Posted on

Rigged ‘science’ The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data

Al_Gore_wideweb__430x286,0

Global Warming Hoax, from the man who claimed to have discovered the Internet Al Gore

Rigged ‘science’ The Supreme Court swallows faked global warming data

A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” This harmless gas, the agency insists, is melting the planet.

Only the brave deny man’s responsibility for super-heating the globe in precincts where the wise and wonderful (just ask them) gather to reassure each other than they know best. “We know the trends,” President Obama told the graduates at the University of California at Irvine the other day. “The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.”

The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.

The “Steven Goddard Real Science” blog compares the raw U.S. temperature records from the Energy Department’s United States Historical Climatology Network to the “final” processed figures, to demonstrate how the historical data have been “corrected,” using computer modeling.

The modifications made to the past temperature record had the effect of cooling the 20th century, which makes temperatures over the last 14 years appear much warmer by comparison. Such changes don’t square with history, which shows the decade of the 1930s the hottest on record. The Dust Bowl storms were so severe they sent clouds of debris from Texas and Oklahoma to the East Coast, even darkening the skies over the U.S. Capitol one day in 1934.

Read more: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/23/editorial-rigged-science/#ixzz361PKqGMz 

Posted on

You Won’t Believe Who America’s Greatest Enemy Is

abominable-snowman-520169

You Won’t Believe Who America’s Greatest Enemy Is

James Carafano / @JJCarafano / June 07, 2014 /

President Obama’s West Point speech proved telling in ways he probably didn’t plan. The commander-in-chief tried to use the commencement address to quell concerns over a foreign policy that has produced nothing but controversy and setbacks since the debacle in Benghazi.

But the president scored more misses than hits with the audience, pundits and the press. Even The Washington Post acknowledged that the speech did little more than mow down a field of “straw men.”

As far as policy goes, the speech may have been a clarion call for little more than muddling through. But for prospectors of presidential rhetoric, it is a gold mine. And the biggest nugget is the paradox of an administration mimicking the caricature of the foreign policy it created to discredit the previous administration.

Every administration must define the enemy from which they are protecting us. During the Cold War, that was easy. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it’s often been less self-evident.

That can be problematic. Strategy, after all, is a competitive practice: the art of besting somebody—the Trojans, the Red Coats, the Nazis, whoever’s on the other end of the spear, the sword or the gun. “It is about getting more out of a situation than the starting balance of power would suggest,” Lawrence Freedman declares in his new book, Strategy: A History. “It is the art of creating power.”

And then, slapping the other side over the head with it.

During the Cold War, the enemy was in Moscow. The big challenge was to make neither too much, nor too little of the threat. George Kennan always argued for a tempered, measured threat assessment. On the other hand, the drafters of NSC 68, led by Paul Nitze, and Senator Arthur Vandenberg wanted to “scare the hell out of the American people.”

Getting the threat right was critical. It was the main selling point to the public about how much was enough to defend us.

But America’s long-time selling point for strategy crumbled with the Wall. No self-evident replacement arose until 9/11. From the rubble of the World Trade Center, a strategy for fighting a “global war on terrorism” (GWOT)—the “Long War”—emerged.

Then came Obama. He not only shortened the long war and banned GWOT from the rhetorical locker room, he actively participated in a campaign to delegitimize the whole endeavor. That crusade continued into the West Point speech. “[A] strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable,” the president told the Corps of Cadets and their assembled loved ones.

Of course, the Bush administration had made exactly the same point again and again, post 9/11. Bush, for example, passed on taking on a number of transnational terrorist groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, all sorts of Pakistani groups with lots of initials and most of the nascent groups in North Africa.

Bush invaded exactly two places—Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama invaded one—Libya, and he tried to bomb his way into another war—Syria. So, at least numerically speaking, the score on invasions is pretty even. Obama’s critique of GWOT is an embarrassment of oversimplification.

But while treating the terrorist threat dismissively, Mr. Obama went on to identify an alternative “enemy” on which to pin a grand strategy. Unfortunately, his chosen enemy is just as far removed from a pressing threat to national security as his caricature of the Bush Doctrine was divorced from the real Bush Doctrine.

The “enemy” chosen by Obama to animate America’s grand strategy is climate change. The nation’s existential goal, therefor, is “to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform,” the commander-in-chief told his new troops at West Point. Apparently, the new second lieutenants will spend their careers fighting the weather.

Weather may seem an odd foe for the military. But for a progressive president, it’s the perfect choice.

Obama can’t be accused as a warmonger because he doesn’t want the military to fight anyone—he wants the military to help people.

Weather isn’t a person or a country. He risks offending almost no one.

Making climate change a national security matter also helps a president to press for other statist agenda items—from pet green energy projects to adopting the right-to-protect doctrine.

Unfortunately, as an organizing principle for national security, climate makes a terrible “enemy.” It is enormously complex and unpredictable. The unpredictability of how climate change will play out on the global stage ought to dissuade any strategist from regarding it as an organizing principle around which one can practice what Freedman calls “the art of creating power.” Basing strategy on climate would be the ultimate march of folly.

Mr. Obama may well know that. The reference to climate may be just like the rest of the address: knowingly empty rhetoric. But it does lead to a conclusion devoid of complexity and unpredictability—this speech and the vapid ideas in it will soon be forgotten.

Originally appeared in The National Interest.

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.

https://dailysignal.com/2014/06/07/welcome-obamas-war-weather/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Posted on

Power Plants, Rate-Payers Brace for Obama Administration’s New EPA Regs

pseG_truck2_theridgewoodblog.net_

Power Plants, Rate-Payers Brace for Obama Administration’s New EPA Regs
Eric Boehm
June 2, 2014 at 9:32 am

In November 2010, President Obama stood before reporters in the White House briefing room and offered a frank description of his administration’s chances of getting heavy-duty environmental regulations through Congress.

That was in the final days before Republicans seized control of the U.S. House in Obama’s first mid-term. Unable to get greenhouse gas emissions rules through a Democratic Congress, Obama acknowledged it would be far less likely in the soon-to-be divided government.

“I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year,” Obama said. “And so it’s doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after.”

It’s now the year after the year after, but the situation is the same.

Today, the administration will see what it can accomplish without congressional approval. The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce new policies designed to cut carbon emissions at American power plants.

Some details have already leaked out. The new regulations will vary by state, but each state will have to hit targets for carbon emissions—rather than previous EPA regulations that have set limits for specific facilities but never for an entire state or the whole nation—in a two-step process intended to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2030, the Washington Post reported.

Those mandatory reductions will be a heavy drag on the economy, according to a report issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other groups representing energy companies.

“They are working on really the most signification EPA regulation, or any regulation, in American history. Certainly, it’s EPA’s costliest regulation,” said Matt LeTourneau, director of communications for the U.S. Chamber.

The report uses a combination of sources in an attempt to determine what the Obama administration might have up its sleeve. The Chamber relied on a comprehensive emissions plan published by the National Resources Defense Council, which is working closely with the EPA to craft the new rules, and took into account international agreements the administration has made, such as the Copenhagen Accords.

If their prognostications are true, the Chamber expects the new EPA regulations to cost 200,000 jobs per year and as much as $51 billion in annual GDP. The changes also would cause electricity prices to skyrocket for individual consumers and businesses, according to the Chamber.

The high costs will be incurred because the new regulations target not only new power plants but also require existing plants be retrofitted or closed in favor of new forms of energy.

LeTourneau said nearly all coal-fired plants would be shut down, and even some natural gas power plants could face the axe.

Even with all those cutbacks, global emissions would be reduced by just 1.8 percent, the Chamber says, because most of the growth in emissions is coming from places such as China and India.

Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for the EPA, took to the agency’s blog Wednesday to respond to the Chamber’s report.

Reynolds said the EPA had gathered testimony from hundreds of groups, including many that are members of the U.S. Chamber, and promised more meetings after the new rules are announced. He said the Chamber’s report had significant holes because the group was working off assumptions and other sources, not the actual EPA regulations.

“The Chamber’s report is nothing more than irresponsible speculation based on guesses of what our draft proposal will be. Just to be clear—it’s not out yet. I strongly suggest that folks read the proposal before they cry the sky is falling.”

If the new regulations are as onerous as business groups believe, and if they are adopted into law without congressional approval, expect lengthy court battles over the issue. The Chamber was one of several groups to sue over the Affordable Care Act—which did have congressional approval—showing it is not afraid to take on the administration in court to delay or defeat costly new rules.

It likely will be years before any new carbon emissions standards for power plants are a reality, but the punch and counter-punch from the Chamber and the EPA shows the battle over messaging already has begun.

Eric Boehm is a reporter for Watchdog.org, a national network of investigative reporters covering waste, fraud and abuse in government. Watchdog.org is a project of the nonprofitFranklin Center for Government & Public Integrity

https://blog.heritage.org/2014/06/02/power-plants-rate-payers-brace-obama-administrations-new-epa-regs/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Posted on

Piling On: More New Research Shows No Link Between “Polar Vortex” and Global Warming

Al_Gore_wideweb__430x286,0

Piling On: More New Research Shows No Link Between “Polar Vortex” and Global Warming
MAY 29, 2014 1:27PM
By PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

This is getting embarrassing.

Another scientific paper has just been published that again finds no association between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme cold and wintery conditions across the U.S.—White House Science Advisor John Holdren’s favorite mechanism for tying last winter’s persistent “polar vortex” over the eastern US to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

We wonder just what it will take for the White House to publicly admit that it was grossly wrong. At the very least, it needs to disavow a widely-disseminated YouTube video featuring Holdren explaining the link between last winter’s polar vortex and human-caused climate change. There is no such link. Of course, this won’t happen, as Holdren was simply engaging in a publicity stunt relying on tenuous science to scare up support for President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.  The President is hell-bent on an endless string of executive actions aimed at manipulating the energy market and reducing our energy choices along the way.

As we reported when the video was first released last January, the science linking human-caused climate change to the southward excursions of the polar vortex was a stretch to begin with. It was then dealt a major blow by a study led by Colorado State climate researcher Elizabeth Barnes that was coincidentally published a few days after Holdren’s YouTube video. Barnes’s found that natural variability dominates the observed record, making it impossible to detect any human-caused global warming signal even if one were to exist in the vortex data (which there is no proof of). Shortly after that, a collection of very prominent climate scientists specializing in research into atmospheric circulation patterns wrote a letter to a prominent journal stating that drawing the type of connection that Holdren did was not scientifically advisable

Spurred by all of this, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent apetition to the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) to force Holdren issue a correction under the terms of the Data Quality Act. According to CEI, “OSTP guidelines require the agency to correct any published information that does not meet ‘basic standards of quality, including objectivity, utility, and integrity.’”

Holdren and the White House have been unmoved.

Now comes this: a brand new study, led by Thomas Ballinger of Kent State University, which directly examined the size and magnitude of the 2014 “polar vortex” event and found it to be not particularly unusual.  Yes, it was a significant event ushering a lot of really cold air southward over the eastern 2/3rds of the U.S. and bringing with it all sorts of winter misery, but it wasn’t historically unusual.  In fact, Ballinger’s team, found, in examining polar vortex behavior across North America since 1948, that the 2014 polar vortex excursion into the lower 48 ranked 6th in southerly extent and 7th in total area. The authors concluded that their analysis “revealed that the spatial features of the January 2014 [polar vortex over the U.S.] were not extreme relative to certain 1948-2013 Januaries.”

Ballinger and colleagues took their analysis one step further and examined the historical record to see if they could find a link between the loss of Arctic sea ice and an increase in polar vortex excursions into the U.S.—Holdren’s favored explanation for tying human actions into their own winter suffering.  Here is what they wrote:

While this [polar vortex] study solely examines January, a regional domain, and uses different data to quantify atmospheric circulation, the results presented here are not congruent with the large-scale flow changes suggested in those latter papers [linking Arctic sea ice loss to polar vortex behavior].

Sorry, John.

So with a large and growing body of scientists and scientific evidence aligning against Holdren’s explanation of things, it is high time for a recognition of this by the White House. But since they are no doubt too focused on pushing their new carbon dioxide emissions regulations to find the time to insure that their justification for the regulations are based in fact, we thought we’d help them out and draft a public announcement for them.  Here is what we have come up with:

From the White House:

We’d like to take this opportunity to correct something that we put forward regarding human-caused climate change and the polar vortex from this past winter.  In actuality, and as a collection of new science has shown, that linkage is much more tenuous that we stated, if it even exists at all.

Our purpose for releasing that video and associated press material was to take advantage of an extreme weather event that was inconveniencing a large number of Americans. We wanted to use the opportunity to try to scare you into supporting our executive actions aimed at restricting carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to mitigate future climate change.  Admittedly, the science is much weaker than federal pronouncements like these make it out to be. But if we were forthcoming with all the data and the complete story that it told, there would be even less support for the Climate Action Plan than currently exists. And since we’re coming clean about things, we’ll go ahead and admit that we realize the regulations forwarded under the Climate Action Plan, most notably the soon-to-be-announced sweeping carbon dioxide emissions restrictions on existing power plants, will have no measureable impact on the very thing that they aim to achieve—mitigating climate change—unless, by eliminating coal-fired electricity generation, there is a technological miracle that no one can anticipate or forecast.  While waiting, you’ll just have to live with more expensive electricity.

We really aren’t very concerned about this because one of the confident predictions from government scientists is that winters should warm preferentially to summers. So you won’t need as much electricity to heat your house.  If we were right about the polar vortex and very cold temperatures in the East, that would be too bad, but we were wrong.

So, next time you hear a federal pronouncement about climate change and extreme weather (likely coming sometime this summer when it gets hot), note that we are largely making it up and that the larger body of science, economics, and statistics, generally doesn’t support our wild assertions.

We’ll let you know when our phone rings.

References:

Ballinger, T., M.J. Allen, and R.V. Rohli, 2014. Spatiotemporal analysis of the January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex over the contiguous United States. Geophysical Research Letters,doi:10.1002/2014GL060285.

Barnes, E., et al., 2014. Exploring recent trends in Northern Hemisphere blocking. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2013GL058745.

Posted on

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

dinosaur_2011182b

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

By ERICA MARTINSON | 5/16/14 7:20 PM EDT

The EPA will launch the most dramatic anti-pollution regulation in a generation early next month, a sweeping crackdown on carbon that offers President Barack Obama his last real shot at a legacy on climate change — while causing significant political peril for red-state Democrats.

The move could produce a dramatic makeover of the power industry, shifting it away from coal-burning plants toward natural gas, solar and wind. While this is the big move environmentalists have been yearning for, it also has major political implications in November for a president already under fire for what the GOP is branding a job-killing “War on Coal,” and promises to be an election issue in energy-producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/carbon-crackdown-barack-obama-106783.html#ixzz31xWftytK

Posted on

The Inconvenient Truth about Climate Change

abominable-snowman-520169

The Inconvenient Truth about Climate Change

Climate change cannot be denied. The inconvenient truth President Obama refuses to accept is that efforts to significantly alter its course are fruitless, and severely handicap America’s ability to mitigate its consequences.
In recent years, more abundant and cheaper natural gas has motivated electric utilities to switch from coal, and energy intensive manufacturers in metals, chemicals and the like have made remarkable, cost-saving progress to reduce energy use.
Responding to consumer preferences, automakers were making more fuel efficient vehicles before the president imposed more stringent mileage standards. The high cost and stress of commuting are encouraging many young people to live closer to jobs. Competition from rail is pressuring trucking companies to purchase more fuel efficient rigs.
Together, those free market decisions have reduced CO2 emissions by more than 9 percent from 2005 levels.
Now, the EPA and other federal agencies want to micromanage those choices by imposing inflexible standards on electric utilities and other manufacturers. Progressives would happily force as many Americans as they can onto mass transit, imposing a huge drain on state transportation and local government operating budgets.
Those initiatives would not do much to arrest global warming but by increasing taxes and production costs, those would send more jobs to China.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: https://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/051514-701110-even-if-climate-is-changing-us-policy-is-wrong.htm#ixzz31siQSAHG

Posted on

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

abominable-snowman-520169

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

Posted on

Weather Channel Founder To Retire–Called Global Warming A ‘Scam’

0_21_coleman_john2

Weather Channel Founder To Retire–Called Global Warming A ‘Scam’ –Said Al Gore was full of it

John Coleman, a TV weatherman for more than 60 years, including the last 20 at KUSI Channel 9/51, has decided to retire.

The station planned to announce Coleman’s decision on its 6 p.m. news Thursday, at which time it would air a retrospective of his career.

Coleman, 79, currently is on vacation. He notified the station he is retiring immediately, so there will be no farewell appearance. Late in the afternoon, after the news broke of his decision, Coleman tweeted: “On the beach and I did it my way No speeches. Just out the door. LIG”

Known for his trademark “K-uuuuuuuuuuu-S-I” exclamation, Coleman wrote a farewell letter to his KUSI colleagues titled “THANK YOU AND GOOD BYE.” He wrote, in part, “now is the time for me to wind down the professional, working part of … my life and make the most of my private time in the years I have left.”

Read the full story:  www.utsandiego.com

Posted on

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

abominable-snowman-520169

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

by Dan McGrath on March 31, 2014 in Extreme weather, Failed predictions, IPCC, Junk Science,Mythical Consensus, Real Science, Sea Levels

By Joseph Blast

This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

https://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/03/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Posted on

Obama’s global-warming folly

abominable-snowman-520169

Obama’s global-warming folly
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 4, 2013

The economy stagnates. Syria burns . Scandals lap at his feet. China and Russia mock him , even as a “29-year-old hacker” revealed his nation’s spy secrets to the world. How does President Obama respond? With a grandiloquent speech on climate change .

Climate change? It lies at the very bottom of a list of Americans’ concerns (last of 21 — Pew poll). Which means that Obama’s declaration of unilateral American war on global warming, whatever the cost — and it will be heavy — is either highly visionary or hopelessly solipsistic. You decide:

Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil a grand, hugely costly, socially disruptive anti-warming program.

Now, this inconvenient finding is not dispositive. It doesn’t mean there is no global warming. But it is something that the very complex global warming models that Obama naively claims represent settled science have trouble explaining. It therefore highlights the president’s presumption in dismissing skeptics as flat-earth know-nothings.

On the contrary. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who refuse to acknowledge the problematic nature of contradictory data. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who cite a recent Alaskan heat wave — a freak event in one place at one time — as presumptive evidence of planetary climate change. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who cite perennial phenomena such as droughts as cosmic retribution for environmental sinfulness.

For the sake of argument, nonetheless, let’s concede that global warming is precisely what Obama thinks it is. Then answer this: What in God’s name is his massive new regulatory and spending program — which begins with a war on coal and ends with billions in more subsidies for new Solyndras — going to do about it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-global-warming-folly/2013/07/04/a51c4ed0-e3fc-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html

Posted on

Democrats Plan to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change

abominable-snowman-520169

Democrats Plan to Pressure TV Networks Into Covering Climate Change

Sens. Sanders and Schatz are gathering colleagues’ signatures on a letter asserting that the shows are ignoring global warming.

Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues’ signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they’re ignoring global warming.

“It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes,” Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats’ new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114