Tag Archive: climate science

Calif lawmakers advance aggressive climate change plans

climate_fastSACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers on Wednesday pushed through an ambitious climate change package to further reduce the state’s carbon footprint and boost the use of renewable energy to 50 percent in 15 years.

The state Senate passed proposals to enact Gov. Jerry Brown’s call to curb greenhouse gas emissions by setting what the administration calls the most aggressive benchmark in North America over the objection of Republicans who characterized such regulation as coastal elitism that would kill working-class jobs.

California aims to boost statewide renewable electricity use to 50 percent, have drivers use half as much gasoline and make buildings twice as efficient under the proposal by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. His bill, SB350, advanced to the Assembly on a 24-14 vote.

“California has demonstrated our global climate leadership over the last decade,” de Leon said, adding, “These policies will further cement our leadership, further strengthen our economy while protect the health of our communities.”

Senate Democrats also approved an overarching proposal to further reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America will Shock you

The goal is a mile marker on the way to cutting emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 that was set by Brown’s predecessor, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

SB32 by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, passed the Senate on a 22-15 vote.

“It is a big number – science-based number, however,” Pavley said, “what we have to do without reaching the tipping point regarding global climate change.”

California, which already has an aggressive plan to combat global warming, currently is on track to meet a goal of cutting carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, partly by forcing companies to pay for their pollution.

The state’s cap-and-trade program, launched nearly three years ago, offers one of the few real-world laboratories on how to reduce heat-trapping emissions. It expanded this year to levy fees on companies that produce gasoline and other fuels, prompting predictions that consumers will see a spike in prices to cover the costs.

Pavley’s bill incorporates an executive order Brown issued in April to further emissions reductions – the equivalent of taking 36 million cars off the road, more than all the vehicles registered in California last year.

While the executive order lacked details, state officials have said it would require accelerated development of renewable energy and alternative fuel sources, and getting more electric cars and zero-emission heavy-duty trucks on the road.

GOP members said the package would mean the government will pick economic winners and losers, raise utility and gasoline prices, and drive out good-paying jobs just so California can feel good about leading an environmental fight.

They also said there is inadequate oversight of the rule-setting process.

“This is really a stab in the dark, and it’s unknown,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. “Every new technology that has driven California has been when government got out of the way.”

Democrats argued that it’s not a choice between jobs and the environment. Rather, they say fostering clean-energy jobs will mean more people will drive electric vehicles and have solar panels on their homes.

Pavley, who authored the state’s 2006 global warming law, said more than $30 billion in venture capital has flowed into California as a result of establishing a marketplace for the private sector to compete.

The California Assembly also moved Wednesday on two climate change bills that are narrower in scope.

One bill, AB1288, would allow the state Air Resources Board to continue conducting market-based regulations beyond its 2020 authority, while the other, AB645, called for the state to require at least half of all energy come from wind, solar and other renewable sources by 2050.

Associated Press writer Julia Horowitz contributed to this report.

This story has been corrected to show that California imposes fees, not fines, on its cap-and-trade program.


Conservative Wave Swamps Climate Change: Steyer Wasted $22 Million
73 percent of his climate funding went to failed candidates.
Published: 11/5/2014 10:32 AM ET
Liberal California billionaire Tom Steyer just learned a big lesson about changing climate. The former hedge fund manager tried to make global warming the big issue in 2014. Instead, voters told him there was a chill in the air for his agenda.

As a result, he lost in nearly three out of four races he funded. Steyer had donated $73.8 million to this election cycle to fund more than 7,000 advertisements in seven key states. That made him the single biggest political donor this election cycle.

However, out of the $30.8 million of that money that went to seven specific races according to Open Secrets, more than $22.4 million, 73 percent, went to candidates who ended up losing their races. Even The Washington Post on Nov. 3 noted that Steyer’s ad campaign didn’t seem to be influencing the election much — at least not according to national polling data available at the time.

Steyer has done most of his political campaigning through his political action committee, Nextgen Climate. There are 38 unique political commercials listed on Nextgen’s YouTube channel. According to the Oct. 2, 2014, Washington Post, Tom Steyer’s operation “has paid for 7,050 ads in Senate races in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire and in the Florida governor’s race.” This number doesn’t include the governor’s races in Pennsylvania and Maine, on which Steyer and Nextgen have donated at least $2.4 million.

Nextgen’s ads have ranged from bizarre to downright unfactual. One ad featured people in monkey and banana costumes, dancing in front of a psychedelic background to remind people to get out and vote. Another implied that the Koch brothers belonged to the same group of people who “told us the world was flat, and insisted it was the center of the universe.”

Another ad that targeted the Keystone Pipeline also featured so many errors that The Washington Post gave it four out of four “Pinocchios.” Steyer’s campaign cash even paid for a small model of Noah’s Ark to tour Florida. The stunt claimed that Florida Gov. Rick Scott was going to let climate change flood his state, and then he would save his powerful friends in an ark.

Earlier this year, Steyer’s team had promised that Nextgen Climate would raise $100 million in the 2014 election cycle — half coming from Steyer himself and half coming from outside donors. But when the PAC only managed to raise $2 million, Steyer denied knowing where that number came from.

He told The Los Angeles Times on Oct. 12, that he blamed “”somebody I don’t know who has never owned up to it.” However, the Times noted that “[a]ctually, Steyer’s political strategists suggested the sum, both in public and private.” This $100 million number was widely repeated by major news outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, without any protest from Steyer until it became obvious that the goal wouldn’t be reached by election day.

Nextgen has faced criticism, even from the left, for political ads that Politico aptly dubbed “bizarre.” The Post criticized a Nextgen ad targeting the Keystone Pipeline, giving it “four Pinocchios,” the most scathing falsehood rating that the Post can give to something. (The explanation of the Pinocchio rating system is here.) The ad claimed that the Keystone Pipeline, rather than benefiting U.S. and Canadian interests, would primarily benefit China at the expense of the U.S. The hit job even included an out of context quote from Alexander Pourbaix, the Executive Vice-President and President of Development for TransCanada.

According to the Post, that ad in particular “does not even meet the minimal standards for such political attack ads. It relies on speculation, not facts, to make insinuations and assertions not justified by the reality.” The Post, which is neither conservative nor in favor of the pipeline, called the ad “especially disturbing, even by the standards of attack ads.”

Yet, Steyer defended that same ad to the Los Angeles Times on Oct. 12, arguing “”I have not seen anything … that I did not think was supportable.” (Ellipses theirs).

Here’s how much Steyer and Nextgen donated to each of those seven races:

Florida: $12,000,000

Colorado: $5,947,600

Iowa: $3,516,685

Pennsylvania: $1,425,000

New Hampshire: $3,148,272

Maine: $1,000,000

Michigan: $3,757,393

But no one on the broadcast networks was paying any attention. ABC, CBS and NBC have done just one story mentioning Steyer and his funding since that the founding of his Center for the Next Generation, and even then it was a mere 34 words in a story about the Koch brothers.

Charles and David Koch got the once-over from all three networks. There were 22 mentions of the Kochs funding conservative groups or politicians in that time. That’s a 22-1 ratio.

— Mike Ciandella is Staff Writer/Analyst for MRC Business at the Media Research Center. Follow Mike Ciandella on Twitter

Daily Digest

Daily Digest
Oct. 15, 2014

“Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1816

Saddam’s Iraq Had Old Chemical Weapons, U.S. Troops Exposed
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq did have chemical weapons, though not an active program when the U.S. invaded in 2003. The New York Times reports, “From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” In all, the Times “found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.” The soldiers say they were ordered to keep quiet about the findings and wounds. Saddam’s non-compliance with UN requirements was a major justification for the Iraq war, but because the weapons were manufactured in the 1980s, the Times says, “The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.” Now, of course, ISIL controls the facility where many of the weapons were found and remain. More…1

U.S. Increases Airstrikes, WH Says ‘We’re Succeeding’
Secretary of State John Kerry may have belittled the importance2 of keeping ISIL from taking over Kobani, Syria, but according to ABC News3, “U.S. warplanes have ramped up the number of airstrikes against ISIS fighters in the besieged city of Kobani, launching 21 airstrikes since Monday, officials said [Tuesday]. It is the highest number of strikes since the start of the air campaign in Syria and is an indicator of how important the U.S. now sees the battle for Kobani.” ISIL has been advancing despite U.S. airstrikes, primarily because airstrikes aren’t enough and local ground forces that are opposing ISIL are losing. But pay no attention to the facts on the ground. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, “[C]ertainly the early evidence indicates that [Barack Obama’s] strategy is succeeding.” Who are you going to believe – him or your lying eyes? More…4

Houston Cracks Down on Pastors’ Dissent
It’s like the First Amendment doesn’t exist in Houston. The city passed an “LGBT equal rights” ordinance in June that also allowed men to use women’s public restrooms, and vice versa. Naturally, the city’s pastors fought back, organizing a petition drive. The city’s government, led by Mayor Annise Parker, who is a lesbian, cracked down on the pastors with subpoenas. Shockingly, the subpoena5 ordered pastors to turn over “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.” The Alliance Defending Freedom has stepped in to fight for the pastors. ADF Senior Legal Council Erik Stanley said6, “City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge. In this case, they have embarked upon a witch-hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.” A church’s non-profit status only forbids7 it from campaigning for a candidate, not from speaking on issues. The slow march of LGBT “tolerance” laws has slammed into the rights of speech and religion. More…8

Grimes Refuses to Acknowledge Obama Vote. Again. Still.
Days after Kentucky’s Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes evaded questions9 about whether she voted for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012, she again refused to answer the same question in a debate with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. This time, she hid behind high-minded nonsense. “This is a matter of principle. Our constitution grants, here in Kentucky, the constitutional right for privacy of the ballot box, for a secret ballot,” Grimes said. “I am not going to compromise a constitutional right provided here in Kentucky in order to curry favor on one or the other side, or for members of the media. I’ll protect that right for every Kentuckian.” This has nothing to do with principle. On the contrary, it shows how toxic Obama is for Democrats this November and to what lengths they’ll go to avoid him. McConnell, on the other hand, had no trouble saying, “I voted for Mitt Romney. Proudly.”

St. Louis Blacks Are Angry – at Democrats
Black voters in Ferguson, Missouri10, may be waking up to their real problem: race-baiting Democrats. The Washington Post reports11 on a nearly unthinkable sea change coming in November. “Many African Americans in Ferguson and across St. Louis County, angered over their leaders’ response to the fatal shooting [of Michael Brown], say they will be taking their outrage to the ballot box and voting against a Democratic Party that has long been their automatic choice.” The Post quotes several black residents angry at Democrats, including a young man who said, “The world is watching us right now. It’s time to send a message of our power.” Blacks have been voting Democrat for 50 years and have nothing to show for it besides destroyed families and communities stuck on Democrat poverty plantations12. It’s past time for a Great Awakening.

For more, visit Right Hooks13.

Ecofascists Hijack EPA Ozone Regulations
The Environmental Protection Agency will release its new standards regulating ozone in December. Even while the old ozone standards have not been fully implemented and studied, environmental groups have hijacked the EPA to enact new regulations on the nation’s energy and manufacturing economy. And in the estimation of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), “This would be the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public.”

The Supreme Court recently declined14 to hear the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group, a conglomerate of coal companies, which argued the 2008 ozone rules were too strict. Even after six years, states like Connecticut, New Jersey, Texas and especially California did not reach15 the ozone production levels set in 2008.

While the EPA has not released the details of the new regulations – they’re waiting until after the election for that – the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee recommended16 to the agency in June to push the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70ppb, or even as low as 60ppb. That level “would certainly offer more public health protection than levels of 70ppb or 65ppb and would provide an adequate margin of safety,” committee chair Dr. H. Christopher Frey wrote. Well heck, if we’re talking health protection here, 0ppb would be ideal, but also against the laws of nature.

Ozone, a.k.a. smog, can form naturally, but manufacturing and burning coal can also create ozone. So ecofascist groups like the Environmental Defense Fund label it a “harmful air pollutant” because it allegedly exacerbates respiratory conditions like asthma.

In July, the DC Circuit Court ruled17 the EPA violated the Clean Air Act when it did not pass tougher ozone standards in 2008 (under the Bush administration, the greenies like to point out).

The EPA stalled on passing stricter ozone regulations until 2011. But then, Barack Obama told18 then-EPA Director Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed rules, saying, “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.”

Surely stricter ozone regulations weren’t too tough even for Obama to stomach. Perhaps he wasn’t yet emboldened, as it was only his first term. However, the July regulation made environmentalists happy that they finally forced the Obama administration to act.

“Smog sickens and even kills some plants and trees, even in America’s national parks, which are supposed to have the cleanest air in the country,” said Mark Wenzler19, vice president of conservation programs at the National Parks Conservation Association. “The Obama administration now has an opportunity to follow the Science™ and not play politics with protecting our national parks and forests from air pollution damage.”

The administration would never play politics.

Wenzler meant a court-ordered opportunity. These new ozone rules go beyond executive fiat. These regulations were pushed forward by ecofascists with deep pockets and sharp lawyers. It’s rule by legal suit, baby.

And while the new regulations may make Sequoias and Redwoods happy, the rules would cut down American industry faster than a bald eagle going through a wind turbine. NAM released a study20 in July concluding new ozone rules “could cost $270 billion per year and place millions of jobs at risk.” That breaks down to costing households $1,570 per year, according to NAM. Furthermore, a 60ppb standard would make every state noncompliant with ozone regulations, with few exceptions – mostly swaths of Montana and North Dakota.

“Based on the way the EPA interprets the Clean Air Act,” the NAM report concludes, “it is virtually ensured that the agency will recommend a stricter standard every five years. Yet, ozone levels are getting so low that a rapidly growing share of even urban areas’ ozone concentration now comes from either naturally occurring ozone or from ozone that has been transported from other states or countries. We have reached the point at which significant further reductions simply cannot be accomplished in any cost-effective manner. Absent recognition of this fact from the EPA, it is time for Congress to modernize the Clean Air Act.”

Right now, an act of Congress may be the only thing that will reform the EPA because the courts have weighed in. The bottom line is the environmentalists have won their court battles; America’s manufacturers and coal industry have lost theirs.

Meanwhile, every American has the right to petition the government, but environmentalist groups seem to have an extra-special right to petition the EPA. According to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), newly revealed emails21 between Gina McCarthy, the current EPA administrator, and David Doniger, a policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggest collusion. Vitter said, “These emails clearly demonstrate their beyond-cozy relationship and force the question: Who is working for whom?”

The emails show McCarthy working with Doniger to craft the recently passed greenhouse gas regulations. In the emails, McCarthy tells Doniger in 2011, “I will never say no to a meeting with you.” How many coal companies have such a relationship? And in 2010, McCarthy tells him, “I appreciate your support and patience. … This success is yours as much as mine.”

This was the same woman in July who welcomed public comment on the greenhouse gas regulations and with the same breath22 described economic arguments against EPA regulation as “tired, false and worn out criticism.”

But that was greenhouse gas regulation. When the EPA deviated from the ecofascist line on ozone, the environmentalists’ lawsuit reminded the EPA just who is in charge.

Ebola – Just the Facts
On Aug. 2, many Americans were rightly focused on the epidemic of ISIL violence23 in Iraq. On that day, Dr. Kent Brantly, a physician with the Christian ministry Samaritan’s Purse, was admitted to Emory University Hospital in Atlanta after contracting Ebola while treating patients in West Africa. He survived.

Under intense political pressure to put “boots on the ground” to combat ISIL, Barack Obama, who assured the nation, “The chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low,” put boots on the ground in Africa24 to help contain the Ebola outbreak there. Yet he refused to halt those from the infected regions from traveling to the U.S.

On Sept. 20, Liberian national Thomas Eric Duncan flew into the U.S. after lying about his symptoms and contact with Ebola patients in Africa. On Oct. 8, he died in a Dallas hospital.

Subsequently, two health care workers involved in Duncan’s care have been diagnosed with Ebola. Additionally, another American, Ashoka Mukpo, who was covering the Ebola outbreak in Africa for NBC, is being treated for the virus in a Nebraska hospital.

From Ebola’s first diagnosis in 1976 until 2013, the UN’s World Health Organization reported 1,716 cases worldwide. In March 2014, the WHO reported an outbreak of Ebola in Guinea, which began with the death of a child who contracted the disease in December 2013. Ebola spread to Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria, and as of today there are approximately 8,500 cases diagnosed and 4,200 deaths reported.

The viral epidemic will continue to spread in Africa and may eventually reach pandemic status, primarily because third world countries have only rudimentary skill in proper diagnosis and the practices of dealing with those who are infected or have died.

The last African epidemic, HIV/AIDS, killed approximately 36 million people on the continent and worldwide before methods of prevention and treatment contained the disease. There are now approximately 30 million people living with HIV globally.

However, Ebola, though transmitted through bodily fluids and waste, is much more virulent and lethal than AIDS. Because the incubation period for Ebola is up to three weeks, the pool of people exposed to the virus can be much larger.

Between 50% and 70% of those infected with Ebola will die, so you should be concerned. But the question is, how concerned? Certainly not as concerned as all those media outlets that depend on hyperbole for market share and advertising dollars.

Given the non-stop media attention devoted to Ebola, millions of Americans worry that they or their loved ones may become victims. Some careless scientists and “experts-on-everything” claim the virus will soon mutate and become an airborne disease – a possibility but highly improbable.

There have been two previous human cases of Ebola in the U.S. One was in 1989 at a private facility where test monkeys were held until they were moved to the Army labs at Fort Detrick, Virginia – where Biohazard Level 4 viruses are stored and studied. An infected monkey spread the virus to one of the handlers, but he recovered. In 1990 at that same base, a veterinary medical examiner entered a Level 4 room to autopsy a monkey. During the autopsy, she discovered her glove had a tear. She contracted the disease but also survived.

To put things in perspective regarding the current Ebola cases in the U.S., according to the CDC, almost 54,000 Americans died last year from influenza and pneumonia. Currently, Enterovirus D68 is in 43 states and is killing otherwise healthy elementary age school children.

Despite the 66 years of financial and other assistance the WHO has provided Africa, health and medical conditions there are prone to produce disease rather than cure it. Africa has very few doctors and nurses, and few hospitals and clinics, while equipment and supplies are spread extremely thin. Conditions outside cities are very unsanitary. Because of scarcity, doctors often reuse the same syringe on several people, possibly transmitting any of a dozen diseases in the process.

And now, the WHO warns that there will be 10,000 cases of Ebola25 before year’s end. They say we must stop it before Christmas.

So what to do?

First, the U.S. should severely restrict all visas into the U.S. from African nations where the disease is spreading. Regarding the 13,000 visas currently issued to people in those countries, step up the assessment of those entering the U.S. and quarantine any of those who may have been exposed to the virus. This should be done now, and the Obama administration’s argument against these measures – asserting that such restrictions would limit aid into Africa – is patently false.

Second, while an Ebola epidemic in the U.S. is in fact highly unlikely, you should hope for the best but prepare for the worst by familiarizing yourself with this two-step action plan26 concerning the minimum requirements to shelter in place – the ultimate defense against a pandemic threat27.

And finally, turn off the 24-hour news recycler “alerts.” You are at far greater risk of being murdered by one of Obama’s urban poverty plantation12 constituents than of dying from Ebola.

For more, visit Right Analysis13.

Michelle Malkin: The Centers for Everything but Disease Control28
Jonah Goldberg: Ebola Is Much Less Scary Than Hollywood’s ‘Contagion.’ Or Is It?29
Walter E. Williams: Officially Killing Americans30
Terence Jeffrey: Federal Debt Now $200,000 Per Full-Time Private-Sector Worker31
John Stossel: Crumbling Constitution32
For more, visit Right Opinion33.

The Gipper: “It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work – work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”

Columnist Michelle Malkin: “At $7 billion, the Centers for Disease Control 2014 budget is nearly 200 percent bigger now than it was in 2000. Those evil, stingy Republicans actually approved CDC funding increases in January larger than what President Obama requested. What are we getting for this ever-increasing amount of money? Answer: A power-hungry busybody brigade of politicized blame-mongers. … [W]hile Ebola and enterovirus D68 wreak havoc on our health system, the CDC has been busying itself with an ever-widening array of non-disease control campaigns, like these recent crusades: Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. … Video games and TV violence. … Playground equipment. … ‘Social norming’ in the schools. … After every public health disaster, CDC bureaucrats play the money card while expanding their regulatory and research reach into anti-gun screeds, anti-smoking propaganda, anti-bullying lessons, gender inequity studies and unlimited behavior modification programs that treat individual vices – personal lifestyle choices – as germs to be eradicated.”

Columnist Terence Jeffrey: “Which will be greater: the burden of student debt on Americans who went off this fall to their first year of college, or the amount of federal debt per full-time private-sector worker when these students earn their degrees and start looking for jobs? There is no doubt: It will be the amount of federal debt per full-time private-sector worker. As of last Friday, the total debt of the federal government was $17,858,480,029,490.28, according to the U.S. Treasury. That equaled $200,258.81 for each of the 89,177,000 full-time private-sector workers that, according to the Census Bureau, were in the United States in 2013. … Americans who get up every morning and go to work, and do it week after week after week, and are forced to pay progressively higher taxes to maintain a federal welfare state that is driving our national debt to an unsustainable level are being forced to subsidize a system that is killing the American dream.”

Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “Really baffled by how the amount of melanin in your skin cells is supposed to affect your ability to get a photo ID.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.


People’s Climate Demarche
The anticarbon campaign stalls even at the United Nations.
Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a “people’s climate march” designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won’t achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix.

Six years after the failure of the Copenhagen summit whose extravagant ambition was to secure a binding global treaty on carbon emissions, Mr. Obama is trying again. The Turtle Bay gathering of world leaders isn’t formally a part of the international U.N. climate negotiations that are supposed to climax late next year in Paris, but the venue is meant to be an ice-breaker for more than 125 presidents, prime ministers and heads of state to start to reach consensus.

One not-so-minor problem: The world’s largest emitters are declining to show up, even for appearances. The Chinese economy has been the No. 1 global producer of carbon dioxide since 2008, but President Xi Jinping won’t be gracing the U.N. with his presence. India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi (No. 3) will be in New York but is skipping the climate parley. Russian President Vladimir Putin (No. 4) has other priorities, while Japan (No. 5) is uncooperative after the Fukushima disaster that has damaged support for nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is dispatching its petroleum minister.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon excused these truancies at a press conference last week: “In any event, we have other means of communications, ways and means of having their leadership demonstrated in the United Nations.” In that case, why not do a conference call?

To understand the coldness of this brush off, global CO2 emissions increased to 35.1 billion metric tons in 2013, a new record and a 29% increase over a decade ago. Of the year-over-year carbon climb, China at 358 million metric tons jumped by more than the rest of the world combined and is responsible for 24.8% of emissions over the last five years. Over the same period, developing nations accounted for 57.5%.

What this means is that regardless of what the West does, poorer countries that are reluctant to sign agreements that impede economic progress hold the dominant carbon hand. No matter U.S. exertions to save the planet from atmospheric carbon that may or may not have consequences that may or may not be costly in a century or more, the international result will be more or less the same, though U.S. economic growth will be slower.

Mr. Modi is unlikely to indulge the rich world’s anticarbon politics when a quarter of the Indian population still lacks electricity. Mr. Obama might also pause to reflect that 30.6% of the 114.8 million American households qualify for low-income energy subsidies. Thus by the Administration’s own reckoning they can’t afford current energy costs, much less the higher costs of a zero-carbon future.

In his first speech as White House budget director, Shaun Donovan nonetheless told the Center for American Progress on Friday that “the scale of our ambition at home is going to be the single most important driver” for climate action by China and other nations. In fact, the costly anticarbon regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is developing will by the EPA’s estimate address a mere 0.18% of world-wide carbon emissions. Some effort in persuasion.

Opinion Video
Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on why this week’s United Nations summit on climate change won’t help the environment. Photo credit: Associated Press.
This reality has now led more than a few climateers to claim that decarbonizing the economy will be magically cost-free. Mr. Donovan lectured that “climate denial will costs us billions of dollars,” as a hotter planet reduces GDP and drives up deficits, while natural disasters like coastal superstorms impose new relief costs on the federal fisc.

So the problem is so dire that we must impose huge new costs on carbon and energy production, but don’t worry—you won’t feel a thing. The government will create all new energy industries and wealth in a seamless transition. Caveat emptor: Supposedly professional economists who promise that scarce resources can be made scarcer at zero cost have stopped practicing economics. They have become politicians, if not as honest.

Rather than debasing economics, perhaps the climate lobby should return to the climate science and explain the hiatus in warming that has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years depending on the data set and which the climate models failed to predict even as global carbon dioxide emissions have climbed by 25%. Their alibi is that the new warming is now hidden in the oceans, an assertion they lack the evidence to prove.

The campaign to redo the global energy economy has produced plenty of spectacle (the activists in Manhattan), contempt for democratic norms (the EPA), and the promise of a less prosperous future (Germany’s renewable fuels fiasco). But perhaps Mr. Modi has a better sense of priorities because while in New York he plans to attend a Central Park event on the theme of reducing global poverty as well as the 9/11 memorial that is a reminder of the renewed threat of terrorism.

Progressive Insanity and the Global Warming Cult

February 21, 2014 by 140216191222-kerry-jakarta-story-topProgressives will do virtually anything to advance their agenda. In the arena of global warming, they have resorted to hysteria and angry denunciation of those who dare to question their infallible “wisdom.” And as it is with every aspect of their agenda, such wisdom must be imposed at the expense of liberty.

Leading the charge is Secretary of State John Kerry, who epitomized the above approach in a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Indonesia. First he laced into one the left’s favorite punching bags, namely the coal and oil industries he accused of “hijacking” the conversation. ”We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” he declared. ”Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

Possibly suspecting that his presentation might be insufficient to galvanize the unwashed masses, Kerry added a dash of fear to the mix. ”This city, this country, this region, is really on the front lines of climate change,” Kerry warned. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that your entire way of life here is at risk. In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” he added.

Kerry is taking his cues from President Obama, who went to California, where he promptly explained that state’s worst drought in a century is linked to global climate change and greenhouse gases. “We have to be clear. A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms [and] floods are potentially going to be costlier and they’re going to be harsher,” he explained.

That was apparently too much even for the New York Times, who contended that the president and his aides “were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought.” Even worse, the so-called paper of record was forced to admit that the much-vaunted computer models the “consensus” scientists having been using to promote their global warming agenda “suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.” That included an assessment by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which noted that the drought “resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.”

White House science adviser John P. Holdren, who co-authored a book describing government forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water as legitimate population control measures, rode to the president’s rescue. While agreeing that no single episode of extreme weather can be linked to climate change, “the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.”

The Los Angeles Times brought another angle to the mix, one that plumbs the depths of climate change hysteria. It cites a study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a Massachusetts research and consulting firm, that contends climate change “can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft,” between 2010 and 2099.

In a Wall Street Journal article, authors Richard McNider and John Christy underscored the irony of Kerry comparing global warming skeptics to flat-earthers of ancient times. It was the flat-earthers who maintained something similar to the 97 percent “consensus” Kerry used to justify his rant. It was a tiny minority of scientists who posited that the earth was round. With regard to the actual science leftists accuse skeptics of ignoring, the McNider and Christy acknowledge that “carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.” Yet what remains unknown is the level of warming that will occur.

They then address the aforementioned computer models, rightly noting that those created to explain the phenomenon were built “almost entirely” by scientists heavily invested in the idea of “catastrophic” global warming. Unsurprisingly, those investments have tainted the science behind them, which explains why many of the dire predictions they engendered have turned out to be “spectacularly wrong.”

That wrongness is invariably followed by a litany of excuses. One was the idea that an increased use of aerosols by human beings that ostensibly “skewed” the results. Moreover, the “consensus” scientists continue to ignore data that does not accrue to their political convictions.

Far more devastating, climate change promoters virtually ignore the disastrous economic effects their policies would engender. As Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a nonprofit group focused on cost-effective solutions to global problems explains, 81 percent of the world’s energy needs are provided by fossil fuels, with billions of people depending on them for survival. “For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty,” he writes.

That necessity explains much of the developing world’s resistance to the Obama administration’s initiatives. At this moment in time, they prefer raising their citizens out of poverty than kowtowing to an agenda they see as a First World problem created by wealthier countries that use the most energy. Despite this reality, the president quietly announced a major policy shift last June, whereby the U.S. would place severe restrictions on federal financing of coal plants in foreign countries. ”This new policy sends a message that coal is not an acceptable fuel source for the 21st century,” said Justin Guay, international climate and energy representative of the Sierra Club at the time.

That such a message condemns billions of people around the world to a life of subsistence survival — when they survive at all — is of little consequence. Apparently for progressives, “saving the planet” has little to do with saving the people who inhabit it.

While such an agenda has fewer life and death consequences in the United States, the administration is determined to pursue the same economy-ravaging policies here. And once again a president who has made a mockery of the rule of law and the constitutionally-mandated separation of power is determined to advance those policies “with our without” Congress.

Whether he can actually do so remains to be seen. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on greenhouse gas emissions that could determine if Obama has so broadly interpreted the parameters of the Clean Air Act that he has rendered Congress irrelevant. Briefs filed by business groups and Republicans paint the president’s effort as another overreach by the Executive branch. A brief filed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) contends the president is attempting “an intolerable invasion of Congress’s domain that threatens to obliterate the line dividing executive from legislative power,” and that regulation imposed under the auspices of the EPA were “perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the executive branch” since President Truman’s attempt to nationalize America’s steel mills during the Korean War.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. countered with the administration’s argument. “The E.P.A. determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in ways that may prove to be more widespread, longer lasting and graver than the effects of any other pollutant regulated under the act,” he wrote in his brief.

The case is a challenge to a 5-4 decision made in 2007, when the Supreme Court required the EPA to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles if they endangered the public’s health and welfare. The administration wants to extend that decision to cover stationary power plants, as well as all sources that can annually emit 100 or 250 tons of relevant pollutants. That would give them the potential to regulate millions of pollution sources absent congressional authority to do so. Obama used the same rationale when he ordered the development of new standards for the nation’s heavy-duty trucks earlier this week.

Amanda C. Leiter, a law professor at American University believes a loss by the administration would not have a great impact, since they have other regulatory tools at their disposal. But the political damage could be significant because “it would be painted as another situation in which the Obama administration has overreached against the public will.”

Regardless of the decision, the administration will undoubtedly continue to overreach, aided an abetted by what authors David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin term the “New Leviathan.” They are progressive moneyed interests whose contributions dwarf those of their conservative counterparts, and who are determined to impose their agenda on the nation, regardless of the consequences. In the environmental arena, they are being led by billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, whose political organization, NextGen Climate Action, aims to raise $100 million to support politicians who champion the man-made climate change agenda. Like so many leftist elitists, he is against the Keystone pipeline that would go a long way towards creating jobs and putting the nation further down the road towards energy independence. He considers climate change the ”generational challenge of the world.”

The real generational challenge, in America at least, is figuring out how to prevent progressives in general, and the Obama administration in particular, from fundamentally transforming the United States into a nation where liberty, freedom and free-market capitalism are regulated out of existence. Make no mistake: those who would employ questionable science to impose what amounts to a death penalty on millions of Third-World residents struggling for their very existence don’t think twice about imposing untold economic hardship on their fellow Americans, 76 percent of whom live “paycheck to paycheck,” for the same reason.

And its not about the environment. As a study by the Science and Public Policy Institute reveals, if Americans completely stopped emitting all carbon immediately — stopped driving, stopped cooling and heating our homes, shut down all the power plants, and even stopped talking – the global temperature would decrease by only 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.

As Bjorn Lomborg explains, the United States is already “showing the way” towards a future with cleaner fuel sources. That the Obama administration would sacrifice the well-being of millions of Americans and billions of impoverished people to force-feed that future is precisely what they did to the nation when they force-fed it ObamaCare based on the same litany of hysteria, lies and smears they are using here. One can only wonder when Americans will tire of the progressive lust for power wrapping itself as noble intentions.

Ben Shapiro

» The Left Preaches the Great Apocalypse of Global Warming » Commentary — GOPUSA

This week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced to a group of Indonesian students that global warming was “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” He added, “Because of climate change, it’s no secret that today Indonesia is … one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk.”

Meanwhile, Hollywood prepared to drop a new blockbuster based on the biblical story of Noah. The film, directed by Darren Aronofsky, centers on the story of the biblical character who built an ark after God warned him that humanity would be destroyed thanks to its sexual immorality and violent transgressions. The Hollywood version of the story, however, has God punishing humanity not for actual sin, but for overpopulation and global warming — an odd set of sins, given God’s express commandments in Genesis 1:28 to “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it.”

This weird perspective on sin — the notion that true sin is not sin, but that consumerism is — is actually nothing new. In the 1920s, the left warned of empty consumerism with the fire and brimstone of Jonathan Edwards; Sinclair Lewis famously labeled the American middle class “Babbitts” — characters who cared too much about buying things.

In his novel of the same name, Lewis sneered of his bourgeois antihero, “He had enormous and poetic admiration, though very little understanding, of all mechanical devices. They were his symbols of truth and beauty.” Lewis wrote, through the voice of his radical character Doane, that consumerism has created “standardization of thought, and of course, the traditions of competition. The real villains of the piece are the clean, kind, industrious Family Men who use every known brand of trickery and cruelty to insure the prosperity of their cubs. The worst thing about these fellows it that they’re so good and, in their work at least, so intelligent.”

Lewis, of course, was a socialist. So were anti-consumerism compatriots like H.G. Wells, H.L. Mencken and Herbert Croly. And their brand of leftism was destined to infuse the entire American left over the course of the 20th century. As Fred Siegel writes in his new book, “The Revolt Against The Masses,” this general feeling pervaded the left during the 1950s, even as more Americans were attending symphony concerts than ballgames, with 50,000 Americans per year buying paperback version of classics. That’s because if the left were to recognize the great power of consumerism in bettering lives and enriching culture, the left would have to become the right.

Of course, consumerism is not an unalloyed virtue. Consumerism can be utilized for hedonism. But it can also be utilized to make lives better, offering more opportunity for spiritual development. It’s precisely this latter combination that the left fears, because if consumerism and virtue are allied, there is no place left for the Marxist critique of capitalism — namely that capitalism makes people less compassionate, more selfish, and ethically meager. And so consumerism must be severed from virtue (very few leftists critique Americans’ propensity for spending cash on Lady Gaga concerts) so that it can be castigated as sin more broadly.

In a world in which consumerism is the greatest of all sins, America is the greatest of all sinners, which, of course, is the point of the anti-consumerist critique from the left: to target America. Global warming represents the latest apocalyptic consequence threatened by the leftist gods for the great iniquity of buying things, developing products, and competing in the global marketplace. And America must be called to heel by the great preachers in Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.

Ben Shapiro, 30, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, a radio host on KTTH 770 Seattle and KRLA 870 Los Angeles, Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org, and Senior Editor-at-Large of Breitbart News. He is the New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America.” He lives with his wife and daughter in Los Angeles. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

Science Settled: There is No Global Warming

Obama Global WarmingFEBRUARY 11, 2014 BY 
I recently received an unsigned email about my Sierra Club commentary in which I pointed out that it opposes traditional forms of energy and made a passing reference to Obama’s lie that “climate change”, the new name for global warming, was now “settled science.” 

Global warming was never based on real science. It was conjured up using dubious computer models and we were supposed to believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could actually predict what the climate would be twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now.

The writer of the email disagreed with me. “lol you are a f**king idiot. you don’t believe there is global warming going on? you need to let your prejudices go and stop basing your views on what your political stance is…do you research you f**king faggot.”

Now, not everyone who believes in global warming is as rude as this individual and certainly not as ignorant, but his message suggests that those who do not believe in it do so as the result of “a political stance” when, in fact, our views are based on science.

Anyone familiar with my writings knows that a lot of research is involved. In my case, it dates back to the late 1980s when the global warming hoax began to be embraced by politicians like Al Gore who made millions selling worthless “carbon credits” while warning that “Earth has a fever.”

A small army of scientists lined their pockets with government grants to produce data that supported the utterly baseless charge that carbon dioxide was causing the Earth to warm. They castigated other scientists or people like myself as “deniers” while we proffered to call ourselves skeptics. They were joined by most of the media that ignored the real science. And the curriculums in our schools were likewise corrupted with the hoax.

Then, about 17 years ago the Earth began to cool. It had nothing to do with carbon dioxide—which the Environmental Protection Agency deems a “pollutant” despite the fact that all life on Earth would die without it—and everything to do with the SUN.

A few days after the email arrived, two-thirds of the contiguous U.S.A. was covered by snow. As this is being written, Lake Superior is 92% frozen, setting a new record. As of February 5, the entire Great Lakes system was, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 77% covered with ice.

On February 1st, NOAA and NASA held a joint press conference in which they released data about 2013’s global surface temperature. They made reference to a “pause” in the temperature that began in 1997. Dr. David Whitehouse, science editor for the BBC, noted that “When asked for an explanation for the ‘pause’ by reporters, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Thomas Karl of NOAA spoke of contributions from volcanoes, pollution, a quiet Sun, and natural variability. In other words, they don’t know.”

Both of these government agencies, along with others like the EPA and the Department of the Interior, are staffed by people who understand that their employers are deeply committed to the global warming hoax. One should assume that almost anything they have to say about the “pause” is based entirely on politics, not science.

Then, too, despite the many measuring stations from which data is extracted to determine the Earth’s climate, there is a paucity of such stations in COLD places like Siberia. Stations here in the U.S. are often placed in “heat islands” otherwise known as cities. If you put enough of them close to sources of heat, you get thermometer readings that produce, well, heat.

People in the U.S., England, Europe and other areas of the world who do not possess Ph.ds in meteorology, climatology, geology, astronomy, and chemistry have begun to suspect that everything they have been told about global warming is false. Between 1300 and 1850 the northern hemisphere went through a mini-ice age. After that it began to warm up again. So, yes, there was global warming, but it was a natural cycle, not something caused by human beings.

Nature doesn’t care what we do. It is far more powerful than most of us can comprehend.

This brings us back to the Sun which determines, depending on where you are on planet Earth, how warm or cold you feel. The Sun, too, goes through cycles, generally about eleven years long. When it is generating a lot of heat, its surface is filled with sunspots, magnetic storms.

When there are few sunspots, solar radiation diminishes and we get cold. Scientists who study the Sun believe it may encounter another “Maunder minimum”, named after astronomer Edward Maunder, in which the last “Little Ice Age”, between 1645 and 1715, occurred. The Thames in England froze over as did the canals of Holland froze solid.

There is no global warming and scientists like Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, believes that “World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more.” I agree.

– See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/02/11/science-settled-there-is-no-global-warming/#sthash.uAitz355.dpuf

By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, January 23 2014

Want to stump a global warming alarmist?

Just ask him to describe how the Great Lakes were originally formed.

At over 94,000 square miles, the Great Lakes constitute the largest group of freshwater lakes on Earth, and possess fully 21% of its surface fresh water.  Lake Superior alone is the world’s largest continental lake, while Lake Michigan claims the title of largest freshwater lake entirely within one nation’s borders.

And how were those enormous lakes formed?  By fluctuating climate change approximately 10,000 years ago, as the Ice Age ended and giant glaciers receded so dramatically that they carved massive basins into the continental crust.  In other words, long before the first internal combustion engine or coal-fired electrical plant, the planet experienced a global warming period so pronounced that the world’s largest freshwater lakes were formed.  Imagine the hysteria and politicized attempts to place blame if that was underway today.

That geological history regained relevance this week, as another severe winter freeze descended upon the nation amid the ongoing climate change cacophony.  Specifically, the Great Lakes are currently experiencing their greatest level of freezing in 25 years.  That was several years before Al Gore inflicted “Earth in the Balance” upon the public.

The continually discredited Al Gore aside, The Wall Street Journal detailed the surprising magnitude of the new global cooling crisis this week:

“The Midwest hasn’t had this much ice on the Great Lakes and other bodies of water this early in the season for decades, and another blast of cold is expected this week.  Wind chills as low as 40 degrees below zero are forecast for the Upper Midwest, according to the National Weather Service…  About 60% of the Great Lakes will be under ice cover for the months of January and February, predicts George Leshkevich, a scientist with the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  During the past three decades, the average maximum freeze-over has only been about 50% each year.  Last year, it was roughly 38%.  It has been 25 years since the lakes have had this much ice this early, said Mark Gill, director of vessel traffic services with the U.S. Coast Guard in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, which hit minus-16 degrees on January 3.” 

Over at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), meanwhile, climatologists also confirmed that the nearly two-decade plateau in global surface temperatures continued in 2013.  According to Gavin Schmidt, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “The trends over the last ten to fifteen years compared to the trends before that do appear to be lower than they were.”  He continued, “We’ve been looking at this in separate work, and partially it seems to be a function of internal variability in the system, so the fact is that we’ve had more La Nina-like conditions over the last few years compared to earlier in the 2000s or in the late 1990s.”

According to climate change alarmists, however, that should not have happened.

Consider that in the two decades since 1997, when that temperature plateau began, China, India and other undeveloped nations have industrialized on a massive scale, meaning enormous increases in human carbon output.  The United States, Europe and other industrialized nations have also continued to grow, continuing their carbon output levels as well.  Yet none of the parallel and consequent increase in global temperatures has occurred, despite confident predictions from global warming alarmists.

“Given that the estimates that the average decadal increase in global surface temperature is 0.2 degrees Celsius, the world is now 0.3 degrees cooler than it should have been,” said BBC astrophysicist and science editor David Whitehouse.  “The pause in global surface temperature that began in 1997, according to some estimates, continues,” he added.  “Statistically speaking, there has been no trend in global temperatures over this period.”

So we’ve now experienced a global temperature plateau more enduring than the brief warming period that triggered the current politicized global warming movement in the first place.  As illustrated by infamous high-profile reports from The New York Times, Paul Ehrlich, Newsweek and Time in the mid-1970s, global cooling was the supposed climate crisis that decade.  Yet an even longer period of temperature stability hasn’t moderated their confidence or rhetoric.

Perhaps they’ll simply begin claiming that climate stability is its own crisis.

Regardless, global temperatures are constantly warming and cooling, as the geological history of the Great Lakes shows.  It’s something for climate alarmists to reconsider, as they ice skate over portions that haven’t been this frozen since Ronald Reagan was still in the White House and Al Gore was just a Senator.

Professor of Climate Change, Chris Turney

January 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm

The distress call, the icebreakers, and the other scientific research.

Chris Turney, the head of the Antarctic expedition rescued from the ice-trappedAkademik Shokalskiy, is a Professor of Climate Change. It says so in the first sentence of the biographical sketch that appears on Turney’s Amazon.com author page.

20140102-101905.jpgclick to enlarge

Elsewhere, Turney’s publisher for 1912:The Year the World Discovered Antarctica, showcases a review that describes Turney as “a climate scientist.”

But is he an activist first and a scientist second? The Author Page biographical sketch (which was almost certainly written by Turney himself) tells us:

To do something positive about climate change, he helped set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape (http://carbonscape.com/) which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.

As we all know, the climate is always changing. Twenty thousand years ago, most of Canada was covered by ice. Really thick ice. A mile deep in some places. Then the climate changed and much of that ice disappeared. Good riddance. Today, as I write this, the snow is falling, the wind is gusting, and it’s -18C (-4F) outdoors.

When we read that Professor Turney wants to do “something positive about climate change” – he’s actually talking about human-caused climate change. The two are not the same thing. And his company won’t extract carbon from the atmosphere, butcarbon dioxide.

We’re supposed to be impressed by Turley’s stature as a “Scientist” with a capital S. That biographical sketch employs words such as science, scientists, and scientificseven times. But don’t serious scientists use words carefully – with due regard to their actual, real-world meaning? Is Turney more interested in conveying a political message via the word carbon (dirty, sooty, black stuff) than with scientific accuracy (colourless, odourless gas).

Should professors be activists? Is that why the University of New South Wales pays Turney a salary? Would you be pleased to hear that your son or daughter is learning “science” from this man?

Three icebreakers weren’t able to rescue this Professor of Climate Change. At least one of those icebreakers was interrupted delivering vital supplies to other scientists. Here’s what hydrologist Joe McConnell told a journalist via e-mail:

The Australian ice breaker Aurora Australis was here at Casey [Station, Antarctica] in the process of unloading the coming year’s supplies for the station, as well as a number of researchers and their science gear for this summer’s activities, when the emergency response request was issued. The Australians shut down the unloading very quickly and left within a few hours after the request arrived but only about a third of the resupply was completed and a lot of that science gear was still on board. 

The short- and long-term impacts on the Australian science program are pronounced as you can imagine and I understand it is the same for both the Chinese and French programs since their icebreakers were diverted, too. I’ll be sitting down to New Year’s Eve dinner in a few minutes with a number of Australian researchers including the director of the Australian Antarctic Division Tony Fleming – many of these guys can’t complete the research they’ve been planning for years because some or all of their science gear still is on the Aurora. [bold added]

Chris Turney is the Professor of Climate Change who got trapped by ice in high summer. He’s the professor of Climate Change whose distress call profoundly affected other people’s scientific research.