Filed under: Politics, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Regulation | Tags: Arctic Sea Ice, Polar Bear Habitat, Highest Extent Since 2005
The Hill reports that the Fish and Wildlife Service has released a draft proposal for a plan to conserve the polar bear, which (they say erroneously) was declared endangered in 2008. Well, no, they declared the polar bear “threatened” in 2008. There is a difference. And, according to the most noted authority on polar bears, the bears are just fine.
According to Dr. Susan Crockford, last year:
Survival of polar bears over a hundred thousand years (at least ) of highly variable sea ice coverage indicates that those biologists who portend a doomed future for the polar bear have grossly underestimated its ability to survive vastly different conditions than those that existed in the late 1970s when Ian Stirling began his polar bear research.
The agency was undoubtedly told to emphasize the horrors of carbon dioxide, with the big climate meeting coming up, and Obama’s push to get all nations to line up in his attempt to eliminate the dangers of CO². The article in The Hill is, naturally, accompanied by a picture of a baby polar bear. “It’s for the children” or in this case — the polar bear cubs.
The top threat to the survival of polar bears is the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, the federal government’s wildlife agency said.
That’s the main finding released Thursday in a draft proposal of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) first ever plan for conserving the polar bear, which was declared endangered in 2008.
“Polar bear conservation requires a global commitment to curb the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” Geoffrey Haskett, the Alaska regional director for the FWS, said in a statement about the draft plan. …
The agency identified several threats to the polar bear, but said that the loss of sea ice — caused by climate change — is the top threat. It predicts that three out of the four major “ecoregions” of polar bears will be decreased or greatly decreased by 2050, based on two separate greenhouse gas growth scenarios.
We cannot predict the future. Computer programs cannot predict the future either. Carbon dioxide is what we exhale every time we breathe. It is what polar bears exhale as well. Carbon dioxide is a natural plant fertilizer and essential to life on earth. There has been no warming whatsoever for 18 years. The extent of Arctic sea ice is at the highest level in a decade, since 2005, Melt is currently the slowest since at least 2004. Polar bears thrive in Hudson Bay, which is ice free three months a year.
A new paper from Dr, Susan Crockford explains that a fundamental problem with polar bear conservation is the fallacy that under natural conditions sea ice is a stable predictable habitat for polar bears and their prey. The essay in Watts Up With That? has a forward by Dr. Matthew Cronin discussing the problem of Lysenkoism in science, and if you scroll down, Dr. Crockford’s Summary, “The Arctic Fallacy: Sea Ice Stability and the Polar Bear,” and links to the paper and blog posts. Read the whole thing, and never fall for cute pictures of baby polar bears again. Don’t you get tired of being manipulated?
Filed under: Politics, Economy, Global Warming, Military, National Security, Junk Science | Tags: Measuring Arctic Ice, Military Tasks, Misguided Priorities
You may remember the president’s commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy. He told the graduates “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.” A lot of people giggled at that one.
The Defense Department, obedient to their commander in chief, calls global warming a true national security threat and has begun instituting a host of environmental measures which range from building clean energy projects at military installations to the use of expensive green fuels in military planes. Military officers who question the president’s strategies seem to face early retirement.
A recent report from the Government Accountability Office, according to the Washington Times, notes another example— the commitment of U.S. Military forces to monitor sea ice levels in the Arctic. The administration argues that decreasing ice could force the Pentagon to “institute a military and homeland security presence in the region.”
Critics charge the president is directing the military from its real mission of protecting America, but that is not high on the president’s list. Last Monday, the White House tried once again to justify its climate change agenda with a new report claiming tens of thousands of lives will be saved through restrictions on carbon.
Difficulty in developing accurate sea ice models, variability in the Arctic’s climate, and the uncertain rate of activity in the region create challenges for DOD to balance the risk of having inadequate capabilities or insufficient capacity when required to operate in the region with the cost of making premature or unnecessary investments. DOD plans to mitigate this risk by monitoring the changing Arctic conditions to determine the appropriate timing for capability investments.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are taking aim at the EPA’s budget and restricting the president’s ill-advised global warming agenda through funding cuts. The Supreme Court decision coming Monday will have a bearing on all this.
On would think with the rise in ISIS terrorist attacks across the world, measuring the ice in the Arctic, since surveys show it to be unusually extensive, could be put off for another day. There has been no warming at all for over 18 years, and things are getting colder — not warmer.
Filed under: Global Warming, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Democrat lies, Gina McCarthy, Obama, The EPA
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience gathered at a White House conference that “normal people.” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming. This is not the first time she has said that distinguished scientists were “not normal people.” And of course “deniers” is the usual crude leftist language.
McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a report on the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.
Ms. McCarthy is an administrator, not a scientist, and it shows. The agency hasn’t yet been able to come up with the science on which their regulations are based. When questioned at hearings, she doesn’t have simple answers to simple questions. One of my personal irritations is the frequency with which they attempt to sell their power grabs by claiming the number of lives (usually children;s) they will save in the future because of their actions. That’s disgraceful, and pure hogwash.
More hogwash: The EPA has released a report claiming “global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will bring fewer extreme droughts, floods, storms and wildfires. The report claims cutting emissions would result in billions of dollars in benefits for the U.S. and save thousands of lives every year. Floods, storms and wildfires are not caused by climate, future benefits can’t really be predicted unless the computer climate suddenly developed astonishing new powers. Ms. McCarthy, like far too many federal bureaucrats is on a power trip to grab new responsibilities, more funding and a bigger agency. Here she goes again:
Regardless, the EPA says a global effort to cut emissions would result in about 70,000 fewer people dying from extreme heat and poor air quality in the U.S., less damage from flooding and storm surges on coastal properties and other weather events by 2100.
More interestingly, the EPA said global emissions cuts would mean an “estimated 40%-59% fewer severe and extreme droughts” in the U.S. by the year 2100. The report adds that in “the Southwest, the number of severe and extreme droughts is projected to nearly quadruple by the end of the century” if nothing is done. But with emissions reductions, “the incidence of drought is not projected to change substantially from present day.”
She added “We can save tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the United States…” Hubris and hyperbole, and as I said — hogwash.
Speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco on Friday, President Obama warned “Well within our children’s lifetimes, on our current pace, the oceans go up maybe two, maybe three, maybe four feet.”
Filed under: Global Warming, Energy, Junk Science, Regulation | Tags: Big Rig Trucks, Emissions, EPA, Gina McCarthy
The EPA is rolling out new emissions regulations for big rig trucks to help the United States to meet its goal of reducing CO² to fight global warming. The EPA, with its usual hubris, claims limiting carbon dioxide emissions from heavy trucks will reduce CO² by more than one billion metric tons by 2050. Reducing carbon will create up to $34 billion in “climate benefits” along with up to $40 billion from reducing traditional pollutants. Regulating heavy trucks is part of Obama’s goal of reducing CO² emissions by 80 percent. (Typical EPA — what are “climate benefits?” And the $34 billion is probably made up. At least she left out the Asthma excuse)
Another case of overblown claims and bad math. The EPA’s own analysis found that by 2100 “the global mean temperature is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.0026° to 0.0065°. Unfortunately, we have found that projecting what the weather will be by next weekend is only occasionally correct, and projecting it out 85 years is pure fantasy. Prognosticators have tried to project our knowledge about climate, the stock market, inflation, housing costs, and the state of the world into the future, but that is territory for charlatans and carnival brokers. We simply don’t know what tomorrow will bring, and the world is full of surprises.
“We’re delivering big time on President Obama’s call to cut carbon pollution,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “With emission reductions weighing in at 1 billion tons, this proposal will save consumers, businesses and truck owners money; and at the same time spur technology innovation and job-growth, while protecting Americans’ health and our environment over the long haul.”
The rule is coupled with increased fuel economy standards from the Transportation Department which are expected to save vehicle owners $170 billion, along billions more in savings for families and businesses from cheaper transportation in the coming decades.
The Obama administration’s plan calls for an 80 percent reduction in CO² output by 2100. Would an 80 percent reduction have a big impact? Well. no, not much. The EPA’s own analysis found that by 2100 “the global mean temperature is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.0026º C. If the climate keeps cooling, all bets are off.
(I had duplicated the same paragraph here— brain freeze, now fixed)
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, Energy | Tags: Ideology, Renewable Energy, Oil Spills, Bird Deaths
Whenever there is an oil spill on the water, American media are filled with photos and videos of oil soaked birds. The coverage prompts the self-appointed environmental defenders of wildlife to erupt in righteous fury, wringing their hands and blaming the greedy oil companies and blaming careless people of the West for demanding more and more energy so they can fuel their enormous RVs and yachts in crimes against nature.
Fossil fuels are evil, and the alternative is “clean” renewable energy sources like wind and solar energy. Wind and solar energy are natural and sustainable. And solar energy produces less than 1% of our electricity needs, requires 24 hour 7days a week backup from a conventional power plant. If the subsidies vanished, so would solar energy. But the birds, those beautiful birds, dying from filthy fossil fuels!
In the most recent U.S. oil spill off the coast of California, 161 birds died, as of the latest count. Truly sad.
Estimates for bird deaths by wind turbine run from 100,000 a year (The National Research Council), to 300,000 (American Bird Conservancy). Bloomberg News put the toll at 573,000 birds in 2012. That’s for wind turbines. The estimate for birds roasted by the Ivanpah solar-thermal plant in the Mojave Desert are — one every two minutes — or roughly 28,000 birds killed in a year. Ivanpah focuses the heat from 170,000 mirrors on three 450-foot tall towers generating heat up to 800°. The songbird numbers are hard to estimate for they simply go up in a puff of smoke. The government chooses to look the other way, and ignore laws about raptor deaths because global warming. They gave their lives in a noble cause — renewable energy.
To be fair, the 2010 BP oil spill did substantial damage to wildlife in the region. The Fish and Wildlife Service reported 2,202 “visibly oiled” dead birds were collected within the Deepwater Horizon/ BP incident impact area. Big oil spills, however, are fairly rare, and birds chopped by turbines or roasted by solar mirrors are continuous.
The article in Investors claimed the biggest cause of bird deaths was cats. They said “one study claims that cats are responsible for killing about 2.4 billion birds a year.” I’m suspicious of that statistic. I’ve always had cats (and dogs, bunnies and horses) and I can’t remember but one time I found a bird carcase around the house. One cat was death on garden snakes, and had a bad habit of bringing them into the house and turning them loose. She loosed one on the stairs and I nearly broke a leg when I almost stepped on it.
Filed under: Global Warming | Tags: Climate Change, Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies
Renowned Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Studies is interviewed by Stuart McNish for “Conversations that Matter.”
Filed under: Politics, Domestic Policy, Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Energy, Democrat Corruption, Capitalism, Junk Science, The United States | Tags: The Religion of Global Warming, Unbelievers Will Pay, Withholding Funds
Starting next year in March, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors have approved mitigation plans to address climate change. This does not affect funds for disaster relief after a hurricane, flood or tornado, but those funds directed to preparedness for a disaster.
Unfortunately, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and earthquakes are not caused by Global Warming. Obama’s FEMA Director Craig Fugate explained back in 2012 that hurricanes are cyclical, not linked to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“Well, I’m not a meteorologist. I’m not a climate scientist, and hurricanes are cyclic,” Fugate responded. “I do know history, and if you look at history and you look at hurricane activity, there are periods of increased and decreased activity that occurs over decades,” Fugate said. “Throughout the ‘60s, ‘70s, early ‘80s, up until about ’95, the Atlantic was actually in a period of below-average activity, even though you had significant storms like Andrew, Frederic, and David.”…
“But the reality is the history says we’ve had this period of activity, we’ve had a period of quiet,” Fugate said. “We’ve had a period of activity; we’ve had a period of quiet. And so what we’ve seen is not what we — we’ve seen this in history before.”
The whole FEMA issue of withholding funds based on accepting the administrations mantra about climate change is pure politics, not science.
The promoters of climate change are attempting to silence skeptics before the UN Paris climate summit and the next Presidential election and the implications for EPA climate regulations. They are trying to intimidate any scientists who have dared to testify before Congress. What are they threatening? They will call them “Deniers” a dire threat, for who cannot see that the climate is changing all the time, and they will claim that they are supported by oil companies. They are all quite sure that corporations are bad, and certainly the corporations that produce dread fossil fuels are the very worst of all.
It’s amazing how they can all cheerfully line up at the gas pumps, grateful for the drop in the price of gasoline, apparently completely oblivious to how that came about. They are sure that the world could run on clean solar energy and wind power, without understanding that each of those tiny sources of energy only exist because they are backed up full time with conventional power plants. But then they jet off to conferences without the slightest concern for their carbon footprints (whatever those are) or even a thought for how modern travel came about and how those airplanes were produced.
It is not hypocrisy that sends them off to attack climate scientists, but willful ignorance. They believe, and you must not challenge their religion.