Tag Archives: climate change

Data Review Discredits Global Warming, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its examination of  the latest scientific and political developments regarding the theory of man-made global warming.

The response by advocates of the man-made global warming theory to the recent findings by Dr. Wallace, Dr. D’Aleo and Dr. Idso, which discredit the data behind it, and similar reports and studies, has been unscientific.

Stephen Kruiser, writing for IJR notes: “If the climate alarmists weren’t still so politically powerful and represented in Congress by their devoted cult members, it would almost be easy to pity them. Why? Because they’re so spectacularly wrong about so many things…noted climate scientist [and global warming theory advocate] Hans von Storch … had some interesting things to say about the climate prediction models so revered by the alarmists. “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations…There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

Wounded pride and professional reputations aside, why do some many of those who vehemently advocated the global warming theory continue to push the increasingly discredited idea?

A number of those who have examined that question believe that there is a massive profit motive involved. Nick Allen, writing for the Telegraph, reports that Al Gore has increased his wealth fifty times over through global-warming business profits. In 2009, Allen reported that Gore was on course to become a “global warming billionaire…He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. At a [2009] hearing … on clean energy legislation, Mr Gore was challenged by Republican congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, over his investments.”

An Investors.com article pointed out that “The terrible truth for Gore is that there is no planetary emergency. Not one of the dire predictions he and the rest of the alarmist community made has come to pass.”

A Newsmax study estimated that approximately $22 billion dollars are spent each year on anti-global warming projects.

In addition to the profit motive, much of the “remedies” to the alleged global warming crisis dovetail perfectly with left-wing proposals that have never found acceptance with the American electorate.

Writing in Real Clear Politics, George Will states: “Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet….
global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, ‘We are the real defenders of science,’ and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy & Government reported earlier, It is increasingly apparent that the allegation of global warming is being used to ram a series of unpopular governmental and economic policies down the throats of Americans, and in the process, enriching some of the Left’s political leaders.

Data Review Discredits Global Warming

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines the latest scientific studies on the data behind the theory of man-made global warming.

Some political beliefs are based more on blind faith than facts. When this occurs, it is difficult to dissuade their adherents that they have been misled.

There is increasing evidence that the theory of man-made climate warming is wrong, or at the least, deeply exaggerated. Further, it is now evident that the principal proponents of the concept have pushed the idea using incomplete, altered, and in some instances wholly false data, for purposes having little to do with environmental concerns.

The revelations that key studies from both government agencies and academic institution were falsified and/or misstated did virtually nothing to reduce support for extreme environmental measures based on those reports.  Common sense questions, such as why Earth’s temperature was warmer in the 10th Century AD, as well as in the era of the Roman Empire, have been ignored.  The thousands of scientists who have expressed significant doubt about global warming were completely ignored by those claiming the idea was “settled science.”  Students have been taught to unquestionably believe in global warming. Some Washington politicians expressed a desire to criminally prosecute those disagreeing with the theory, and a number of state attorneys general have harassed think tanks that question the concept.

In 2016, An unprecedented legal attack, in utter violation of the First Amendment, was launched against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)  for committing the “offense” of disagreeing with  extremists on the issue of climate change. The move was in line with the anti-free speech action of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch who “referred to the FBI”  consideration of whether to prosecute those who dare to question the claims of environmental extremists.

A reckoning may be at hand, as serious scientists pursue the truth, and investigative journalists reveal the ulterior motives of the global warming hucksters.

A new report by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and  Dr. Craig D. Idso questions the validity of key pro-global warming data, including that provided by NOAA, NASA and the Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data, as well as The Validity of the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. The findings of those agencies essentially rely on the same flawed data.

The study concludes that “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”

A number of distinguished specialist have already reviewed the study and agree with it, including: Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant;  Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., ; Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., ; and Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S.; Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Advisory Committee.

The news should not come as a great surprise, considering how the idea of man-made global warming became widely accepted, as described by the Heartland Foundation:

“Then came the 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. It brought dramatic change in the public’s acceptance of global warming. The report had two parts: one was the long text of the research by scientists; the other, the ‘Summary For Public Officials’—which is the only part most people ever read—was written by persons who received political appointments. They were not politicians but public servants who were taking orders from the governments that signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.The Summary was supposed to be based on the research—but it was written before the research was done. And the research was then ‘adjusted’ to fit the summary, rather than the other way around. Here is a description of the process by climatologist Vincent Gray, Ph.D., who is the only person to have been involved in all the publications of the IPCC since its inception.

‘In the 1980s a group of rogue scientists…suggested that the public and governments would accept [global warming if it was described as] a ‘settled’ opinion of a sufficiently large group of scientists. They invented a new pseudo-scientific model of the climate which ignored the scientific understanding of the climate built up by generations of meteorologists. It claimed that climate is controlled by human–related emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.

‘They persuaded the World Meteorological Association and their own United Nations Environment Programme to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to gather together scientific material to support this project in preparation for the Rio Earth Summit in 1991 which launched the deception….

‘The IPCC has now issued five major Reports. These have been amazingly successful in persuading governments all over the world that they can prevent what is alleged to control ‘global warming’ by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. The main mechanism for ensuring uniformity of thought is applied by the presence in all of the IPCC Reports of a “Summary for Policymakers” at the beginning. This is really a Summary BY Policymakers, because it is dictated, line by line by the government representatives who control the IPCC to a group of reliable ‘Drafting Authors.’

‘The Chapters of each Report are arranged in such a way as to promote the idea of climate change caused by greenhouse gas increases. Actual climate observations are either obscured, or ‘smoothed,’ ‘filtered’, ‘linearized’, ‘interpolated’, with ‘outliers’ eliminated, in order to try and find ‘trends’ which can be fitted into the mold decided for them.”

‘When the final version of the 1995 IPCC Report did not agree with the Summary, Ben Santer, whom the IPCC had appointed as the lead author of the report, was given the task of altering the full report to coincide with the Summary. After the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers were shocked to discover that major changes had been made after they had signed off on the science chapter’s contents.”

The Report concludes on Monday

NASA’s Course Set to Change

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines NASA’s immediate future in a three-part review

A more definite picture of NASA’s future direction is emerging.

Advocates of space exploration were gratified to note the inclusion of space research in the President’s inaugural address (“We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space.”) In a reversal of the role Obama mandated the space agency to play, the new Administration is emphasizing manned space flight and the pursuit of major goals for human exploration beyond low earth orbit, in the near term, using American spacecraft.

The Morning Ticker recently noted that “The incredible upset win of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton could have huge ramifications for NASA. Donald Trump may send America back to the moon. That’s what some people are saying now that he and the Republican Party has swept into power, including Newt Gingrich, who himself loves the idea of a colony on the moon. The transition from an Obama presidency to a Trump administration is certain to be a jarring one for NASA. The agency can expect a significant revamp in its mission, focusing much less on climate change and more on space missions, including possibly our first trip to the moon in decades. Analysts suggest that the administration may push for a lunar landing as a stepping stone on the way to Mars. It would also be a very public way to reassert the U.S.’s mastery of the space domain and our closest neighbor.”

According to the Daily Caller,  SpaceX’s founder Elon Musk “made two trips to Trump Tower during the transition period and discussed how NASA could be primed to send astronauts to Mars using public-private partnerships, according to The Washington Post. Trump also met…with space program historian Douglas Brinkley about the Apollo program, which took NASA to the moon during the 1960s…Another billionaire space entrepreneur, Robert Bigelow, thinks that Trump could potentially double NASA’s budget.

There is some similarity in that both Trump and his predecessor favor an expanded role for private sector technology.

A 2015 study by the National Defense University notes that “U.S. government policies over the past decade have focused on shifting space activities from the public sector to the more efficient private sector…Government policies have encouraged and supported the rise of new entrants and entrepreneurs into the space launch and broader space transportation market…overcoming the hurdles of high upfront capital investment costs. These new entrants are implementing process and pursuing product innovation in the rocket and on-rocket, orbital and suborbital launch markets…”

However, the practical application of Obama’s use of the private sector was more in the nature of a replacement for NASA-developed space technology, at least in the immediate future., and particularly in the realm of manned space flight. Trump’s outlook is concentrated on having the private sector complement an ambitious and timely human space program.

The prior president mandated NASA’s attention be directed to efforts intended to assist a climate change agenda. The new Administration appears prepared to return the space agency to its original function. The time table for significant manned space accomplishments appears set to move faster under the Trump Administration.

Trump has long believed that NASA’s emphasis on climate change during the Obama Administration was a misuse of the agency’s budget.  He also doubts the veracity of some of the data produced by various sources used to justify funding within the space agency for that purpose. In a criticism of NASA data, a Real Science review noted that in 1989:

 …scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period…But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989…The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to 1980 was a well known and difficult historical period in Iceland. NASA  erased Iceland’s history, without even the courtesy to contact Iceland’s experts…Additionally, we know that there was tremendous warming in the Arctic prior to the 1940s, which Hansen has erased from the historical record in Iceland, Greenland and elsewhere.”

The report continues tomorrow

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-based, Part 2

Conclusion of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s review of environmental debates

The inappropriate actions of environmental extremists was best represented by the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, in which emails, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.

It was followed two years later by “Climategate 2.” As noted by Forbes : “Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.”

The Heartland organization reports that “The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.”

An example of how NASA manipulated data is described by the Daily Wire:  “The Washington Times reported  in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.” The Washington Times  further reported in 2015 that “Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.”

The Trump Administration has signaled a course reversal. The selection of Robert Walker to lead the NASA transition team is an example. He  has previously complained of data manipulation by the space agency.

It is, however, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to run the EPA that will bring the greatest resistance. Business Insider  reports that “Pruitt joined several other state attorneys general in suing the agency over the Clean Power Plan, a policy drafted under the Obama administration…[he is] A self-described ‘leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ Pruitt has brought lawsuits against the Obama-led EPA several times.”

Climate Change Advocates Ignore Contrary Evidence

Advocates of the theory that human activities have caused dangerous global warming are becoming desperate—and litigious.

With the startling revelation the Justice Department actually discussed taking legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” climate change, it is now clear that the long history of fraud, misconstrued data, and junk science is beginning to take its toll on those who seek to impose drastic and questionable measures against a threat that may not bear any resemblance to their claims.  It is also becoming increasingly obvious, considering the lack of clear evidence for unusual global warming, that the motivation for the intensity of their efforts may have less to do with concern for the environment and more to do with an unrelated political agenda.

There have been attempts to prevent—even criminalize– discussion on the controversial issue of manmade global warming by its advocates, who base their position on suspect data.

A Competitive Enterprise Institute report  notes: “What boggles the mind is not that … climate scientists would attempt to stifle debate, drive the market out of the marketplace of ideas, and punish those who do not worship at the altar of ‘consensus.’ There’s no shortage of ‘progressive’ intolerance in these times. Using RICO [a legal tool designed to fight organized crime] to silence opponents is fairly tame compared to environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s demand that fossil-fuel executives be tried for treason (the usual punishment for which is death). What’s noteworthy …is the scientists’ lack of self-awareness—their inability to judge themselves by criteria they invoke to condemn others. They have no clue how easily they can be hoist on their own petard.”

While pressure from the Obama Administration has chilled dissent from those currently working for government agencies, retired scientists have made no secret of their views that contradict the prevailing global warming orthodoxy. In 2012, Business Insider reproduced a letter penned by 49 retired NASA scientists and astronauts:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

The letter is not unique. 31,072 scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition which states:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.  Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the Earth.”

RealClimateScience analyzed an NOAA briefing citing statistics indicating a warming trend over the past 37 years. The data presented was selective, omitting a portion of the research which indicated that, in the approximately two decades before the recent 37 years, there had been a cooling trend.  The end result is that there has been, using NOAA’s own research, no evidence of global warming over the past 58 years. Data from other sources indicates that there has been no evidence of global warming since 1997.

The inappropriate tilting of government agencies towards the unproven theory of manmade climate change has been exposed by several sources. The Freebeacon has reported that “The business arm of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer’s political advocacy network worked behind the scenes with senior administration officials to undermine a study by a federally commissioned group that criticized environmental regulations, internal emails show.”

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court placed a stay on President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” regulations.  It was the first time that the highest court overruled a lower court to stay a regulation. The stay had been requested by 27 states.

Obama’s Unlawful Climate Change Moves

The availability of energy is the key ingredient in the world’s economy.  Control it, and everything else falls into place.

This reality has been the essence of why there has such been such an intense drive on the part of those who have sought to push for more centralized control of the economy using the excuse of climate change as a rationale.

The obstacle in the path of the White House, which has ardently sought to “fundamentally change” America’s economy in part using global warming as an excuse (from essentially capitalist to something more akin to the democratic socialism of Europe) has been the lack of support by the public or the Congress.  A yougov poll found only 9.2% consider global warming as their biggest concern, and, notes the Daily Caller, a Fox News poll found only 3% of U.S. residents cite that issue as a top concern.

Pursuing a radical change in energy production is a tough sell, since it lacks public or Congressional support.  Even the courts have stepped in, blocking Mr. Obama’s unlawful attempt to impose power plant regulations.

Despite the Constitutional and legal obstacles, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the direction of the Obama White House, has engaged in numerous maneuvers to evade appropriate and mandatory procedures.  A December 2015 Government Accountability Office Report found, for example, that:

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts with its use of certain social media platforms in association with its “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rulemaking in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Specifically, EPA violated the publicity or propaganda prohibition though its use of a platform known as Thunderclap that allows a single message to be shared across multiple Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr accounts at the same time. EPA engaged in covert propaganda when the agency did not identify EPA’s role as the creator of the Thunderclap message to the target audience…EPA also violated anti-lobbying provisions though its hyperlinks to certain external Web pages in an EPA blog post. Both of the external Web pages led to appeals to the public to contact Congress in support of the WOTUS rule, which taken in context, constituted appeals to contact Congress in opposition to pending legislation. EPA associated itself with these messages through its decision to include the hyperlinks in its blog post.”

The White House presses on, using every lever at its disposal.  The Department of Interior’s imposition of a “pause” on new coal leases is a part of that strategy. “the Interior Department will also institute a pause on issuing new coal leases…Given serious concerns raised about the federal coal program, ‘we’re taking the prudent step to hit pause on approving significant new leases so that decisions about those leases can benefit from the recommendations that come out of the review,’ said Secretary Jewell.”

The most significant attempt to impose alterations on the national economy based on climate change concerns has been the Paris Agreement. (For a review of the Paris accords, see the New York Analysis of Policy & Government article here) The far-reaching impact and enormous cost of its provisions clearly rise to the level of a major international treaty.  However, since treaties must be approved by the Senate, the White House has attempted to label the treaty as an “Agreement.”

Mr. Obama can choose to call the treaty any number of terms, but it does not exempt him from compliance with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch.

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute  notes:

“President Obama claims the recently adopted Paris Agreement on climate change is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement…Why is he doing this? Because if he were to follow the constitutional treaty-making process, and submit the agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent, the treaty would be dead on arrival.In fact, the Paris Agreement is a treaty. That is the only reasonable conclusion based on U.S. historic practice, the Agreement’s potential costs and risks, its prescriptiveness and ‘ambition’ compared to predecessor climate treaties, and international protocol, including recent instructions from the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat to the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Obama claims the Paris Agreement is not a treaty because America’s emission-reduction commitments under it are ‘non-binding.’ That is a non sequitur. Our emission-reduction commitments under the Senate-ratified UNFCCC are also non-binding, yet no one disputes that the UNFCCC is a treaty.”

Climate Change vs. Key Environmental Concerns

The extraordinary emphasis on the theory of man-made climate change by politicians, pundits, academia, and Hollywood has eclipsed other vitally important environmental concerns.

The general fixation on global warming, which rejects any contrary scientific fact or opinion, takes attention and funding away from more proven and immediate conservation and planetary health matters.

To a significant extent, that is because the actual motivation behind much of the climate change movement has more to do with politics than science.

Chris Baskind, writing for the Mother Nature Network, outlined several more immediate environmental issues. He noted that within a 24 hour period, 214,000 acres of tropical forest disappear. Two billion gallons of sewerage will be dumped into the world’s oceans. 10,800 children will die from drought or the lack of clean drinking water.

Baskind reported that “…beyond the unblinking stare of MTV — far from the well-heeled audiences of London, Hamburg and Giants Stadium — away from the celebrity and speechmaking, humanity’s collective lack of environmental wisdom is already grinding nature underfoot. While some propose spending billions of dollars to combat the uncertain foe of climate change, more pressing matters already threaten to upend our everyday lives.”

In the drive to counter perceived threats from climate change, poor, occasionally irrational, decisions are made. Promises, such as those made by at least one presidential candidate to completely replace all fossil fuels within the next 50 years have little chance to succeed.

Wind and solar present significant and profound problems of affordability, reliability, wildlife destruction and habitat loss that will not be resolved in a fifty year time table.

The concept of building, according to one proposal, tens of thousands of wind turbines ignores the massive resulting kill rates of birds and bats, and that’s just one part of the problem. Wind power problems.org describes key issues:

“Wind plant infrastructure creates an industrial nightmare in wild and natural settings:

  • Construction of 70ft wide access roads
  • Installation of new transmission lines
  • Construction of power substations
  • Excavations and concrete for turbine foundations
  • 4-6 acres of forest is clearcut for each turbine.
    • Construction of a 25-turbine wind facility clears enough trees to fill 100 football fields.”

Solar panels are another oft-cited panacea.  But they provide substantial environmental damage, as well. A National Geographic  study noted:

“Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar’s ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.”

American Thinker outlines multiple environmental problems:

“large-scale solar power will create environmental damage over large areas of land.  Solar collectors may manage to convert only about 10% of the sun’s energy into electricity, the rest being reflected or turned into heat.  But the whole solar spectrum is blocked, thus robbing 100% of the life-giving sunshine from the ground underneath, creating a man-made solar desert.  For solar thermal, where mirrors focus intense solar heat to generate steam, birds that fly through the heat beams get fried.  Why would true environmentalists support industrial-scale solar energy collection?… Desertec, the utopian U.S. $560-billion project designed to cover 16,800 square kilometers of the Sahara Desert with solar panels, and then export electricity 1,600 km to Europe, has collapsed.”

There is a clear and important place for wind and solar energy, but the wholesale replacement of existing energy facilities simply replaces one set of problems with another. The use of rooftop solar panels for use in individual buildings is a far different issue than utility-scale solar energy production, for example.

The extraordinary concentration on global warming produces rather odd mandates. The Washington Times recently reported that the Pentagon has “ordered commanders to prioritize climate change in all military actions.”

The directive includes combat commands.  It is difficult to envision leaders of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines “prioritizing” global warming as they seek to avoid immediate death and destruction from enemy action. “Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and U.S. Central Command planner, said the Pentagon is introducing climate change, right down to military tactics level.”

A bullet strike or a nuclear attack can cause a lot more immediate and drastic problems than theories about climate change.

Climate may be Cooling, not Warming

Scientific studies reported as recently as January are throwing the climate change debate into turmoil.

A number of scientists, examining the most recent solar studies, believe that the Sun is entering a quiet phase, and it may cause the Earth to cool, not warm.  It could change the political calculus behind the entire drive to engage in measures meant to address the theory of man-made global warming.

According to scientific sources reported in Space Today, the sun is  registering its quietest activity since records were first kept around 1750.

In December, as reported in the British newspaper Sunday Express  “A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity… at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

A Principia Scientific  report disclosed:  A “New study by respected German scientists discredits alarmist global warming claims….climate cooling, not warming [is] more likely for the rest of this century. [According to] The Die kalte Sonne… Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent [warming] changes (of the last 40 years) are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.

Space .com  notes: “Scientists have also often speculated whether the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year dearth of sunspots in the late 17th to early 18th century, was linked with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters. This regional cooling might be linked with a drop in the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation. In fact, the sun could currently be on the cusp of a miniature version of the Maunder Minimum, since the current solar cycle is the weakest in more than 50 years.”

Nature World News notes that: “It is known that the Sun plays an important part in controlling the Earth’s climate, but now researchers show that solar activity affects climate change more than previously thought, according to recent research. That is, especially during the Earth’s “cooler periods.

“Scientists have long debated how the activity of the Sun might influence climate, and new findings indicate that its impact is not constant. For the last 12,000 years, since the last Ice Age ended, the Earth has generally experienced a warm climate. However, during this period the climate has not been stable and temperatures have varied. So we have had a slightly cooler climate during the last 4,000 years, and ocean currents in the North Atlantic have been weaker.”

Science Times  describes the impact reduced solar activity may have:

“While solar activity is declining, our Earth may be slowly heading for a new ice age, according to scientists. Studying the decreasing number of sunspots, researchers found that we are possibly entering a nearly spotless solar cycle. This could result in lower temperatures for decades…In the 1645 it started a similar era with almost no spots, the so-called Maunder Minimum period. This coincided with the ‘Little Ice Age’ and it lasted for around 70 years. At that time North America and Europe experienced lower than average temperatures. However, up to date the theory that lower solar activity can cause climate change is still controversial since scientists do not have enough convincing evident to prove this correlation. A Lomonosov Moscow State University researcher, Helen Popovapredicts that this minimum will lead to a significant cooling similar to what was experienced during the Maunder Minimum Period if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true.

ClimateDepot reported in 2013 “Scientists at Russia’s famous Pulkovo Observatory are convinced that the world is in for a period of global cooling.  Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

Federal environmental studies challenged for poor science, lack of transparency

A battle between the House of Representatives and a federal agency is raising the central issue of the balance of power within Washington, as well as the scientific basis of the numerous dire claims of man-made climate change that are increasingly being used by the White House to increase its power and alter much of the way Americans do business, grow food, and obtain energy.

Civil libertarians have grown increasingly wary of the extent to which unelected agency personnel are exercising legislative-like powers with very significant and wide-ranging effects on everyday life within the nation.

The conflict between Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science Committee, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is bringing the issue to a head. The Hill , which reported the issue, noted that the agency has refused to give Congress the detailed information requested on a controversial climate change study. Highlighting the argument is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming, prepared with NOAA assistance.

NOAA’s excuse of “confidentiality” and “protecting the integrity of the scientific process” appears to be little more than a smokescreen to prevent the legislative branch from fully reviewing the data, which may prove embarrassing to the Obama Administration’s quest for increased economic and regulatory authority based on an extreme view of climate change. NOAA’s argument also fails to address the right of the legislative branch to review any studies performed by an agency, barring extraordinary circumstances.

Rep. Smith was forced to issue a subpoena, which NOAA has yet to fully comply with. This is the latest duel between the Texas Republican and Obama Administration officials. In 2014, Rep. Smith stated that the EPA was not being candid about climate change. In a letter to the EPA sent on August 13, he wrote:

“For too long the Environmental Protection Agency has hidden the truth from the American people.  In order to regain public trust, the agency should rely on robust, objective and well-grounded technical analysis of its climate regulations. Flaws in recent EPA analyses amplify concerns about the real impacts of these regulations. Americans deserve an opportunity to see the facts.”

He stressed the findings of the Government Accountability Office, which released a report highlighting a pattern of shoddy EPA analysis. It was revealed that EPA relied on decades old data and ignored important factors.  The independent watchdog warned that “EPA cannot ensure that it’s [analysis] provide the public with a clear understanding of its decision making.” Chairman Smith wrote that “Credible analysis is critical to a well-informed debate concerning climate change and energy policy choices now before American people. EPA’s incomplete modeling disregards a number of technical, regulatory, and economic realities. Americans deserve the bottom line: what does it cost and what will we get for the money?” The letter calls on EPA to provide comprehensive analysis that takes real-world contingencies into account rather than rely on models and science that are hidden from the public.

Rep. Smith is not alone in his criticism of the EPA. A watchdog site, EPAFACTS.org, noted in 2014 that:

“The National Academies, a primarily government funded 6,300 member organization of the country’s top scientists, published a report … denouncing the EPA for its use of bad science to justify its conclusions. The National Research Council (NRC), one of four organizations that makes up theNational Academies (the other three being the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine), found a litany of deficiencies across multiple offices that undermines EPA’s claims of scientific integrity.

According to the report, EPA science suffers from:

Lack of transparency – “The lack of transparency and the inconsistencies raise questions about the quality of the approaches used.”

Lack of consistency – “Inconsistencies were found in the methods used to identify studies for consideration.”

Insufficient documentation – “EPA’s evaluation provided insufficient documentation of the analyses that led to the conclusions.”

Failure to justify conclusions – “EPA’s conclusions are not well supported… A higher standard of evaluation is required.”

Improper use of scientific method – “No clear description of a strategy or criteria for assessing the studies used in the evaluation… Methods that provide a more systematic approach and greater transparency are necessary.”

The fight on Capitol Hill comes as 26 states file suit against the EPA’s new power plant regulations, which would affect the coal industry particularly hard. Those opposing the measures cite the major cost increases that would result, as well as the important questions of where alternate sources of energy would come from if coal is eventually driven out of the U.S. power equation.

Some environmentalists are concerned that increased use of solar and wind, even though they could replace only a small fraction of the power coal provides, brings other detrimental effects.  The Save the Eagles organization 1.4 million birds annually could be killed by expanded use of wind turbines.

The Union of Concerned Scientists  notes that “larger utility-scale solar facilities can raise concerns about land degradation and habitat loss… The PV cell manufacturing process includes a number of hazardous materials, most of which are used to clean and purify the semiconductor surface. These chemicals, similar to those used in the general semiconductor industry, include hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone…”

White House ignores contrary climate data

President Obama utilized his recent trip to Alaska to visit Exit Glacier and state that its gradual receding justifies the extensive and expensive actions by federal agencies that are based on the theory of man-made global warming.

According to the New York Post “Exit Glacier has been shrinking … since 1815 — long before widespread industrialization and automobiles…Alaska has been buffeted by cyclical swings in climate for thousands of years. That’s true for the rest of the world, too. There was a 300-year-long Medieval heat wave, followed by a Little Ice Age that began around 1300, and then the 300-year warming period we’re in now. …The Alaska Climate Research Center reports almost no evidence of warming trends in Alaska since 1977…Many scientists are predicting the onset of two or three centuries of cooler weather — which would mean bigger glaciers.”

Despite the extensive disagreement by numerous scientists (31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate) the White House continues to contend that the issue of man-made warming is “settled science” and there is no need for further research.

An icon of global warming advocates is failing to cooperate. The Daily Caller’s review of a Lakehead University study found that polar bears, supposedly threatened by global warming, are in fact thriving.

Part of the problem in determining what climate changes the Earth is enduring is that, as noted by federal sources “Temperature records from thermometers and weather stations exist only for a tiny portion of our planet’s 4.54-billion-year-long life.”

Official or semi-official weather records go back only about 100 years, although some records do go back a few centuries before that.  However, scientific data indicates that substantial global climate swings occurred long before industrial activity began. According to Green Agenda “In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day…In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.”

A Nature study has found that temperatures in ancient Rome were warmer than the present.

One of the more significant arguments against the extreme measures advocated by the White House can be gleaned from a study of the other planets in our solar system. A National Geographic  review in 2007 reported that

“Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory…In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide ‘ice caps’ near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. ‘The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,’ he said…Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.”

The Earth and Mars are not alone. A Daily Tech  report noted that “The entire solar system appears to be warming up lately…Global warming was detected on Jupiter last year, and the warming is apparently behind the formation of a second red spot. Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton has also been noted, with severe atmospheric changes as a result. And even tiny Pluto has experienced moderate warming in recent years, with temperatures rising a full 3.5 degrees.

“The common denominator in all these cases, the Earth included, is of course the Sun, which is in the middle of an extremely active period at present. The last time it was so active was during the Medieval Warm Period of 700 years ago, a period where the Earth was warmer than it is today. Interestingly enough, the period in which it was least active (the Maunder Minimum) corresponds with the Little Ice Age the earth experienced in the 17th century.”

The article points out that this doesn’t mean that the sun is getting hotter, but that is more “active.”

“Such correlations are causing many scientists to consider the Sun the primary cause of terrestrial climate change. The initial problem with this theory was that the changes in solar flux didn’t appear to be enough to account for the warming.  Scientist Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute reports that increased solar activity not only warms the earth directly, it increases the strength of the solar winds. This reduces the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth, which directly reduces the formation rate of clouds. Less clouds = more warming. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv reconstructed 550 million years of Earth’s climate change history. He found that 2/3 of the temperature variance could be explained by changes in cosmic flux alone, without even considering the direct influence of solar heating. This has always been a weak point of CO2-based models, which have never been able to successfully explain these warming and cooling trends in our past.”