- Fossil Fuels Create Jobs So Why Do Democrats Hate Them? - December 5, 2019
- Single-Payer Health Care Is Only Good for Government, Not the People It Serves - September 20, 2017
- Taking Broadband to the Country - August 2, 2017
John Coleman, Co-Founder of the Weather Channel, commented on May 8 about Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show on global warming a week ago (aka the National Climate Assessment and its mainstream media “coverage”), saying,
“The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change….”
I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk….based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in ‘the greenhouse effect’ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.”
This is a well-informed, well-reasoned understanding of the National Climate Assessment report, which is an exercise in political science, not climate science. What you will not see in the report are the basic truths below regarding climate science, over which reasonable people cannot differ!
While the National Climate Assessment, and Obama talking points, use the term carbon “pollution,” carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” supposedly causing most of the trouble, is a natural substance essential for the survival of all life on the planet. Plants need CO2 to grow and conduct photosynthesis, which is the natural process that creates food for animals and fish at the bottom of the food chain.
Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive.
In addition, even with increasing human CO2 emissions, carbon dioxide is still a trace gas in the environment, constituting just 0.04% of the atmosphere, or 4/100ths of one percent. Indeed, we still live in a carbon dioxide starved world today, especially given the crucial importance of CO2 to plant and animal life. Proxy data shows that during the Pre-Cambrian period, about 550 million years ago, CO2 concentration levels were 15 times greater. Yet, no record of any catastrophic results. Instead, modern life flourished and evolved.
Moreover, human emissions of CO2 are only 4% to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. So human CO2 emissions are a minor contribution to an almost negligible, natural component of the atmosphere, again essential to the survival of all life on the planet.
In addition, uncontested global temperature data shows there has been no global warming for 17 years and 8 months now, even though human global CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate that entire time, to unprecedented levels. Indeed, the Economist reported last year that from 2000 to 2010, human carbon dioxide emissions totaled roughly 100 billion tons of CO2, which equaled about one-fourth of all human emissions since the early rumblings of the industrial revolution in 1750.
Forbes contributor James Taylor noted in a May 9 Heartland Institute publication that 2014 so far has been the coldest year for the U.S. ever, at least through May 6, according to the network of nationwide thermometers monitored by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Taylor writes, “Assertions that warming temperatures in the United States are causing a host of problems are soundly contradicted by the objective temperature data.”
Soon, the more recent period of no global warming will be longer than the older period of actual global warming, which lasted only about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Preceding that were 30 years of global cooling, generating alarms regarding a new ice age (which is actually overdue, given historical climate cycles). Even Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, conceded in December, 2012 that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 21 plus years with no global warming.
The foundation for the establishment’s argument for global warming is nothing more than broad theory, which does nothing to specify how much warming and when, and 73 climate models collected by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). But the problem is that the warming trends projected by these models are all diverging farther and farther from the real world trend of actual temperature observations. Not only have these models never been validated, which means that their projections at this point are nothing more than fabrications. At this point, these models have been falsified by real world temperature data.
Don’t give me political propaganda talking points that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with the allegation of pending, catastrophic, man caused, global warming. That too is a mere fabrication already falsified as having no foundation.
If this is the first time you are hearing any of this, that means the news sources you are relying on are inadequate. In my opinion, the New York Times and the Washington Post are no longer credible sources of real world news, let alone Rachel Maddow or Chris Mathews. They are today party controlled mouthpieces, who behave toward the current Administration voluntarily just as Pravda and Izvestia did under compulsion during the old Soviet dictatorships.
In light of the incontestable real climate science discussed above, the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment released last week can only be considered an exercise in calculated deception, and public manipulation. Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute rightly called it “an alarmist document to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and EPA regulatory mandates,” in his May 6 analysis on the FoxNews.com website.
The National Climate Assessment states, “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.” But there is no proof of this basic declarative statement in the entire 841 pages of the National Climate Assessment report. Instead, the incontestable climate science truths explained above show that the global warming of the past 50 years was 20 years of warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, preceded by roughly 30 years of global cooling, followed by almost 20 years of no warming, despite record acceleration during this time of human carbon dioxide emissions.
The National Climate Assessment states, “as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed.” Such a blatantly false statement, exactly the opposite of reality, in an official U.S. government report that cost taxpayers $7 billion of whitewashing over 3 years, is shameful. As incontestably explained above, the climate model projections have only grown farther and farther from reality over the past 34 years actually, particularly during the last 17 plus years of no global warming.
These climate models, whose projections cannot even replicate the past, have again actually been falsified by the real world temperature data. So to say that over time, as “the climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed,” would be fraudulent, if the statements had not been so transparently penned by PR flacks, with no idea of any actual “climate science,” let alone the incontestable climate science truths explained above.
The National Climate Assessment adds, inexplicably, “Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions….From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.”
But as incontestably explained above, the increased carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration has unambiguously and substantially increased agricultural yields, which is more well established than any other proposition of climate science today. Again, over the past 20 years, that has amounted to well over $1 trillion in increased agricultural output, so again the NCA statement is directly the opposite of reality. You see what I mean by calculated deception?
The National Climate Assessment tells us.
“Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change….Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.”
So the increased CO2 is supposedly responsible for both more heavy downpours, and more severe droughts. But the truth is there has been no increase in extreme weather events at all. Paul Driessen reports for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) that “No Category 3-5 hurricane has made landfall in the United States since 2005, the longest such period since at least 1900.” Moreover, “U.S. tornado frequency remains very low, and property damage and loss of life from tornadoes have decreased over the past six decades.” University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. authoritatively finds that “the number of years with very large tornado losses has actually decreased” during 1993-2013 compared to 1950 to 1970.
Even the Bible for global warming/climate change, the latest report from the U.N.’s IPCC, as well as analysis from the Obama Administration’s own National Climatic Data Center, both conclude that no case can be made that extreme weather is increasing. As the Heritage Foundation explains, that means “no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornados.”
Even the National Climate Assessment itself says, “there has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900.” Other trends in severe storms, “are uncertain.” Lewis accurately reports, “The Assessment ignores substantial data and research finding no long-term increases in the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones and no trend in extreme weather-related damages once losses are ‘normalized’ (adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and consumer price index).”
The National Climate Assessment further fantasizes,
“Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat….Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snow ice pack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.
Not one word of this passage is demonstrated by the 841 pages of the report either.
Sea level has been rising, in fact, since the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago! But there has been no acceleration in the rate of that sea level rise for at least 200 years, as accurately reported at the Hockey Schtick website on May 6. Over that past 200 years, the long term, stable sea level rise has averaged a mere 6.6 inches per century, as measured by major tidal gauge studies. Yet, the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment tries to tell us that global sea levels could rise by as much as 6.6 feet by 2100, which would be 12 times the current long term average rate over the last 200 years! Moreover, a 2014 peer-reviewed study just published by Cazenave et al finds the rate of sea level rise has decelerated by 31% since 2002. That is consistent with a slight global cooling trend since that time, which some senior scientists predict could last decades. Are you seeing the calculated deception now?
All of this true climate science is authoritatively explained in complete detail in the thousands of pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by the dozens of top scientists serving on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published this year in ultimately 3 volumes of thousands of pages by the Heartland Institute. Those volumes are “double peer reviewed,” in that they discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and are themselves peer reviewed. Last year, the Cato Institute published a thorough, comprehensive refutation of the publicly released draft of the National Climate Assessment, The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change, by Patrick J. Michaels, et. al. If you are interested in knowing what you are talking about, and are an intelligent layman, you can be thoroughly educated by those calm, dispassionate, comprehensive, reasoned discussions of the issues surrounding global warming and “climate change.” You can learn more by attending the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, to be held at the Mandalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas, July 7-9, with more than 1,000 scientists from around the world.
But the bottom line is the political science, not the climate science, as Obama White House Science Advisor John Holdren has previously revealed. He has stated, “A massive campaign must be launched to…de-develop the United States…bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation….We must design a stable, low consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth.”
And that is what the Obama Administration is doing, with global warming/climate change as the foil. Obama told us during the 2008 election that under his plan for global warming/climate change, “the cost of electricity would necessarily skyrocket.” That would be awful for American consumers, as well as for working people, the middle class, the poor, and their jobs, wages and incomes. But Obama’s policies would mean higher costs for energy across the board.
While Obama has not yet been able to stop the fracking technology that is producing an American oil and natural gas boom on private and state owned lands, he has sharply constricted oil and natural gas exploration and development on the extensive federally owned lands, and offshore. That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President. The Heritage Foundation further explains that under Obama’s policies, the EPA’s “proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants, and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses.”
Then there is Obama’s indefinite hold up of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would simply transport, at no cost to taxpayers, abundant, low cost Canadian oil and natural gas to American Gulf Coast refineries, assuring American access to low cost, reliable oil and gas supplies. But if Canada can’t sell to America through Keystone, they will sell the oil and gas to our emerging rival in China, through pipelines to the Canadian west coast. These policies would not only deprive America of maybe 50,000 high paying jobs for construction of the extensive pipeline networks, but also for the budding boom and rebirth of American manufacturing, and associated higher paying blue collar jobs, that the revival of low cost, reliable American energy supplies is producing.
All of this means that Obama is on track for his skyrocketing electricity and other energy costs that are the inevitable result of constricted supply of low cost, reliable, American energy. The Heritage Foundation further explains that “Higher energy prices shrink production and consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth.”
Driessen adds that as a result, “The Obama agenda…will leave more millions jobless, and reduce the ability of families to heat and cool their homes properly, assure nutritious meals, pay their rent or mortgage, and pursue their American dreams. America’s minority and blue collar families will suffer – while Washington, DC power brokers and lobbyists will continue to enjoy standards of living, housing booms and luxury cars that are unknown in the nation’s heartland. Think Hunger Games or the Politburo and nomenklatura of Soviet Russia.”
The National Climate Assessment even suggests to Americans, “replacing short vehicle commutes with biking or walking and reducing your red meat intake to reduce the amount of methane emitted from the animals we eat.” Looks like Holdren and his buddy Obama are on track for their low consumption economy as well. Did we ever vote for that? Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are not supporting that. Someone needs to take away Obama’s pen and his phone, before he commits national suicide.
What this amounts to is the fundamental transformation of the Democratic Party. Democrats are abandoning blue collar working people, in favor of what columnist Joel Kotkin calls the Gentry Liberals, in his brilliant analysis in the May 9 Orange County Register. Gentry liberals are well-heeled, highly prosperous, trendy, high rollers in tony, high end, coastal communities from San Francisco and Silicon Valley, to Hollywood, the Southern California beach cities, Seattle, Wall Street, the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, and similar precincts.
They are the crony capitalists, play acting like successful entrepreneurs, while benefitting from government policies favoring the richest. That includes tens of billions seized from taxpayers in “green energy” handouts and giveaways, and hundreds of billions in Wall Street bailouts. It includes low interest, easy credit available to the big boys and corporate players, but not small business and Main Street, at the expense of seniors trying to scrape by on their dwindling savings. Those virtually zero interest rates also prop up big banks and too big to fail finance, while smaller community and regional banks are crushed by Dodd-Frank regulatory burdens. The negligible interest rates also pump up the stock market, further benefitting the top 1% and Wall Street finance, also benefiting from guaranteed big profits from marketing federal debt.
These rich, gentry liberals have outbid the traditional Democrat base of blue collar working people. Think hedge fund billionaire and crony capitalist Tom Steyer, with folks like George Soros also in on the scam. Kotkin adds, “The gentry liberals’ power stems from their dominion over most of the key institutions – the media, the universities, academia and high-tech [also Wall Street and big finance] – that provide both cash and credibility to the current administration.”
But the problem, as Kotkin further explains, is “What most marks the gentry, particularly in California, is their insensitivity to the impact of their policies on working-class and middle-class voters.” Not to mention the poor and minorities. Ironically, Obama’s biggest supporters, blacks, Hispanics, the poor, young workers, and women, have suffered the most under his policies.
Steve Moore has also been writing about the growing Democratic party divide between green and blue. He writes in Investor’s Business Daily on May 2, “Big Green is already fast at work wiping out America’s coal industry, with entire mining towns nearly shut down in states like Kentucky and West Virginia….Liberals used to pretend to care about these people.”
He adds, “The green agenda is fundamentally at odds with the agenda of blue-collar union Democrats,” concluding “What’s needed is a movement to educate Americans about what scary people the greens really are.” Again, think Hunger Games.
How could the scientists involved in the National Climate Assessment, and the U.N.’s IPCC reports, get the basic global warming/climate change science so wrong, as discussed above? During the Soviet Communist era in Russia, under Stalin in the 1930s, the government promoted a peasant, non-scientist named Trofim Lysenko to be the Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenko virulently rejected the rising Mendelian genetics of the time, holding that acquired characteristics of plants, and maybe of animals and even humans, during their lives could be inherited. This fit the reigning Marxist doctrine of the time that human character and traits were malleable, and that the Soviet government was in the process of creating the selfless, modern, new Soviet man, perfectly suited to life under Communism.
Scientists who promoted such Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and awards. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism. Remember, Lenin himself invented the term “politically correct.”
The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences ultimately announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught in schools as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964.
This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory is currently politically correct because it promotes vastly increased government power and control over the private economy, for the U.S. government, governments in Western Europe, and even for a potential world government imposing global taxes and regulations, which the U.N. dreams of achieving. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media abroad. Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.
See the recent disgraceful treatment by brown shirts posing as scientists of Swedish Professor Lennart Bengtsson, with a long, distinguished, international career in meteorology and climate research, including formerly as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, after he very publicly dissented from global warming/“climate change” orthodoxy.
Those who promote the politically correct theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in the West?
Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.
But there is a more virulent strain at the root of Western Lysenkoism today. Scientists, like Holdren and Michael Mann, can be leftist ideologues as well, posing to manipulate and mislead for the good of the cause. Bottom line: green is the new red. That is why Obama at root is so committed to it.