American Elephants



Brave Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry Testifies. by The Elephant's Child

Dr. Judith Curry has had the temerity to question the reigning authorities in climate science. Here she is testifying before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee. This is one very brave and honest lady. Here’s an article from Reason that explains why she resigned her position as Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology.

The following videos that pop up when you finish this one vary, so I can’t point you to any specific one, but if you have time keep watching. There are some doozys there. Ted Cruz and the head of the Sierra Club, Mark Steyn and Senator Markey, and more.



Sunday Humor by The Elephant's Child



Heading in the Right Direction, Step by Step by The Elephant's Child

—The Senate has confirmed Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the Interior. It’s his first day on the job and he already signed two orders. One overturns the ban on using lead bullets for hunting, and bans fishermen from using lead sinkers on their lines. One of Obama’s little tricks on his very last day in office, via the Fish and Wildlife Administration.

— In a new paper (Stein et al.,2017), scientists find that Arctic sea ice retreat and advance is modulated by variations in solar activity. The sea ice extent is only slightly less than during the coldest centuries of the Little Ice Age (1600s to 1800s).

20 new papers affirm that Modern Climate is in phase with Natural Variability. The Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute used only observational evidence. They found that Arctic sea ice concentration anomalies were as low or lower in the early 1950s than they have been during recent decades.

—Dr. Susan Crockford, Canadian wildlife expert, has released the latest finding on polar bears. Since  2005, the estimated polar bear population has risen from about 22,500 to about 30,000. The bears are doing just fine, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation is calling on the U.S. Administration to re-assess the ‘endangered species’ status of polar bears.

—Since President’s Trump’s travel order was lifted, more than 1,800 refugees from the 7 countries the Obama Administration listed as sources of terrorism  have entered the U.S.

— Those who advocate accepting far greater numbers of refugees claim that no terrorists have attacked the U.S. from those countries. To the contrary, a Study from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) confirms that 72 terrorists have been convicted in terror cases, in a sharp contrast with assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who blocked the President’s executive order. The law clearly states that the president may order exactly what he did.

— When President Trump told the Department of Homeland Security Staff on January 24 after he signed two executive orders on immigration enforcement that “This is a law-enforcement agency.” The assembled ICE agents, Border Patrol officers and others burst into applause. That tells you a great deal about how badly Obama gutted immigration enforcement and how devastating that was to employee morale.

— The European Union has told their member states to detain more migrants before deportation. A year ago most European countries were patting themselves on the back for being so open, welcoming and compassionate about the million and a half refugees they allowed into their countries, with no vetting. Terrorist attacks, big ones, have been worldwide news. The riots, attacks on women, rapes have become common and are mostly swept under the rug. Well over a million refugees and migrants are placing a severe drain on state finances and the people are beginning to realize that all is not what they expected. Germany is in the process of deporting tens of thousands of migrants who arrived in 2015. The German taxpayer has had the expense of feeding, clothing, housing and educating the 800,000 migrants welcomed with open arms by Chancellor Merkel. Can they send them back home? Or is it too late.



The Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Is Over — Their Disgusting Mess Left For Others to Clean Up. by The Elephant's Child

021517-debris-1-1170x775

It takes a fair amount of garbage to fill 240 rollout dumpsters, and the protesters at the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota left a mess. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will spend more than $1 million to clean up the debris left by protesters who succeeded in temporarily shutting down the construction of the pipeline under orders from President Barack Obama. We apparently cannot bill President Obama, and the taxpayers will once again have to pay for the cleanup. They left behind not only their old food supplies, but tents, teepees, building materials, personal belongings, human waste and even trucks and motor homes. They also left behind their pets—dogs and puppies—but animal rescue agencies have stepped in for those.

It was all so pointless. The light, sweet crude oil is being transported from the Bakken/Three Forks production area in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois. The state of the art 30 inch underground 1,172-mile pipeline will eliminate 500-740 rail cars and/or over 250 trucks needed to transport the oil every day.  99.98% of the pipeline is installed on privately owned property in North Dakota,South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. The remaining 0.02% is owned by the federal government. None is owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. It runs 5′ under the Missouri River next to an existing pipeline. The pipeline  has created 12,000 construction jobs during building.

The Standing Rock Sioux wanted publicity and to call attention to their gripe about historical loss of their lands, and environmentalists who regard oil as particularly evil, and publicity-seeking film people flocked to the site to get media attention. Once winter set in, they pretty much lost interest, and there you are—another million dollar bill for the taxpayers— from people too lazy to clean up after themselves.



I Could Almost Feel Sorry For Them. Almost, But I Don’t. by The Elephant's Child

article-2548628-1b12dcf800000578-568_964x632The whole world must seem like it is falling into chaos for the Progressives. They lost the election they were so confident they would win. They keep claiming that Hillary won the popular vote, but that’s not how we count elections in America. The abhorrent Donald Trump, now President of the United States, is hiring a superb cabinet and getting them approved. He has ordered a go-ahead on the Keystone XL Pipeline and noxious oil will be flowing south to refineries in the Gulf, and not only that, he has okayed the Dakota Access pipeline. Since it is not on tribal lands, except in memory of ancient times, does not risk oil despoiling the Missouri River or the tribal water supply, the protesters will have to find another venue.

But just wait till the progressives find out the details of their massive global warming fraud. Obama wanted to look good for the Paris climate talks, and the fraud is exposed. Cheaters never prosper. I Could Almost Feel Sorry For Them.

Dr. John Bates, a former high level NOAA scientist, set off a furor by revealing that a recent NOAA paper, which claimed global warming hadn’t “paused” during the past 20 years, was fraudulent. The paper was timed to undergird Obama’s signing of the hugely expensive Paris climate agreement.

This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.

Fortunately, high-tech research has finally sorted out the “mystery factor” in our recent climate changes—and it’s mostly not CO2.  Even redoubling carbon dioxide, by itself, would raise earth’s temperature only 1.1 degree.  That’s significant, but not dangerous.

CERN, the world’s top particle physics laboratory, just found that our big, abrupt climate changes are produced by variations in the sun’s activity.  That’s the same sun the modelers had dismissed as “unchanging.”  CERN says the sun’s variations interact with cosmic rays to create more or fewer of earth’s heat-shielding clouds.  The IPCC had long admitted it couldn’t model clouds–and now the CERN experiment says the clouds are the earth’s thermostats!

Do read the whole thing, a good explanation of how the climate modellers went astray, and it will give you enough information to take on any Progressive who is sure the construction of the pipelines are the destruction of the earthly climate as we know it. And they finally got the noxious mess the protesters left behind to despoil the planet cleaned up.

I’m enjoying it all thoroughly.



How To Win Back Rural Voters, Or Not. by The Elephant's Child

taral_wind_snow560_497x350

The Left are having a hard time understanding how they lost the election and why it happened. President Obama cannot understand why rural Americans did not turn out for him and his successor since he did so much for them, plowing so much money into rural communities, for green energy. Democrats firmly “believe that they can win back rural voters by ratcheting up their pre-election mission of moving the country from fossil fuels to green energy.”

They are using calls to drastically reduce carbon emission to convince middle-class voters, many of whom voted for Trump, that green energy can provide thousands of jobs to replace those once held by coal workers. Democrat plans to phase out fossil fuels come despite the president-elect’s campaign to restore lost coal jobs.

“This is fundamentally a jobs message,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee told reporters last week in reference to Democrats renewed focus on green energy. “We represent a horizon of job creation that is as great or greater than any other industrial sector.”

Our embarrassingly ineffective governor wants to pass a carbon tax to raise an estimated $2 billion in revenue to pay for education and clean energy projects. Uh huh.

They keep saying that green energy projects create lots of jobs. This is nonsense. Wind farms and solar arrays are made elsewhere, installed by the people who build them, and attended by the people who install them. I haven’t seen a single installation anywhere where they brag about all the new jobs. Washington is blessed with the Columbia River which has many electricity producing dams that already are “clean energy.”

Wind energy is a favorite alternative energy source for advocates of all things green — and we use wind energy as an example of what happens when we deviate from using real science: we end up with high-cost, low-benefit boondoggles. (Much the same could be said about solar.)

The main justification for wind energy by its promoters, is that it will substantially reduce the threat of climate change. Unfortunately this is a political science position, not one based on real Science. No scientific assessment has proven that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2 — or that it is a NET societal benefit to us. NET, of course, is the key word.

True believers in global warming are essentially members of a religious cult. They have been told that green energy will save the planet from overheating or something devastating anyway. They are passionate, because what can be more noble than saving the planet. They have installed low flow showers and toilets in their homes to save water, while the government that forced the lousy showers and toilets on them insists that we must beware the rise of the seas which will inundate our coastal cities. Saving water because we’re running out and too much water on the coast does not make sense.

Global warming exists in the computer programs of the scientists in universities who have gotten all sorts of funding from the federal government to work on global warming.

Rural people who farm corn in the Midwest are very much in favor of adding vast quantities of ethanol to your gasoline. It has raised the price of corn significantly. Other than corn farmers, rural people are not apt to be true believers. They spend their days with the climate and understand hot summers and cold winters and cool summers and the lack of snow.They understand when environmentalists bewail the potential endangered species in a certain location that there are apt to be plenty more on the other side of the hill. City people who live in apartments don’t have that daily interaction and are apt to be far more gullible.<

I remember when earlier in President Obama’s first term, he and Michelle were visiting one of the Southern Adirondack resorts, and they went for a walk in the woods—apparently the first time they had done so. That’s not what a Westerner thinks of as “woods.” I think that was the first time I really realized how little city people know of nature, and consequently how little they understand of environmentalists claims.

No, you are not going to win over rural voters with “green energy.”

Currently, most of our energy and environmental policies are NOT Science based. Instead these policies have essentially been written by lobbyists representing clients with economic or political agendas. The predictable result is that almost all of these policies cost taxpayers, businesses, etc. considerably more than originally promised — and accomplish significantly less than we were assured. Additionally, there are usually numerous “unintended consequences” of these lobbyist driven policies that make the net effects even worse.

Wind energy is a favorite alternative energy source for advocates of all things green — and we use wind energy as an example of what happens when we deviate from using real science: we end up with high-cost, low-benefit boondoggles. (Much the same could be said about solar.)

The main justification for wind energy by its promoters, is that it will substantially reduce the threat of climate change. Unfortunately this is a political science position, not one based on real Science. No scientific assessment has proven that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2 — or that it is a NET societal benefit to us. NET, of course, is the key word.

Democrats, as true believers, are sure that climate change will defeat Donald Trump’s nominees. Mike Pompeo, nominated to the Central Intelligence Agency because of his expertise in intelligence and spycraft, and his mission to defeat terror groups was questioned persistently by Kamala Harris, the new California senator about the scientific consensus on global warming, and asked if he had any reason to doubt NASA’s findings? He responded that he would prefer not to get into the details of the climate debate because the agency’s role is to collect foreign intelligence.

Ben Carson was questioned by Elizabeth Warren  who wanted to learn what the doctor thought about CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, because flooding poses “a significant risk to public housing.” She also wanted to know what “other actions will you take to adapt to or prevent climate change while you are HUD Secretary.”

Perhaps they are just practicing up for the day when Scott Pruitt will be grilled about leading the Environmental Protection Agency. They really have it in for him. Patty Murray, our very own Washington State Senator called the Oklahoma Attorney General “a climate change denier.” Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire claimed he was a “capitulation to polluters.”

They keep explaining why they lost the election, and they’re right, but it isn’t exactly what they claim, but what they make evident that they do not understand.




%d bloggers like this: