th-century uptick were given 390 times the weighting of other series, according to a 2005 study by Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph.
  • Climate talks, then climate tax. Meanwhile, back in America, the warmist arguments increasingly are facing challenge. Today's temperature changes are indistinguishable from historic climate cycles, and the public is beginning to notice that renewable-energy schemes are unaffordable luxuries.
  • Don't pretend we know what causes climate change. Not only is the Kyoto Protocol technically flawed, the so-called science behind it is utter twaddle. Never mind complicated things like non-linear mathematics or, indeed, mathematics of any sort. The alarmists can't possibly know how to predict the future of Earth's climate because they can't explain its past.
  • The Great Global Warming Fizzle. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe.Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.
  • America's Energy Policy: Green or Red? Global Warming Alarmism today drives energy policy with politicized science. Consider this: What if there is no Global Warming? What if the number of drowned Polar Bears this year is fewer than the number of drowned Polar bears 1000 years ago, icecaps are not melting, there are no biblical floods, and "climate change" is simply "weather"?What if disinformation, misinformation, and politicized science are tricking us into killing jobs and destroying prosperity?
  • Scientist who said climate change skeptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague. It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all—the research that, in the words of its director, 'proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer'. It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.The Washington Post said the BEST study had 'settled the climate change debate' and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a 'cynical fraud'.But today [10/30/2011] The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller's team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped.
  • How many eco-frauds can dance on a pin? Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis. Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project's four research papers. Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row.
  • Time for Another Climate Science Scandal. Note well that BEST's data was drawn exclusively from land-based temperature readings, since AGW alarmists were concerned that the inclusion of cooler ocean-based readings might understate the severity of the warming "crisis. "And yet, the apparent warming trend still stalled, even within this cherry-picked data.
  • Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead. Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears. The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.

PREVIOUS: The Climate Science Debate Is Not Over (Or it is And The President Lost)
NEXT: Climate Scientists Caught Fudging Again

Reprinted With Permission
Updated February 26, 2014.
©2014 by Andrew K. Dart

Why the Media Blackout On New Energy Breakthrough?

CHEAPER ELECTRICITY OUGHT TO BE a topic of interest, you might think. But because the media is pushing uneconomical "green" technologies, you probably haven't heard of the discoveries which promise to make electricity generated by natural gas cheaper.

Since 1992 the U.S. DOE has "invested" hundreds of millions of dollars into clean-burning, efficient "combined cycle" natural gas turbines made by GE and Westinghouse to power dynamos in central electricity generation stations.

GE? I saw these massive generators being built for South American installations in person at a General Electric Jacksonville, FL plant. A very clever highschool friend whom I was visiting at the time, built these awesome generators. I was impressed. Hamfisted and dreamy-eyed myself, I'd always considered Freddy Wilson a bona fide mechanical genius (after his dad), and now he was clearly proving how far he had come since taking apart every nut, bolt, spring, belt, and thingamajig rusted stubbornly into a 1960s AMC Rambler to then scrape, clean, drill, bore out, reshear, repaint, and finally reassemble a shiny spanking hot muscle rider whose poor white walls only lasted three, four weeks, month after month, until he would eagerly move on to another mechanical post-scholastic feat. He took a job at the Jax plant right out of highschool. Twenty years later he was still there, shop steward, I heard. With the woes and wranglings GE has experienced the last decade or so I would guess my friend has retired or has started a second career, tweaking some knuckle-skinning machine I'd wager.

But why is GE and Jeffrey Immelt now siding up to wind mills and disregarding this proven, more robust, and yes, clean technology?

Read more.

UN To US, Frack Natural Gas Deposits Now

gas-formations
US Shale Gas Formations

AS AMERICANS CONTINUE TO FRET the vacuous insanity of current US-Middle East energy policy, I have been among those writing and talking to anyone who can whistle Dixie about the untapped wealth America has packed beneath our feet and below our water tables in the form of shale gas.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and boasts the four largest fields in the world. The Haynesville field in Louisiana (with production up by 77 per cent in 2009); the Fayetteville field in Arkansas and the Marcellus field in Pennsylvania (both with production up by 50 per cent); and the Barnett field in Texas and Oklahoma (with production up by double-digit increases).

These core centers of potent gas are trapped in shale rock that can be liberated via a process called hydraulic fractioning, more commonly called fracking. Wells are drilled several miles into the earth's crust, greased by a stream of water, sand, and a minor amount of chemicals to fracture the rock and release the gas. All this happens far below the surface and the water tables. Natural gas is relatively clean-burning, is located on-shore, and is American energy wealth writ large.

Behold. Now we get a report from the United Nations, of all places, that asserts America can indeed be on the verge of energy independence and can become one of the world's great exporters of energy because of these shale gas and oil reserves. Natural gas is the one commodity that has been plummeting in price and delivering an economic jolt of its own for consumers more accustomed to higher energy prices.

But why are we not rushing to pump this available gas? That's where the news stops being news, and becomes the same old dog and pony show. In other words, where there's a formidable US energy supply, there's a yellow dog Democrat blocking the way.

Perhaps we should update the reference, and start calling these ridiculous "greenies" the green hornet Democrats, because they can't help themselves but to stir up a lot of wicked buzz and stinging hot air with Speaker Pelosi most assuredly their queen.

Read more.

Just A Simple Twist Of Fate

Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising news, as young Alex in Anthony Burgess' Clockwork Orange might have put it.

F
clockwork-orange
A Clockwork Orange
orecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany, and one of the foremost recognized experts on climate change in the world. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

Update: January 23, 2011

For two decades or so we have been told to urgently act against unprecedented global warming, changing every habit industrial man has grown to embrace, or else there will be fiery gloom and doom for the world and be careful not to confuse weather for climate. Yet, the opposite seems to be occurring all over the globe.

Greenland baseline. Click to enlarge.
Facts. The entire planet has stopped warming since 1998 and, more significantly, has started to cool since 2003. Instead of warning people of cooler weather for the next 30 years, there’s still the distinct false sense of expectation of unprecedented warming. People and governments are being urged to go entirely in the wrong direction for the wrong reasons—and at a potentially horrendous price.

Just look at what happened in UK. Ten years ago Britons were told to expect global warming only and that snow would be a thing of the past. Yet the opposite has arrived, three winters in a row. This winter it crippled the entire nation for nearly a month in December 2010. Alternating periods of warm and cooler weather have been with us as far back as our climate records go. Some of the past cooler periods have been more severe than others, like the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minimums. Professor Don Easterbrook has documented some 20 such cool periods over the last 500 years,

Read it all.

1001 Tales of Purchasing Power

Freedom and personal liberty is rarely lost by a culture in a single blow from an enemy perfected with the arts of permanent destruction, but instead, culture is more often chastised to death by a thousand cuts. Militant Islam, in its natural role, has perfected this latter technique of warfare, using surprise and deception tactics, lies built upon lies, trojan horses and social manipulation, all practiced in the sometimes snarling, sometimes smiling spirit of oppression while busy with the replacement of the host culture in the service of global domination.

Here is an intelligent piece from the Washington TimesThe Camel in the Tent—by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen on the strategies of power acquisition which is inherent to Islamic fundamentalism:

islamic fundamentlaism
Western stupidity with endgame analysis...
Objections to Borse Dubai's proposed acquisition of 20 percent of Nasdaq last week prompted Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank to quip, "In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous... What are we talking about here—smuggling someone onto a stock exchange?"

It is not "who" Dubai will smuggle into the stock exchange we should worry about. It's the arrival of the world's first Islamic stock exchange exerting unprecedented Islamic influence in the heart of the U.S. and Western economies that should raise our alarm. Dubai's handsomely paid Washington lobbyists see nothing wrong with that. Rather, they claim the deal benefits U.S. financial markets, giving "Nasdaq access to rich Mideast pockets." Unfortunately, the deal also increases the appeal and influence of Islamic financing in the West.

What is "Islamic" finance? Islamic, or Shariah-based finance, is the 1920s invention of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. He ordered the Muslim Brothers to create an independent Islamic financial system to supercede the Western economy, facilitating the spread of Islam worldwide. He set the theories and practices and his contemporaries and successors developed Shariah-based terminology for "Islamic economics," finance and banking. Attempts by Muslim Brotherhood members in the early 1930s to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser shut down the second attempt in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brothers for attempts to kill him. Saudi Arabia welcomed them and adopted their ideas.

In 1969, soon after a mentally deranged Australian Christian fundamentalist, Michael Dennis Rohan, tried to set fire to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Saudis convened the Conference for the Islamic Organizations (OIC) to unify the "struggle for Islam," and have been its major sponsor ever since. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan and Syria.

Most Arab and Muslim states publicly denounced bin Laden. But the impending Nasdaq acquisition, the purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange) and the vigorous expansion of Shariah financing apparently follow the Muslim Brotherhood-bin Laden script.
Based in Jeddah, "pending the liberation of Jerusalem," the OIC mandates and coordinates actions to "support the Palestinian people, assist them in recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories." The OIC's first international undertaking was the 1975 establishment of the Islamic Development Bank "in accordance with the principles of the Shariah," marking the beginning of the fast-growing, petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. From 1975 to 2005, the bank approved more than $46 billion in funding to Muslim countries. Since 2000, it has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars raised especially to support the Palestinian intifada and suicide bombers' families—and has channeled United Nations funds to Hamas. Yet the bank received U.N. observer status in 2007.

Overseeing Shariah finance are the 1991-Bahrain-registered and -based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), which laid the groundwork for the global Islamic financial network and the "de facto Islamic Central Bank"—the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB), established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur "to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance." Chairing the meeting, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated: "A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West]."

According to Saleh Kamel, president of the Saudi Dallah Al-Baraka Group and the Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI), more than 400 Islamic financial institutions currently operate in 75 countries. They now hold more than $800 billion in assets—growing at a rate of 15 percent annually. All investments with Islamic financial institutions are subject to the minimum zakat (Islamic charitable wealth tax). On April 30, the OIC, the organization that initiated global Muslim riots after the Danish cartoon publications, established the clerical International Commission for Zakat, replacing more than 20,000 organizations that previously collected the money. Islamic clerics' "expert committee" in Malaysia now supervises and distributes those funds. The new committee will shortly distribute to Muslim charities roughly $2 billion collected during Ramadan.

But not all charities are equal. In 1999, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi decreed: "Declaring holy war [and] fighting for such purposes is the way of Allah for which zakat must be spent." If past zakat distribution is any indication, all Muslim jihadist-terror organizations (including Palestinian Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and the many al Qaeda offspring) will benefit.

Shortly after September 11, Osama bin Laden called upon Muslims "to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means. Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will fall as one."

Most Arab and Muslim states publicly denounced bin Laden. But the impending Nasdaq acquisition, the purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange) and the vigorous expansion of Shariah financing apparently follow the Muslim Brotherhood-bin Laden script.

President Bush on Sept. 25 at the United Nations called on all nations to open their markets. Surely, he did not mean opening the markets to domination by Shariah.
_______________

Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center of Democracy and a board member at the Committee for the Present Danger. She is also a member of the American Congress for Truth Board of Advisors. Alyssa A. Lappen is a senior fellow at the American Center of Democracy.