Q&A: Marc Morano’s Politically Incorrect Book About Climate Change

Al Gore, former vice president, is among the radical left-wing environmentalist who author Marc Morano debunks in his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” (Photo: Van Tine Dennis/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Marc Morano, founding editor of the award-winning website ClimateDepot.com, recently authored “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” He spoke to Daily Signal Editor-in-Chief Rob Bluey about climate change myths and other facts you probably haven’t heard reported by the media. An edited transcript of their interview is below. You can also listen to it on The Daily Signal podcast.

Rob Bluey: What prompted your interest in the issue of climate change? There’s a great photo of you in the book next to a wanted poster. How did you become such a villain to the left?

Marc Morano: I always said I was a Republican, except when it came to environmental issues. I remember not liking James Watt, the former interior secretary. I remember not liking President Ronald Reagan’s environmental policies. I always wanted to be a forest ranger as a kid growing up. I got heavily involved emotionally in watching all the documentaries about the Amazon rainforest back in the 1980s and 1990s.

It wasn’t until I started reading Dixy Lee Ray and actually hearing her talk, it was actually on Rush Limbaugh’s show, the coverage of the Rio Earth Summit, that I started to look deeper into environmental issues. What I remember her specifically saying, as a nuclear physicist, Dixy Lee Ray, that the Amazon was one of the most intact forests and this idea that it’s about to disappear was complete exaggeration and hype. I started investigating that. It actually culminated in a documentary on the Amazon rainforest.

>>> Buy the Book: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Global warming, when I started focusing on it, I actually started with a skeptical view and I was only able to get more and more skeptical, because I saw the same tactics being used.

The way I ended up in the wanted poster in Paris—that was the movie premier of my film “Climate Hustle” from 2015 at a Paris cinema. The environmental groups put out wanted posters of me the day of the premier. All over the city, this was literally on the main streets of Paris. So I posed with one of them in the book and you can see the picture. They called me a “climate criminal wanted for climate crimes.” This is the kind of intimidation they like to do.

Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” in Paris. (Photo Courtesy of Marc Morano)

Bluey: Despite that intimidation, you’ve still gone on to write this book. So what prompted you to do that and what’s your goal when a reader picks it up? What do you want them to walk away with?

Morano: My goal here was to help conservatives and Republicans articulate the issue. During my time on Capitol Hill, I worked for the Senate Environment of Public Works Committee. I can’t tell you the horror stories, Rob, of being in high-level meetings, during the height of the cap-and-trade debate 2007, 2008, 2009; back when President Barack Obama was pushing this through all the way to 2010.

The staffers of very conservative Republican senators would be like, “Well, we don’t want to touch the science on this because we don’t want to be seen as against the Earth or against the environment. Let’s just solely focus on the economics.”

I remember arguing passionately. If people think we face the climate catastrophe, we’re Americans! They’re going to say we will bear any cost and overcome it. They never wanted to challenge it. So I’m trying to, and working for Sen. James Inhofe, we tried to challenge the science.

What I tried to do with this book is say it’s OK to espouse climate skepticism. The book is done for anyone from, I would say, sixth grade through highest levels of education to educate them with the top voices in science, the basic concepts, and to make it fun, informative in a talking point form.

This is a needed book because in order to fulfill President Trump’s policies, you need the scientific justification, and this book fills that gap in, as well as talks about the policy.

Bluey: The other thing the book has is a lot of great facts that I think counter what you so often hear in the media and from liberal politicians. Could you share some of them? I know you have examples right on the cover. For instance, let’s take hurricanes because we’re in the midst right now of another hurricane story. You hear this all the time—that these hurricanes are more intense, they’re happening more often because of climate change. You say, “No.”

Morano: Not only do I say “no,” but the peer-reviewed scientific literature clearly and overwhelmingly says “no.”

There is nothing unusual, particularly on extreme weather. It’s not just hurricanes. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, on the entire spectrum of extreme weather, we are either at stable or declining trends. And that includes droughts.

California droughts in previous centuries blew away anything we’re talking about now. Floods, no trends on 100-year, 85-year time scales. Hurricanes were much worse, many more powerful hurricanes in the 1940s and ’50s. In fact, we were in the longest period of no major hurricane category three or larger before last year’s big hurricanes hit. And even though there is this alleged record rains, in the 1960s hurricanes that hit Cuba had many more times rain and flooding events than that.

“They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.”

I go into that in the book about these so-called 1,000-year floods and I explain that all these extreme weather events they claim, it’s kind of like a lottery promotion scam. Where they say, “Oh, this is a 1,000-year storm hit this city, and a 1,000-year storm hit that, this is unusual.” No, there are going to be very few lottery winners. But the lottery winners there are, they highlight them. “Look, there’s a lottery winner and there’s a lottery, look the lottery winners are everywhere.” They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.

Interestingly enough, cold weather is actually more extreme than warm weather. In the 1970s, they blamed tornadoes, floods, even the threat of war and increased violence on global cooling at the time. So there’s just not the science there at all, when it comes to that. And also I go through all the other myths you’ve heard about from the hottest year on record, the hottest decade.

Bluey: Let’s tackle that one because we hear this one it seems month after month—another record-breaking month. At the same time, I love the chart that The Daily Signal published of the temperature throughout history. You see the lines going up and down. Tell us what we need to know.

Morano: First of all, in the book, I interviewed geologists, I have Nobel Prize-winning scientists endorse the book. They explain that in the geologic history of the Earth, we are in the coldest 10 percent of the geologic history of the Earth. In other words, 90 percent of our Earth’s history was too warm to have ice at either pole. So we are in the 10 percent coldest. That’s No. 1.

No. 2, if you go back to the Roman warming periods during the time that Jesus Christ walked the Earth—and I show this in the peer-reviewed studies in the book, in a very reader-friendly way—we are actually now cooler than we were. So we’ve cooled since the time Jesus Christ walked the Earth. We’re actually about the same temperature or cooler since the medieval warm period, since about 900 to 1300.

First of all, you say hottest year, what time scale? Then, you jump ahead to about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, where the New York river, New York Harbor froze over, the Thames river was frozen, it was a brutal period, coinciding with low sun spot activity and bunch of other factors.

Suddenly, we get thermometer data. So the thermometer data comes online right at the end of the Little Ice Age. It’s very cold. All these things you hear about the glaciers retreating, most of that glacier retreat happened by 1900. Now, 80 percent of the carbon dioxide came after 1940, or after World War II in 1945. We had a huge warm spell from the 1920s into the ’30s and then, we had a cooling period from the ’50s all the way up to about the late 1970s. I go into the whole global cooling scare.

“The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.”

They now claim, “Oh, that never happened.” They have studies out, they claim that that was overblown, there’s only a couple scientists. I show in the book it was National Academy of Sciences, CIA, some of the same scientists warning of global cooling in the ’70s who then flipped and became global warming.

I actually feature in the book an article from the 1977 and ’78 in The New York Times, two articles. During this time, the scientists were battling it out when global cooling was morphing into a climate change, global warming.

To answer the question on the hottest year, we warm from the late ’70s to the late ’90s. Then essentially we flatlined. Essentially, there’s no statistically significant global warming. We had a thing called “the pause.” They didn’t like that, so they actually went back in the records and erased the pause. They changed the data.

Besides, even doing all that, the hottest year claims are within hundredths of a degree and that margin of error is tenths of a degree and they adjust the temperatures to within tenths of a degree without explanations. The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.

It’s a fancy way of saying the temperature hasn’t changed since the ’90s. That’s where they get hottest decade on record. On record just means since the Little Ice Age ended, when we put thermometer data out and that’s what that means. If you go back further, we’ve cooled, Middle Ages, Roman warming period, and even further.

Bluey: Thank you for setting the record straight on that. One of the other things that you argue is that the left has abandoned this fact-based science and instead resorted to just dramatic fear-mongering. What do you mean?

Morano: Go back to the 19th century, Rob, to explain this. Every storm is allegedly unprecedented, we’ve never seen it, this is the new normal, so to speak. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Katrina. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Harvey. The same lines over and over. Everything is done as a tactic of fear in order to get action. This started in the 1960s with the modern environmental movement.

Particularly, I go into a little bit about Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb.” I actually show, Rob, that they use this hysteria for the different environmental scares in the 1970s, whether it’s resource scarcity, over-population, rainforest clearing, et cetera.

They will say, “We need a global solution; we need global governance; we need wealth redistribution; we need sovereignty threatening treaty, or some kind of economic activity limiting.” No matter what environmental scare in the past that they tried to scare people with, it was the same solutions they’re proposing now.

In the book, I go back and show over and over that global warming is merely the latest scare they’re using to get their agenda. I show Naomi Klein, who’s an adviser to Pope Francis, who wrote “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” I interviewed her for the book. She actually says that they would be seeking the same solutions even if there was no global warming and that essentially, capitalism is incompatible with a livable climate. She actually urges people, “We need to jump on this because solving global warming will solve what we’ve been trying to achieve all along.”

They’re open about it. They use the climate scare tactics to achieve their ends. And in order to get those ends achieved, they have to hype and scare. It’s been a very effective strategy because they’ve bullied Republican politicians, who should know better, into at least submissiveness and silence and/or activism, when you come to the case with John McCain and even Mitt Romney.

Climate change activists want to have it both ways to advance their agenda, argues author Marc Morano. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Bluey: What are some of the strangest things that you’ve seen the left blame climate change on?

Morano: There’s a whole series of things. One of the things they do is they make opposite predictions. Global warming will cause more snow, less snow. More hurricanes, less hurricanes. More fog, less fog. More malaria, less malaria. I go through it all.

It’s as if you bet on the Super Bowl, and you bet both teams to win. You can go to the office the next day and say, “I did it! I won! I bet on the winning team.” First of all, they’re never wrong because they literally have opposite predictions.

The second thing is they come up with everything. Global warming will cause an increase in prostitution, bar room brawls, vehicle thefts. These are by United Nations scientists who did these studies, funded by major universities. These aren’t just some wacky claim, or some professor talking off the top of his head. They actually get funded studies to do this.

“They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming. … There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming.”

One of my favorites was in 1941, a University of Cincinnati professor said that the warmer weather we were having in the 1930s and ’40s created more docile people, which led to them being more susceptible to Hitler, Mussolini, and dictators. They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming at that time. Oddly enough, Hitler was saved in the bunker when Von Stauffenberg tried to kill him. Because it was a very hot day, they had to move the location of that meeting when the assassination attempt happened. They moved it to a room with a heavy table that saved Hitler. Global warming created Hitler, global warming saved Hitler.

There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming. My favorite quote is probably Michael Oppenheimer, U.N. lead scientist, former Environmental Defense Fund activist, “Anybody who eats is under threat from climate change.” That’s his summation. So there you go. It’s that combination of just about everything. If you eat, then you’re under threat of climate change, you should be worried. If you don’t eat, then you’re fine.

Even when you’re dead, you won’t escape the clutches of global warming. In the book, I show multiple examples. In one case, Peruvian mummies are decaying faster because of the humidity caused by climate change. Also, they’re worried that dead bodies in the permafrost in Siberia are melting and are going to release new pathogens. The dead walk among us because of global warming. So, even the dead are now to blame for exacerbating the problem of global warming.

Bluey: We’ve used these terms interchangeably: climate change and global warming. Can the left make up its mind on what to call it?

Morano: No, in fact, in the book, I have a lot of fun. “Global climate disruption” was John Holdren, Obama’s former science czar. He wanted to call it that. “Global weirding” is what Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist, wants to call it. They’ve come up with all these different names. “Global heating.”

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, when I was in the Senate Environment Public Works Committee, she actually called the hearing “global warming” one time. This was when they were really trying to push climate change. Temperatures hit their peak in the late 1990s from the cooling of the 1970s. They’ve tried to push climate change because they didn’t think without that constant increase in temperature, they weren’t getting anywhere. It was getting harder to sell.

“[C]limate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature.”

Climate change includes the extreme weather. I remember very vividly, I was in Bali, Indonesia—a $15,000 roundtrip business class flight for the U.S. Senate at a global warming hearing for the United Nations—arguing with a John McCain climate staffer about how the new argument in global warming was all going to be about extreme weather.

Therefore, climate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature. They wanted to go out on every limb and this way they could blame everything from cows and transportation, airlines.

They’re trying to get every aspect of our society under global warming regulation and not just focus on temperature. Because now if you have a bad crop, if you have vehicle crash—the Department of Transportation got us funding to study how global warming could increase fatal car accidents—that’s why it has to be “climate change,” because they’re trying to go in every direction.

Bluey: How have the left’s policies, as you argue in the book, hurt the world’s poor?

Morano: That is one of the most insidious things. In the book, I feature Al Gore at a Bill Gates function, saying that Africa’s projected to have more people than China and India combined in the next century and that we need “ubiquitous fertility management.”

This is a white, wealthy Western politician saying essentially there are too many black Africans. Let’s be blunt about it. I actually quote a former Harvard professor just excoriating Al Gore for essentially racist comments. Basically singling out Africa and saying, “They’ve got to have better fertility management because we have too many Africans and we’ve got to control their population.” Now Al Gore would just say, “No, I’m thinking of only the Earth.” But what conservative politician could get away with that?

“Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.”

When you look at third-world development—and by the way, “third world” is a politically incorrect term; we’re supposed to say the “developing world”—they have about 1.1 billion people without running water and electricity. Essentially, what they’re trying to do with climate policy is prevent them from developing through fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.

If you’re living in a poor nation, you’re burning dung, you’re living in a hut made of dung, you’re breathing in horrible air, the rivers are polluted from sewage. The second you get modern sewage, the second you get coal plants even or oil or even nuclear, if you’re lucky enough, everything gets radically cleaner. They’re trying to prevent it. Even the World Bank won’t allow coal plant development in countries that are in dire poverty.

These environmentalists I interviewed, one in South Africa, they travel the world from Minnesota and other places—wealthy, white Western college kids—go to Africa and essentially say, “You’re doing it right by living this primitive existence. You’re living it right. You’re Earth-friendly.”

I interviewed Jerry Brown, the California governor, at an Earth Summit in South Africa. He actually says the Earth can’t allow the rest of the world to develop like the United States and Europe because we’d need 20 more Earths to do it. In other words, they have to be managed. It’s a new form of colonialism. It’s the most insidious things. That’s a very intense chapter in the book because it’s an eye-opener for people who haven’t been following this. They are trying to limit their development.

The environmental activists—climate activists—they even have something called the U.N. Climate Fund. I interviewed a South African development activist, Leon Lowe, who’s very articulate. He just says, “The developing world needs to tell the first world to essentially go to hell if they’re going to tell them how to develop, what resources they can use of their own.”

He says, “Until London, Rotterdam, Paris, and Washington level their cities, return them to swamps and wetlands and jungles, they have no business telling the developing world how they can use the natural resources, how they can develop, what energy they can use.”

That’s the dilemma we’re facing now. They’re trying to control and manage people and keep them at a subsistence level of life. It’s the most anti-human movement of today. It’s why former Czech President Václav Klaus has said, the greatest threat we face today for human freedom is, what he says, “ambitions environmentalism from the climate movement.”

Bluey: In addition to writing the book, you run a website called ClimateDepot.com. What’s your mission? What do you strive to do there?

What I’m trying to do there is have a daily one-stop shop of all the latest climate, energy, and environmental news. In other words, I link to all the mainstream sources, but I’ll try to pick out some of the best tidbits and actually try to do reality checks all the time. I do special reports.

It’s a way for you to get your energy, climate, environment news without just having to hear the mantra of nonsense, of 97 percent of all scientists agree the Earth is doomed, we’re facing a catastrophe, we need the Paris Agreement.

I have user guides. I have special reports and I have a lot of humor to try to bring people in—to say this is not an intimidating topic. Don’t be afraid to stand up because the whole movement is designed—the environmental left has designed this to intimidate everyone into silence on this issue. If you’re against climate change, belief in climate change, catastrophic climate change, you are a dumb person. You are an idiot. You’re a rube. You’re not welcome in polite society. Even the impolite don’t want you.

Bluey: Marc, thanks so much. Again, the book is called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” Thanks for writing it.

Morano: Thank you, Rob. Appreciate it, enjoyed it.

Advertisements

Speculative Climate Chaos v. Indisputable Fossil Fuel Benefits – Paul Driessen

Speculative Climate Chaos v. Indisputable Fossil Fuel Benefits
Editor’s Note: This column was co-written by Roger Bezdek***

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of articles and books on energy, climate change, carbon dioxide and economic development. 

Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc.

In 1 Graphic, Here’s What Uncle Sam Is Doing With Your Tax Money

Rapper Cardi B has some questions for the IRS. (Photo: Zach Chase/picture alliance / Runway Manhat/Newscom)

From the Daily Signal

Last month rapper Cardi B asked a slightly more profane version of the same question many Americans ask when they file their taxes.

“Uncle Sam, I want to know what you’re doing with my f—ing tax money.”

That’s a good question. The average American household sends more than $20,000 to Washington in tax revenue each year, and most see little in return.

In 2017, the federal government nabbed more than $3.3 trillion in taxes—but that still isn’t enough to satiate Washington’s immense appetite for spending. The 2017 deficit was a whopping $665 billion.

 

So where do our tax dollars go?

Some believe most of it goes to welfare programs and foreign aid. Others believe defense and corporate subsidies dominate the budget.

In reality, health entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare—and Social Security are the largest programs. If Congress continues its current policies, these entitlements and interest on the debt are set to consume every dollar of taxes paid by 2027. That’s less than 10 years away.

Right now,  federal health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies currently consume 28 percent of the budget. Federal health spending is projected to grow on an unsustainable trajectory of 6 percent per year over the next 10 years. That growth rate is about three times the projected pace of economic growth over the same period.

Meanwhile, Social Security, the single largest federal program, accounts for roughly a quarter of all federal spending. Its trust funds are already paying out more than they take in, and as more people retire, the system will face continued stress.

Without reform, the program’s trustees project benefits will need to be cut as much as 23 percent if nothing is done by 2034.

In the meantime, rather than slowing down, spending on all these programs is expected to dramatically increase in the near future. Combined annual spending on health entitlements and Social Security is projected to grow by 89 percent over the next decade.

Other income security programs—veterans’ benefits, food and housing assistance, federal employee retirement, and disability—account for 17 percent of the budget, surpassing national defense spending.

The defense budget covers everything from military paychecks, to operations overseas, to the research, development, and acquisition of new technologies and equipment.

At 15 percent of the federal budget, defense spending is the last major category of federal spending and has been falling as a percent of the budget for the last decade.

And the rest?

Well, interest on the debt is one big culprit.

Over the coming decade, U.S. debt held by the public is projected to balloon to over 96 percent of gross domestic product—driven primarily by health and Social Security spending. As the size of the debt grows, so will the interest costs.

Currently, 7 percent of the budget is spent on interest—money that takes away from other priorities. But in just five years, interest spending is projected to exceed national defense.

Deficit spending has many costs. Economic growth tends to slow in countries with debts that are comparable to the size of the economy, a group the U.S. is quickly joining. As the debt increases, so does the cost of the interest we must pay to those who hold the debt. China is currently the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt.

Without reforming America’s massive and growing federal programs, Washington will have to continue to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling new debt onto younger generations and worsening the nation’s already unsustainable economic course.

Some people will tell you that the recent tax cuts are to blame for our fiscal challenges. However, in 2018, total tax revenue is projected to increase by $22 billion. In dollar terms, tax reform was only a cut in the growth rate of revenue collection and not actually a decrease in total dollars collected by the IRS. By 2025, revenue growth will return to pre-tax reform levels.

The growing deficit is caused exclusively by more spending—every year after 2018, tax revenue is projected to grow faster than the economy.

Growing government spending threatens higher taxes on current and future taxpayers. Without serious spending reforms, taxes will go back up. Congress made much of the tax cuts temporary. After 2025, when many of the tax cuts expire, tax revenue jumps back to its pre-tax reform levels. Eventually, rising debt will leave lawmakers with limited options to avoid a financial crisis. Unless we can reverse course, it is only a matter of time before the taxman comes knocking.

In the words of Cardi B, “What is y’all doing with my f—ing money? I want to know. I want receipts.”

Increasing taxes is not the solution. Washington already takes too much of the money that Americans work hard to earn. Congress must rethink how it is spending the people’s money.

 

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years | The Daily Caller

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

 By Michael Bastaschglobal_warming_hoax
 
Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

 

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.

DON’T FORGET TO WATCH GORE’S DISASTROUS CNN TOWN HALL:

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

Commentary: The climate-change alarmism debate is over — and Al Gore and his disciples have lost – TheBlaze

Commentary: The climate-change alarmism debate is over — and Al Gore and his disciples have lost

Chip Somodevilla / Staff / Getty Images

 

In the world of science, debates rarely end. Only after years of careful analyses, rigorous scientific studies, and the replication of findings can scientists safely declare they believe a theory has likely been proven. And even then, real scientists know virtually every scientific conclusion is subject to further debate and experimentation as additional insights are discovered.

On the topic of the science of climate change, including the causes and potential dangers, the debate is still very much alive and well. But the current climate-change debate held in most public forums, including in Washington, D.C., has never been particularly scientific (that is, adhering to the scientific method), and after three decades of debating the claims made repeatedly by climate alarmists such as Al Gore, it’s clear the debate is over, and the alarmists have lost.

What alarmists believe

The current climate alarmist debate involves only two groups. The alarmists are those who say climate change is happening, that it is now and has for decades been caused by humans’ greenhouse-gas emissions, that the warming is causing or will soon cause catastrophic problems, and, most importantly, that the evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute. Anyone who doesn’t believe in all four of those assertions falls, whether they realize it or not, into the “climate skeptic” camp, a rather large tent.

If this description of the debate surprises you, it’s only because for 30 years alarmists have consistently and improperly been claiming climate-change skeptics are “deniers” — a name that was deliberately chosen because of its link to Holocaust “deniers” — who are stupid, corrupt, or both. They’ve spread countless falsehoods about what global warming actually is and have repeatedly made untrue claims about what skeptics believe.

Is the science settled?

One thing is abundantly clear, however: For alarmists, anyone who doesn’t accept the climate-change dogma, which, again, includes all four of the claims made above, is dangerous.

“This is scary stuff, above and beyond everything else that scares us about Republicans,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in 2016. “You have a major political party which has turned its back on science regarding climate change. … It is caused by human activity. And it is already, not tomorrow but today, causing massive problems all over this country.”

So certain are the climate alarmists of their position that many of them have suggested it could be appropriate to imprison climate-change skeptics. Pop-culture “scientist” Bill Nye suggested as much in an April 2016 interview.

“Was it appropriate to jail the guys from Enron?” Nye said. “We’ll see what happens. … In these cases, for me, as a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So, I can see where people are very concerned about this, and they’re pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussions like this.”

The climate-alarmism debate is clear, so the only question is: Are the alarmists right? On this point, the facts are apparent: Although there is still a debate over whether the climate is still warming significantly, what the causes for the warming are, and whether warming will cause more harm than good, it is now certain that the evidence is not anywhere near overwhelming enough for Gore, Sanders, and Nye to make their most important claim: that the debate is over and that the theory of human-caused climate change has unquestionably been resolved in climate alarmists’ favor.

The evidence: climate models

Let’s start with the basics. If climate alarmists are correct that the debate is over, why can’t they prove it using scientific data? Because the climate is incredibly complex, climate scientists can’t run laboratory experiments to test hypotheses in the same way they might in other areas of research. Instead, they are forced to rely on computer climate models, which have been remarkably bad at proving a link between humans and carbon-dioxide emissions, as David Henderson and Charles Hooper noted for the Hoover Institution in April.

“The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions,” Henderson and Hooper wrote. “But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been ‘running hot,’ predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014.”

Numerous other studies have been conducted showing the failure of most climate models. Earlier in 2017, a paper in Nature: Geoscience found climate models have failed to explain the global warming pause experienced in the early 21st century.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” lead author Benjamin Santer and his team wrote.

“Over most of the early twenty-first century … model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed … partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations,” they added.

If climate models don’t get the most basic prediction they make, that of global temperatures, correct, one could reasonably ask why people should trust their predictions concerning climate changes purported to result from rising temperatures.

The evidence: alleged dangers of warming

Climate alarmists’ numerous predictions about extreme weather have also been utterly incorrect.

Authors of a paper in the August 2016 edition of the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology found “stronger storms are not getting stronger,” and the researchers also noted changes in the strength, seasonality, and the increase in the amount of heavy rainfall events could be explained by natural variability.

Alarmists can’t even definitively prove warmer temperatures are causing more harm than good. Increased carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures have scientifically been proven to help plant growth, which means there is more food for humans and animals. In fact, it is widely known that historically, cooler conditions are much more dangerous than warmer conditions for life on Earth.

A 2015 article in the influential journal The Lancet examined health data from 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths, and found relatively cold weather, directly or indirectly, kills 1,700 percent more people than warm weather.

Alarmists’ response

Of course, climate alarmists refuse to accept any of these well-established facts, because it would undermine the foundation of everything they’ve claimed for three decades. In the face of facts, they hurl unjustifiable accusations and insults in an attempt to sway readers.

Writing for Forbes in July, climate alarmist Ethan Siegel, like many of Gore’s disciples, claimed similar arguments we had made in the past are “lies” and distortions.

“The only reason to write about validating climate skepticism is to reinforce pre-existing beliefs,” Siegel wrote.

Then, to bolster his assertion, Siegel provided a number of alleged proofs of skeptics’ “lies,” some of them laughable. For instance, in response to a claim made about there being fewer hurricanes (despite alarmists’ many predictions that there would be more hurricanes and more-intense storms), Siegel pointed to a study that admitted there were fewer hurricanes, and he acknowledged that fewer large hurricanes have made landfall in the United States in recent years, but he insisted alarmists were right because of a single study that reported “wind speeds in tropical cyclones” increased from 1984 to 2012. By how much, you may ask? Three mph, a paltry figure that’s within the margin of error for such measurements, thus proving absolutely nothing.

Siegel also claimed, “The effects of ocean acidification, rising sea levels and the severe economic consequences, among many others, show that the negative consequences of global warming for humanity will far outweigh the positives,” but then provided absolutely no proof that would undermine the findings of the article in The Lancet, to which he was attempting to respond, that shows cold weather is much more dangerous.

The scientific debate over the causes and possible problems related to climate change is far from over, but the debate over the argument made repeatedly by climate alarmists that the evidence is overwhelming is now settled, and alarmists such as Gore and Siegel have lost.

The only reason we continue to hear these outlandish, unscientific assertions is because radical environmentalists depend on them to continue their push for extreme economic, political, and social changes — many of which were also made in the 1970s, when numerous alarmists predicted a new ice age was just around the corner.

Justin Haskins is executive editor and a research fellow. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute.

Source: Commentary: The climate-change alarmism debate is over — and Al Gore and his disciples have lost – TheBlaze

Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’

Climate alarmists have finally admitted that they’ve got it wrong on global warming.

This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

The paper – titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C –  concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years’ worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.

This, the scientists admit, is next to impossible. Which means their “carbon budget” – the amount of CO2 they say is needed to increase global warming by a certain degree – is wrong. This in turn means that the computer models they’ve been using to scare the world with tales of man-made climate doom are wrong too.

One researcher – from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as “breathtaking” in its implications.

He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.

But you certainly wouldn’t guess this from the way the scientists are trying to spin their report.

According to the London Times:

 Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one ofthe study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong.

He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said.

“It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”

and

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author of the paper, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

He said that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government research institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

He said that too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

Note the disingenuousness here.

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.

That’s why Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says, this is a “landmark” moment in the history of great climate change scare.

“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”

But this is not, unfortunately, a cause for wild celebrations in the street. ManBearPig has been scotched but by no means been slain. Nor are the alarmists yet ready to admit the full scale of their errors.

This is little more than a damage limitation exercise by scamsters who know they’ve been caught cheating and have now been forced to concede at least some territory to their opponents for fear of looking ridiculous.

Paul Homewood has their number:

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Yup. But at least we climate skeptics have been proved right yet again, that’s the main thing.

Oh, and by the way, snooty alarmist scumbags: that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”

The Myth That Climate Change Created Harvey, Irma

Residents in Rockport, Texas, survey the property damage wrought by Hurricane Harvey. (Photo: Glenn Fawcett/UPI /Newscom)

Flooding in homes and businesses across Houston was still on the rise when Politico ran a provocative article, titled “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like.”

Politico was not alone, as another news outlet called the one-two punch of Harvey and Irma the potential “new normal.” Brad Johnson, executive director of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, says Harvey and Irma are reason to finally jail officials who “reject science.”

Rather than focus on the victims and offer solutions for speedy recovery, pundits and politicians in the wake of Harvey focused on saying, “I told you so.”

 

Except they’re not telling the full story.

Consider this data from a 2012 article in the Journal of Climate, authored by climatologists Roger Pielke Jr. and Jessica Weinkle. Pielke tweeted a graph from the paper that shows no trends in global tropical cyclone landfalls over the past 46 years.

Statistician and Danish author Bjorn Lomborg also tweeted a graph showing major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. trending downward for well over a century.

Before anyone starts claiming that Pielke and Lomborg’s charts rely on denier data, mainstream science published similar findings.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent scientific assessment that “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes … have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.”

Further, “confidence in large-scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones [such as ‘Superstorm’ Sandy] since 1900 is low.”

Other media outlets tying Harvey to climate change took a more measured approach.

For instance, Vox wrote that man-made global warming did not actually cause Harvey, but simply exacerbated the natural disaster by creating heavier rainfalls.

But this claim is discredited by University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass, who after examining precipitation levels in the Gulf found that “[t]here is no evidence that global warming is influencing Texas coastal precipitation in the long term and little evidence that warmer than normal temperatures had any real impact on the precipitation intensity from this storm.”

Mass went on to explicitly refute those who attribute Hurricane Harvey to climate change:

The bottom line in this analysis is that both observations of the past decades and models looking forward to the future do not suggest that one can explain the heavy rains of Harvey by global warming, and folks that are suggesting it are poorly informing the public and decision makers.

Politicians seeking to exploit Harvey and Irma as reasons to act on climate change would only make a bad situation worse. Climate policies and regulations designed to prevent natural disasters and slow the earth’s warming simply will not do so.

Such policies aim to limit access to affordable, reliable conventional energy sources that power 80 percent of the country. Restricting their use through regulations or taxes will drive energy prices through the roof and make unemployment lines longer.

Further, these policies will destroy economic wealth, meaning fewer resources would be available to strengthen infrastructure to contain the future effects of natural disasters and to afterward.

Instead of blaming man-made greenhouse gas emissions, climate catastrophists should see natural disasters for what they really are: natural.

If policymakers want to take a page out of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a crisis go to waste” playbook, they should worry less about costly nonsolutions to climate change and focus on natural disaster response, resilience, and preparedness.

The Corruption of Atmospheric Science ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com

By Adrian Vance 

Norwegian scientists are taking carbon dioxide from air with giant pumps and are preparing to release chemicals from a balloon to dim sunlight to cool the planet according to recent press accounts in Europe.  The insanity of this enterprise is a stunning measure of the greatest science fraud of all time, “Man Caused Global Warming by Carbon Dioxide and Methane.”

Backers claim risky and expensive projects are urgently needed to find ways of meeting the goals of the Paris climate deal to curb global warming that researchers blame for causing more heatwaves, downpours and rising sea levels.

For the record:  While the temperatures did rise from 1880 AD to 2000 AD 0.8 degrees Centigrade they have fallen more since and we note the annual rise of 0.0067 degrees C per year has never been measureable and well within the “circle of confusion” or statistical insignificance.

 

The United Nations claims the targets are wrong and will not be met simply by reducing emissions, but they offer no science, data, equations, etc. to support this claim.  There is sufficient data in one publication for them to define targets if they are competent; the January 1978 issue of Scientific American, “The Carbon Question” by George Woodwell, but they are too lazy or incompetent to do the work.  They only ask for more money from the United States!

They push for ways to reduce temperatures with an apparatus built by a Zurich, Switzerland company Climeworks to suck “greenhouse gases” from thin air with giant fans and filters in a $23 million, US funded, project it calls “the world’s first commercial carbon dioxide capture plant.”

“Direct Air Capture” research by companies like Climeworks has gotten tens of millions of dollars in recent years from the US government, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the European Space Agency.

They plan to bury the gas underground apparently not aware of the fact it will diffuse and return to the atmosphere in a few years, but they claim it will stay underground forever, violating the diffusion laws of physics.  They claim, “If buried underground, vast amounts of greenhouse gases extracted from the air would help reduce global temperatures,” claiming this to be “…a radical step beyond cuts in emissions that are the main focus of the Paris Agreement.”

The irony is that this concept is obviously wrong several ways.  CO2 does not heat the atmosphere as we demonstrate in our experimental demo in “CO2 Is Innocent” at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com  You can clip-copy, print and have it authenticated by any physical science teacher or chemist.

 

Climeworks claims it costs $600 to extract a “tonne” of carbon dioxide from air and the plant’s full capacity is 900 tonnes a year. That’s equivalent to the annual emissions of only 45 Americans.  So much for saving the world with the Climeworks System as it would take 353,333 of these units to correct the sins of America and at $20 million a plane it would take $7 trillion, but America is rich!

Jan Wurzbacher, director and founder of Climeworks,  who has been taking lessons from Elon Musk, says the company has planet-altering ambitions by cutting costs to about $100 a tonne and capturing one percent of global man-made carbon emissions a year by 2025, but he has not made an estimate of how many trillion this would cost for a completely ridiculous technology that is shown to be unnecessary by our simple demo-experiment at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com

Since the Paris Agreement, the CO2 business substantially changed from industrial and agricultural applications to “climate change.” Penalties for factories, power plants and cars to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are low or non-existent. They are only $5.82 a tonne, 1,000 kg or 2,200 lbs, in the European Union. That will change in the hands of the ever eager to tax socialist governments.

Isolating CO2 is expensive because the gas is only 0.04 percent of the air. Pure carbon dioxide delivered by trucks, for use in greenhouses or to make fizzy drinks now costs about $300 a tonne in Switzerland.  It will drop dramatically, but the “global warmers” see all the interest in capturing “evil CO2” as a cash cow and full employment program for many Ph.D.s.

To drive the scam the Paris Agreement seeks to limit a rise in world temperatures this century to less than two Celsius degrees (3.6 Fahrenheit), ideally 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial times with perhaps the outlawing of the internal combustion engine which Al Gore said “…is a greater threat to humanity than nuclear weapons!”  Al took one physical science, dumbell survey course at Harvard and got a “D” in it ironically from Dr. Roger Revell, the man who invented anthropogenic global warming!

 

U.N. data claims current plans for cuts in emissions will be insufficient, without the United States, and that the world will have to switch to net “negative emissions” this century by extracting carbon from air with Climeworks Pumps and Refrigerators.

Riskier “geo-engineering” solutions could be a backstop, such as dimming the world’s sunshine, dumping iron into the oceans to soak up carbon, or creating clouds as they are highly reflective of sunlight.

New university research at Harvard, which means it has to be right as they are not only rich, but smart.  A geo-engineering project into dimming sunlight to cool the planet set up in 2016 has raised $7.5 million from not-too-swift private donors. They plan a first outdoor experiment in 2018 above Arizona where a fashionable garden party will be held under aircraft that are going to spray stuff in the air.

“If you want to be confident to get to 1.5 degrees you need to have solar geo-engineering,” said David Keith, of Harvard, but everyone wondered what he was talking about as he was at a garden party luncheon where a talk on rose gardens was expected.

Keith’s team aims to release about 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) of sun dimming material, perhaps calcium carbonate, from a high-altitude balloon above Arizona next year in a tiny experiment to see how it affects the microphysics of the stratosphere.  “I don’t think it’s science fiction … to me it’s normal atmospheric science,” he said.

 

Some research has suggested geo-engineering with sun dimming  chemicals could affect global weather patterns and disrupt vital Monsoons, and make a lot of money for the perpetrators whether it works or not as the money is always up front for these guys.

At the recent Truffle Harvest celebration in Monaco many experts feared pinning hopes on any technology to fix climate change is a distraction from cuts in emissions blamed for heating the planet, but then what would all the new Ph.D. climatologists have to do?

According to Christopher Field, Ph.D. Stanford Professor of Climate Change, “Relying on big future deployments of carbon removal technologies is like eating lots of dessert today, with great hopes for liposuction tomorrow.”  Thus aerial carbon capture seems to be a controversial issue.  Raymond Pierrehumbert, a professor of physics at Oxford University, said solar geo-engineering projects seemed “barking mad.” In contrast, he said “carbon dioxide removal is challenging technologically, but deserves investment and trial.”  “More money for science?” we ask.

“We’re in trouble,” claims Janos Pasztor, head of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Project says, “The question is not whether or not there will be an overshoot but by how many degrees and for how many decades.”  It is amazing none of these people know how carbon functions in the atmosphere as we so easily demonstrate it with a less than $10 demo-experiment at http://sciencefrauds.blogspot.com See, “CO2 Is Innocent.”

Faced with hard choices, many experts say extracting carbon from the atmosphere is among the less risky options. Leaders of the major economies, except President Trump, said at a summit in Germany this month that the Paris accord was “irreversible,” but our simple demo clearly shows this is all nonsense.

 

Carbon Engineering, set up in 2009 with support from Gates and Murray Edwards, chairman of oil and gas group Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, has raised about $40 million and extracts about a tonne of carbon dioxide a day with turbines and filters.

“We’re mainly looking to synthesize fuels” for markets such as California with high carbon prices, said Geoffrey Holmes, business development manager at Carbon Engineering.

But he added “the Paris Agreement helps” with longer-term options of sucking large amounts from the air.  Among other possible geo-engineering techniques are to create clouds that reflect sunlight back into space, perhaps by using a mist of sea spray.

That might be used locally, for instance, to protect the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, said Kelly Wanser, principal director of the U.S.-based Marine Cloud Brightening Project.

Among new ideas, Wurzbacher at Climeworks is sounding out investors on what he says is the first offer to capture and bury 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air, for $500 a tonne.

That might appeal to a company wanting to be on forefront of a new green technology, he said, even though it makes no apparent economic sense. ($1 = 0.9538 Swiss francs) ($1 = 0.8593 euros)

We challenge these estimations:  The “…5 euros ($5.82) a tonne” is ridiculous on its’ face.  A “tonne” is 1,000 kilograms and the standard way to capture CO2 is to freeze it out of air and it is not possible at that price given the millions of Dollars such an apparatus would cost and the power it would consume per “tonne” freezing CO2 from air that has only 0.04% CO2!

The most outstanding criticism we can make is that the basic concept is completely and entirely wrong, fraudulent and an indictment of the entire weather science community if not the physical science community as well.  Why are so few younger Ph.D.s not speaking out? All of the serious critics are over 65, retired and independent.

We are in the LinkedIn database of physical scientists and have emailed 3,000 of our “CO2 Is Innocent” or “Proving Climate Change” papers to prove what we are saying, and not one has responded with an objection, correction or criticism, but only five have responded positively and three of those were “thumbs up” logos. The fact of the matter is that the physical science community knows and is participating in the fraud.  No nation can survive with a corrupted science.

The Left’s Values Are Our State Church

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

The First Amendment assumes that the proper sphere of government is policies, not values. And so it protects the right of political participation and prohibits a state church that would define values.

The government had the right to decide to go to war with France. It did not have a right to decide what you should believe. Politics extended into the realm of policies, not beliefs.

But as religious belief declined, politics replaced it as the repository of moral and ethical values. This transformation began on the left. The left was the least religious in the traditional sense. And the most likely to build up an ideology of secular values with which to displace traditional religious values.

The last century witnessed an extensive effort to scrub religious values out of government. But this effort was matched by an equally comprehensive project to replace them with the left’s own values. Unlike the wall between church and state, there were few legal safeguards against writing values into legislation if they were irreligious ones. The church was deemed to be the true threat. Not the state.

But the end result looks very much like an establishment of religion. Even in the church sense.

The values written into the legislation reflect those of certain churches, but not others. When nuns are forced to pay for birth control and Christian photographers with traditional beliefs are compelled to participate in gay weddings, the government is picking religious establishment “winners and losers”.

The winners are roughly on the religious left and the losers on the religious right.

Unitarians win, Baptists lose. Quakers win, Mormons lose. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) triumphs over the Presbyterian Church in America. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America prevails over the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It’s hard not to see this as an establishment of religion.

This isn’t about doctrinal battles or gay marriage. It’s about the culture war fallout from the left’s power to write its values into law and into the codes of conduct that hold sway in in private organizations.

We take the truth of our values on faith. They are a matter of subjective conviction, not objective fact. To those who believe in them, they appear to be the absolute truths of the enlightened. But they cannot be proven to be true in any meaningful way. You either believe in them. Or you don’t.

Google fired James Damore for questioning a tenet of its beliefs. That is in theory illegal. The search engine monopoly created forums in which employees were meant to discuss these very issues. Damore was not fired for expressing his views at work, but for politely expressing the “incorrect” view.

California law protects employees fired for both religious and political views. But the “hostile workplace” pretext that led to Damore’s firing is an example of how the left’s values are the basis of legislation. Much as “public accommodation” civil rights protect the demand to participate rather than the right of religious dissent, the protection of minority participation is at the heart of the left’s bid for equality. But this has never truly been a matter of law, but of values. The law mandates the elimination of obstacles. It does not demand that values winners and losers be chosen to achieve equality. That is a leftist bias.

The left defends imposing its values by force through outrage at selective “suffering” on the one hand and abstractions about the empowerment of participatory equality on the other. Ultimately though it cannot defend its values without reference to those values. That is typical of belief systems.

The left’s secular religion functions as a theocracy. It promises salvation through Socialism, warns that human sin will destroy the world through global warming and is engaged in a perpetual struggle against those who do not share its values. It wages war on religious freedom because it is a kind of religion.

There can be no political freedom where there is no religious freedom. Religion is more encompassing than politics can ever be. Politics addresses which policy best accomplishes a particular goal. Religion tackles the question of what the goal should be. If you don’t have the freedom to determine your own goals, then your ability to choose policies is as meaningless as some European elections.

Leftist systems seek to create “democratic” arenas in which we are free to disagree on policies, but not goals. They do this by writing values into the system so that only one sort of goal is deemed acceptable.

Deviations from the goal are not acceptable. Questioning the goal is heresy. And leads to sanctions.

Trump Derangement Syndrome, Google’s firing of James Damore and the violent attacks on conservative speakers are all examples of what happens when the goals are blasphemously challenged.

Politics is far more likely to turn violent over values rather than policy. That is why the Founders wanted politics to be confined to policy rather than values. We can rationally debate policy, but we can’t debate values. We can argue over what we feel to be true, but the revelations of our deepest selves cannot be proven. And when they are challenged, anger, hostility and even violence quickly follow.

The First Amendment helped build a system where our representatives debated what we should do, rather than what we should think. Politicians were meant to get things done, not argue dogma. The culture war we are in is less about what we should do than what we should think. The violent confrontations and clashes are not really about campus safe spaces or Confederate memorials, but how we should see ourselves. The confrontations are meant to be both polarizing and clarifying.

They’re a religious war. The left has established its religion. And violence against heretics swiftly follows.

America is in the midst of an ugly conflict because our political system was hijacked by the Church of the Left. The legislative and judicial hijacking of our system has turned our politics into a culture war. To end the conflict we must return to a true understanding of the First Amendment. It is not the role of government to tell us what to think or what to believe. And any government that embarks on such a totalitarian enterprise will tear apart our society and destroy our way of life.

As the left is doing.

Is Rising Sea Level Threatening Norfolk Naval Base and the Chesapeake Bay Area? – Calvin Beisner

Calvin Beisner
|
Posted: Aug 26, 2017 12:01 AM
 
 
Is Rising Sea Level Threatening Norfolk Naval Base and the Chesapeake Bay Area?
One way for environmentalists, who tend to be on the political Left, to curry favor with conservatives is to try to tie their concerns to national defense, or “military readiness.” That’s certainly become a major theme of warnings about global warming-driven sea-level rise of late.

Tying global warming, sea-level rise, and national defense together stretches back a number of years, but it seems to have become more common recently. Here are just a few examples.

On September 3 of last year, the New York Times published perennial climate alarmist Justin Gillis’s “Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already Begun,” in which Gillis wrote:

As the problem worsens, experts are warning that national security is on the line. Naval bases, in particular, are threatened; they can hardly be moved away from the ocean, yet much of their land is at risk of disappearing within this century.

“It’s as if the country was being attacked along every border, simultaneously,” said Andrea Dutton, a climate scientist at the University of Florida and one of the world’s leading experts on rising seas. “It’s a slow, gradual attack, but it threatens the safety and security of the United States.”

 

On February 7, National Geographic ran a story titled “Who’s Still Fighting Climate Change? The U.S. Military.” It claimed:

Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the naval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood 280 times a year, according to one estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

On March 31 National Public Radio ran a program titled “Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases.” It began this way:

 

[HOST DAVID GREENE:] And we’re going to look now at one line – one line – in President Trump’s executive order on the environment. It’s a line that did not get much attention. In it, President Trump revoked President Obama’s directive that federal departments including the Pentagon should treat climate change as a national security threat. For the Navy, one of those threats is the sea itself. Reporter Jay Price of member station WUNC visited a spot in Norfolk, Va., where sea level rise is measured.

JAY PRICE, BYLINE: We’re on a pier at the world’s largest Navy base. Navy destroyers behind us, and in front, a white cabinet not much bigger than a refrigerator.

DEAN VANDERLEY: It’s called the Sewell’s Point tidal gauge.

PRICE: Captain Dean VanderLey heads engineering for Navy infrastructure along much of the East Coast.

VANDELEY: Not really much to look at, but it’s operated by NOAA.

PRICE: That’s the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

VANDELEY: And they’ve had a tidal gauge out here since 1927. So, you know, I think when it comes to monitoring the sea level on the East Coast, this is, you know, one of the places that they’ve got the most data.

 

PRICE: And that data shows that the water has risen almost 15 inches here in Hampton Roads in under a hundred years. That’s the most on the East Coast. Flooding already is so routine that giant rulers have been erected along city roads outside the base to show where the water is too deep for a car to drive through. And in little more than two decades, the main road into the base could be flooding almost daily at high tide.

On June 14, Forbes.com published “Actual Scientists Say Sea Level Rise is a Threat to Tangier Island, Virginia,” including this dark paragraph:

Cities throughout coastal Virginia have started to plan for regional challenges associated with flooding and storm surge. Mohammad Shar told a Daily Press reporter, “We are brainstorming to see what’s going on as far as sea level rise and trying to manage it as a region.” A recent NOAA report discussed the increase in “sunny-day” or “nuisance flooding” associated with high tides. Virginia Beach and Norfolk are homes to significant U.S. Navy assets and they have long been concerned about sea-level changes because many of their installations and infrastructure are at or below sea level. The Navy Times reported in 2016 that new reports suggested that three feet of sea level rise could threaten 128 military based (valued at $100 billion). While the President dismissed the threat of sea level rise, my ”bottom line feeling” is that the military does not plan for hoaxes because there is too much at stake.

 

The Washington Post on July 14 published “National Study puts timeline on impact of sea-level rise in Maryland, Virginia,” which also specifically mentioned Norfolk.

All of that sounds pretty alarming (and it’s supposed to). But people with more than a passing interest in the study of sea-level rise will, if they’re paying attention, recognize immediately that all of it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. Tide gauges don’t measure “sea level.” They measure the level of the sea relative to a particular piece of coastline. One way to distinguish the two is by referring to the former as “global sea level” and the latter as “local sea level.” But remember, in the latter case what’s really being measured is the local sea level relative to the local coastline.

Norfolk lies on the Virginia coast at the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay. Tide gauges along the bay have certainly shown a change in sea level relative to the surrounding land. But is that happening because sea level itself is rising?

The answer might seem obvious: “Well of course it’s because sea level is rising! The land’s stable, after all.”

But what seems obvious is also wrong. The land along the Chesapeake Bay, including at Norfolk, is anything but stable.

As Dr. Roger Bezdek, an economist with over 30 years’ experience in the energy, utility, environmental, and regulatory areas, points out in “Water Intrusion in the Chesapeake Bay Region: Is It Caused by Climate-Induced Sea Level Rise?“ in the Open Access journal Scientific Research:

Land subsidence has been known and observed in the southern Chesapeake Bay region for many decades and is a factor that must be considered by urban planners and natural resource managers. Land subsidence in the Chesapeake Bay region was first documented over four decades ago by Holdahl and Morrison who reported results of geodetic surveys completed between 1940 and 1971 and found land surfaces across the region were sinking at an average rate of 2.8 mm/yr. with rates ranging from 1.1 to 4.8 mm/yr. … The National Geodetic Survey has computed velocities for three of these stations between 2006 and 2011 and found an average subsidence rate of 3.1 mm/yr.

In other words, the changing relative heights of the land and the sea in the Chesapeake Bay area are driven by something on the order of 3 to 5 mm/year of land subsidence. And what causes the land subsidence? Glacial isostatic adjustment (the slow and very-long-term response of the earth’s crust to loading and unloading due to erosion, deposition, saturation, drying, glaciation, and deglaciation), at about 1 mm/year, and most of the rest, 2 to 4 mm/year, from groundwater extraction.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates the rate of global sea-level rise as something in around 3 mm/year. That implies that the 3 to 5 mm/year of land subsidence in the Chesapeake Bay area is equal to, or up to 2/3 faster than, global sea level rise.

But the IPCC’s estimate of global sea level rise is itself likely too high. As I noted elsewhere, one of the world’s foremost experts on sea level, Nils-Axel Mörner recently presented extensive empirical data from tide gauges around the world that show a long-term rate of global sea-level rise of ”between ±0.0 and +1.0 mm/yr.” That, coupled with the National Geodetic Survey’s estimate of the area’s land-subsidence rate between 2006 and 2011 of 3.1 mm/year, would imply that of the roughly 3.8 mm/year of local sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay area (calculated from the 15 inches reported as having occurred over roughly the last 100 years), at least 4/5, and perhaps all of it, can be attributed to land subsidence rather than global sea-level rise.

In short, at least at Norfolk, it’s not global sea-level rise that threatens trouble to a naval installation. It’s local land subsidence. And that means that fighting global warming will have no impact on the problem.

Don’t get me wrong. This doesn’t mean relative sea-level rise can’t be a problem for any naval installations. It can be. But the solution isn’t likely to be fighting global warming. It’s more likely a combination of raising the buildings and piers and finding ways to slow groundwater extraction to reduce its contribution to land subsidence, both of which are much simpler and cheaper than trying to control the average temperature of the whole globe by depriving billions of people of the abundant, affordable, reliable fossil-fuel energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty.