Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)
"What is the TRUE cost of climate change? Is stopping it early really the cheapest plan in the long run? 50 to 1 explores the costs of stopping climate change vs adapting to it as and if it’s required, and uncovers a simple truth; it’s 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to simply ADAPT to it as and if required."
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Sunday, 1 September 2013
MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’
Daily Caller
"Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives."
"Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives."
Counter-sceptics
Bishop Hill
"In Bloomberg yesterday, it was announced that governments are asking the IPCC to spend more time on explaining away the pause in the imminent Fifth Assessment Report: .....Which makes it sound as if Ward believes that the IPCC is an overtly political body the objective of which is to win an argument rather than determine the truth. .....So one's suspicion is that the climatological mainstream does indeed see itself as being in the game of providing counter-sceptic talking points. .."
"In Bloomberg yesterday, it was announced that governments are asking the IPCC to spend more time on explaining away the pause in the imminent Fifth Assessment Report: .....Which makes it sound as if Ward believes that the IPCC is an overtly political body the objective of which is to win an argument rather than determine the truth. .....So one's suspicion is that the climatological mainstream does indeed see itself as being in the game of providing counter-sceptic talking points. .."
Can The IPCC Do Revolutionary Science?
WUWT
"In January 2013, the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017. This ‘pause’ had not been predicted by climate models. In February, IPCC chairman Pachauri admitted that the temperature data had already been flat for 17 years, while opining that a standstill of 30 years would be required to rebut the previous consensus. .......The temperature standstill has been apparent in the data for many years, but the tribalism of climate science rendered it unmentionable until the public disclosures of early 2013. Once spoken, it demanded an explanation – and it then became clear there was a great dearth of research on the subject. By the time researchers were ready to fill this gap, the draft SPM had already been dispatched. During August 2013, a flood of highly influential papers have appeared: ......These new papers devastate the IPCC orthodoxy that current and future global temperatures are mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and will reach dangerous levels later this century. On the other hand, all older papers are blindsided by their apparent failure to take account of the recent data (standstill)."
"In January 2013, the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017. This ‘pause’ had not been predicted by climate models. In February, IPCC chairman Pachauri admitted that the temperature data had already been flat for 17 years, while opining that a standstill of 30 years would be required to rebut the previous consensus. .......The temperature standstill has been apparent in the data for many years, but the tribalism of climate science rendered it unmentionable until the public disclosures of early 2013. Once spoken, it demanded an explanation – and it then became clear there was a great dearth of research on the subject. By the time researchers were ready to fill this gap, the draft SPM had already been dispatched. During August 2013, a flood of highly influential papers have appeared: ......These new papers devastate the IPCC orthodoxy that current and future global temperatures are mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and will reach dangerous levels later this century. On the other hand, all older papers are blindsided by their apparent failure to take account of the recent data (standstill)."
Saturday, 31 August 2013
Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast
The Hockey Schtick
"The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. .....Furthermore, the leaked report claims an increased confidence of 95% without any basis in statistical analysis or explanation why warming has stopped, removing all doubt that the AR5 is a political document, not scientific."
"The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. .....Furthermore, the leaked report claims an increased confidence of 95% without any basis in statistical analysis or explanation why warming has stopped, removing all doubt that the AR5 is a political document, not scientific."
Friday, 30 August 2013
The skeptics were right: Climate changes naturally & these natural changes outweigh any man-made influences
The Hockey Schtick
"It looks to me like we are now seeing the beginnings of an acknowledgement by the wider climate science community that natural processes (in particular those mediated by ENSO and PDO cycles - El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation, respectively) can have a significant effect on our climate in that they can interrupt rapid predicted CO2 mediated warming to create a 15 year pause and even set the planet off cooling again. However, there seems to be a lack of an accompanying acknowledgement, inherent in this argument, that therefore natural climate forcings have a far more significant role to play in climate change, comparable to, or greater even, than hypothesised anthropogenic influences. Which leads us to the obvious, and the ultimate in climate change heresy, i.e. that 20th/21st Century warming trends have been contributed significantly to by natural influences at play in our ocean/atmosphere coupled climate system, even - perish the thought - that natural forcings have dominated that recent warming trend. We see this reluctance to take the next logical steps very clearly in the following comment taken from the Nature paper referenced above: "Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase".
"It looks to me like we are now seeing the beginnings of an acknowledgement by the wider climate science community that natural processes (in particular those mediated by ENSO and PDO cycles - El Nino Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation, respectively) can have a significant effect on our climate in that they can interrupt rapid predicted CO2 mediated warming to create a 15 year pause and even set the planet off cooling again. However, there seems to be a lack of an accompanying acknowledgement, inherent in this argument, that therefore natural climate forcings have a far more significant role to play in climate change, comparable to, or greater even, than hypothesised anthropogenic influences. Which leads us to the obvious, and the ultimate in climate change heresy, i.e. that 20th/21st Century warming trends have been contributed significantly to by natural influences at play in our ocean/atmosphere coupled climate system, even - perish the thought - that natural forcings have dominated that recent warming trend. We see this reluctance to take the next logical steps very clearly in the following comment taken from the Nature paper referenced above: "Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase".
Thursday, 29 August 2013
Retired U.S. Air Force Meteorologist Smacks Down Washington Post for Editorial full of ‘mis-statements, half-truths, and omissions’
Climate Depot
"Meteorologist Robert W. Endlich: 'The claim, increasing greenhouse gases humans have emitted into the atmosphere as chief driver of the warming of the planet over the past half-century, a finding to which they ascribe 95% confidence, is without merit or foundation. There is no technical basis for such a claim, if there were, the IPCC would trumpet it loudly; it is simply bloviation.'
"Meteorologist Robert W. Endlich: 'The claim, increasing greenhouse gases humans have emitted into the atmosphere as chief driver of the warming of the planet over the past half-century, a finding to which they ascribe 95% confidence, is without merit or foundation. There is no technical basis for such a claim, if there were, the IPCC would trumpet it loudly; it is simply bloviation.'
Sunday, 25 August 2013
The dangerous greenies are in Brussels, not Balcombe
Christopher Booker,Telegraph
" What makes the row over fracking so absurd is that it is being conducted by the greenies as if this is some highly dangerous new technology which has never been properly tested. The whole point about fracking is that it has already been demonstrated at thousands of sites across America to work perfectly safely, without harming the environment, and to such effect that it has more than halved US energy bills and is helping more than anything else to put the US economy back on the road to recovery.
That is why the greens so hate it, because it makes a nonsense of all their scare stories about fossil fuels becoming too expensive to use; it shows up more clearly than ever the ludicrous cost of their pitifully inadequate “renewables”; and it has even slashed US “carbon emissions”, for what that is worth, to their levels of 30 years ago.
So the green lobby is going into overdrive to ensure that Europe and Britain must at all costs be prevented from copying America’s miraculous success story. And by far their best hope of doing this is by persuading the EU to pass laws which would make fracking in Europe virtually impossible. Mr Wates and his allies know this, which is why last month he was given the chance to lobby those very politicians at the top whose support they need to get their way."
" What makes the row over fracking so absurd is that it is being conducted by the greenies as if this is some highly dangerous new technology which has never been properly tested. The whole point about fracking is that it has already been demonstrated at thousands of sites across America to work perfectly safely, without harming the environment, and to such effect that it has more than halved US energy bills and is helping more than anything else to put the US economy back on the road to recovery.
That is why the greens so hate it, because it makes a nonsense of all their scare stories about fossil fuels becoming too expensive to use; it shows up more clearly than ever the ludicrous cost of their pitifully inadequate “renewables”; and it has even slashed US “carbon emissions”, for what that is worth, to their levels of 30 years ago.
So the green lobby is going into overdrive to ensure that Europe and Britain must at all costs be prevented from copying America’s miraculous success story. And by far their best hope of doing this is by persuading the EU to pass laws which would make fracking in Europe virtually impossible. Mr Wates and his allies know this, which is why last month he was given the chance to lobby those very politicians at the top whose support they need to get their way."
Fabricating Climate Doom – Part 3: Extreme Weather Extinctions Enron Style
WUWT
"...Parmesan never told her readers that the natural population thrived or that the natural population maintained their synchrony with both the weather and their food plants. By re-constructing only half of the details, and with the apparent blessings of Dr. C.D. Thomas and her husband Dr. Singer, Parmesan metamorphosed a story of nature’s adaptability and resilience into another story of climate catastrophe. Such blatant sins of omission are a very serious offense, and this “scientific” paper should be retracted. The peer review process failed to detect an obvious distortion of the truth that was readily noticed by anyone who read the original study."
"...Parmesan never told her readers that the natural population thrived or that the natural population maintained their synchrony with both the weather and their food plants. By re-constructing only half of the details, and with the apparent blessings of Dr. C.D. Thomas and her husband Dr. Singer, Parmesan metamorphosed a story of nature’s adaptability and resilience into another story of climate catastrophe. Such blatant sins of omission are a very serious offense, and this “scientific” paper should be retracted. The peer review process failed to detect an obvious distortion of the truth that was readily noticed by anyone who read the original study."
Friday, 23 August 2013
NASA Stumped: Summer Arctic Ice Extent Among Highest This Decade, Antarctica “Headed Toward Record Extent”
NoTricksZone
"NASA has released its latest sea ice report. These are tough times for climate alarmists. The truth is: There’s a lot more sea ice out there this year than they ever imagined."
"NASA has released its latest sea ice report. These are tough times for climate alarmists. The truth is: There’s a lot more sea ice out there this year than they ever imagined."
MIT paper finds Obama's 'social cost of carbon' models are bogus & based on fabricated numbers
The Hockey Schtick
"In my previous post, I summarized Robert S. Pindyck’s scathing paper on the computer models used by the Obama Administration for its estimates of the “social cost of carbon.” Pindyck’s critique is all the more compelling because he is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades’ experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy, and he is actually a proponent of a carbon tax. In the present article, I will explore a particular aspect of Pindyck’s critique that I skipped in the original post. Believe it or not, Pindyck explains that the allegedly state-of-the-art computer models that are now determining federal policy have damage functions that are literally made up. As I have been telling my economist colleagues for years, if they actually understood how these computer models were designed, they would have far less confidence in the “optimal carbon tax” numbers shooting out of the other end."
"In my previous post, I summarized Robert S. Pindyck’s scathing paper on the computer models used by the Obama Administration for its estimates of the “social cost of carbon.” Pindyck’s critique is all the more compelling because he is a professor of economics and finance at MIT, with several decades’ experience publishing articles and books dealing with energy, and he is actually a proponent of a carbon tax. In the present article, I will explore a particular aspect of Pindyck’s critique that I skipped in the original post. Believe it or not, Pindyck explains that the allegedly state-of-the-art computer models that are now determining federal policy have damage functions that are literally made up. As I have been telling my economist colleagues for years, if they actually understood how these computer models were designed, they would have far less confidence in the “optimal carbon tax” numbers shooting out of the other end."
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
New documents show EPA lying to public about air pollution dangers
Junk Science
"..EPA’s PM2.5 rules cost the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Oddly enough, they will serve as the primary justification for the agency’s upcoming ozone standards, anticipated to be the most expensive EPA regulations of all time — all built on demonstrable lies.
"..EPA’s PM2.5 rules cost the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars. Oddly enough, they will serve as the primary justification for the agency’s upcoming ozone standards, anticipated to be the most expensive EPA regulations of all time — all built on demonstrable lies.
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
5 Ways to Get Environmentalists to back the frack
Backbencher
"It’s important to get across that there are 200 wells in Britain where a slightly less intense version of fracking has taken place over the last 20 years. So this is not an undiscovered and unsafe system, we have been performing hydraulic fracking for decades – the difference is what we are fracking for."
"It’s important to get across that there are 200 wells in Britain where a slightly less intense version of fracking has taken place over the last 20 years. So this is not an undiscovered and unsafe system, we have been performing hydraulic fracking for decades – the difference is what we are fracking for."
Saturday, 17 August 2013
The five myths about fracking
Matt Ridley's Blog
"It was the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said: “You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.” In the debate over shale gas – I refuse to call it the fracking debate since fracking has been happening in this country for decades – the opponents do seem to be astonishingly cavalier with the facts. Here are five things that they keep saying which are just not true. First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in the United States. Second, that it releases more methane than other forms of gas production. Third, that it uses a worryingly large amount of water. Fourth, that it uses hundreds of toxic chemicals. Fifth, that it causes damaging earthquakes. ....."
"It was the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who once said: “You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.” In the debate over shale gas – I refuse to call it the fracking debate since fracking has been happening in this country for decades – the opponents do seem to be astonishingly cavalier with the facts. Here are five things that they keep saying which are just not true. First, that shale gas production has polluted aquifers in the United States. Second, that it releases more methane than other forms of gas production. Third, that it uses a worryingly large amount of water. Fourth, that it uses hundreds of toxic chemicals. Fifth, that it causes damaging earthquakes. ....."
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)