American Elephants

Sometimes This Climate Change Stuff Gets So Silly All You Can Do is Laugh by The Elephant's Child


Even when the President is off on vacation golf courses, he prepares his Weekly Address in advance. This week he returned to what he conceives to be the most urgent challenge of our time:

When I took office, I said this was something we couldn’t kick down the road any longer – that our children’s future depended on our action.  So we got to work, and over the past seven-and-a-half years, we’ve made ambitious investments in clean energy, and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions.  We’ve multiplied wind power threefold.  We’ve multiplied solar power more than thirtyfold.  In parts of America, these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.  And carbon pollution from our energy sector is at its lowest level in 25 years, even as we’re continuing to grow our economy.

We’ve invested in energy efficiency, and we’re slashing carbon emissions from appliances, homes, and businesses – saving families money on their energy bills.  We’re reforming how we manage federal coal resources, which supply roughly 40% of America’s coal.  We’ve set the first-ever national standards limiting the amount of carbon pollution power plants can release into the sky.

We also set standards to increase the distance our cars and light trucks can go on a gallon of gas every year through 2025.  And they’re working.  At a time when we’ve seen auto sales surge, manufacturers are innovating and bringing new technology to market faster than expected.  Over 100 cars, SUVs, and pick-up trucks on the market today already meet our vehicles standards ahead of schedule.  And we’ve seen a boom in the plug-in electric vehicle market – with more models, lower battery costs, and more than 16,000 charging stations.

Late last month, the EPA said they were on track to meet the goals the Obama administration put out in 2012. They call for car manufacturers to produce fleets of vehicles that average 54.5 miles per gallon. An “average”—so if they make some gas-guzzling trucks, they need to sell a lot of hybrids to make up the difference. it also includes credits for more efficient air conditioning systems.  So it’s more like 40 miles per gallon. But nobody has any way of knowing because the EPA’s tests to make sure the car companies are hitting their CAFE numbers don’t work, at all.

The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act specifies that “the Administrator shall use the same procedures for passenger automobiles the Administrator used for model year 1975.” In other words: When it comes to enforcing the only law that demands cars get better for consumers’ wallets and lungs, the EPA tests like your grandfather.

The president worries about carbon, but he’s talking about carbon dioxide (CO2) which is a natural fertilizer for plants — all plants including trees and food crops. The slight increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has meant a greening of the earth, which in turn has meant that famine and starvation are mostly ended — except in today’s Venezuela, where they really are starving.

Now California’s Climate Cops Are Going After the Cows by The Elephant's Child

California is sliding slowly into the abyss. It’s not enough that 9,000 companies have packed up and moved to more tax-friendly states. The Bay Area is so expensive that few can afford to live there. Progressives run the place like their own personal slot machine.

The California Air Resources Board has issued regulations to cut the state’s greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, but the board is getting worried about their climate agenda. It could all be ruined by natural phenomena.They’ve gone after the oil producers, the manufacturers and now they are going after the cows.

It’s methane, which”according to the board is a ‘short-lived climate pollutant with an outsized impact on climate change in the near term.” ” “Cow manure and ‘enteric fermentation’ (flatulence) account for half of the state’s methane emissions.”

“If dairy farms in California were to manage manure in a way to further reduce methane emissions,” the board explains, “a gallon of California milk might be the least GHG intensive in the world.” And the most expensive. Many California dairy farms have already been converted into nut farms, which are more economical amid the state’s high regulatory costs.

The board suggests that dairy farms purchase technology to capture methane and then sell the biogas to consumers. Yet the regulators acknowledge that most ideas involve environmental trade-offs and are not cost-effective without substantial government subsidies and regulatory credits that can be sold to fossil-fuel producers….

Other brainstorms include breeding animals that belch less and testing “gut microbial interventions”—though no doubt Democrats will want to see if the anti-genetic-modification activists object. This all may be too much information for readers, but it shows that in their attempt to impose their climate religion there is no corner of the economy or life that progressives won’t try to control.

They don’t give up. They believe what they want to believe, and are sure that anything else is a lie and shouls probably be prosecuted. The climate of the earth over the past century has warmed by approximately 7 tenths of a degree Centigrade.  Carbon dioxide, which they are desperately trying to get rid of, is fertilizer for plants and is greening the world, and helping to feed a hungry planet. California has managed its water resources so poorly that the great Central Valley, the breadbasket of the world, has turned into a dust bowl as they attempt to save the Delta smelt, a tiny bait fish that may or may not be endangered.

We Thought They Weren’t Taking ISIS As Seriously As They Should! by The Elephant's Child


Some have said that Hillary’s greatest accomplishment as Secretary of State was to make John Kerry look competent.

Secretary Kerry was in Vienna Friday to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out hydroflurocarbons, or HFCs, from basic household and commercial appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, and inhalers.” (Offhand, one would think mid-July a poor time to be suggesting any ban on air conditioners and refrigerators)

Kerry was meeting with 45 nations’ defense ministers and foreign ministers, working together on the challenge of the Islamic State and terrorism. “It’s hard,” he said,” for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself.”

According to the Washington Free Beacon, “Secretary of State John Kerry said in Vienna that air conditioners and refrigerators are as big a threat to life as the threat of terrorism posed by groups like the Islamic State.”

Perhaps Mr. Kerry is merely following up on the Democratic Platform which calls for a WWII-Scale Mobilization to Solve the Climate Crisis:

Democratic platform 2016: ‘We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis.’

With all of the excitement focused on the GOP Convention in Cleveland, we missed the Senate Democrats’ “Web of Denial” Climate Change Event.

“Climate change is real,” asserted Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jean Shaheen (D-NH), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM). So what? Gravity and sunrise are also real. That doesn’t imply we cause them or that we would be better off without them. Climate has been changing since the origin of the atmosphere. The only constant about climate is change.

Furthermore, the world has mostly cooled for the last 3000 years.

It is warmer in urban areas, because of manmade air conditioners and trucks and cars and concrete buildings that reflect heat. “But the only place where carbon dioxide (CO2) increase causes a temperature increase is in computer models programmed to show exactly that”.

Every record from every time period shows that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase, not the other way around.

We cannot predict the future. Everybody tries, but it just doesn’t work.Think 1929, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Paris, Nice, Orlando, and climate is no different.”Not even the world’s leading experts can meaningfully forecast future climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated the following in its 2001 Assessment Report:”

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Dr. Tim Ball, climate scientist, adds “No wonder every single prediction they have made since 1990 was wrong! If your prediction is wrong, your science is wrong.”

“Across the world $1 billion is spent each and every day on climate science — and mostly wasted.”

So here’s a quick little quiz with just five easy questions to to test your climate knowledge, and those of your friends:

Only 8% of American Farmers Believe in Climate Change! by The Elephant's Child

A headline from Fortune magazine: “The Paradox of American Farmers and Climate Change”, by Beth Kowitt.  “Some U.S. farmers are skeptical of climate change, even though they’re among the most affected by it.” huh.  More than some.

There’s a strange paradox in the world of agriculture: farmers are perhaps the segment of the population most affected by climate change, and yet a significant number of them don’t believe in it—especially the notion that it’s man-made.

I encountered this phenomenon as I reported a feature for Fortune on how agricultural giant Monsanto is attempting to help farmers both mitigate their impact on the environment and adapt to climate change. All the farmers I talked to readily acknowledged that the weather patterns governing growing seasons had been turned upside down in recent years, but I was on the receiving end of a lot of eye rolls whenever I brought up climate change.

Monsanto MON -0.58% gets a similar response from the growers who buy its seed. The company’s chief technology officer, Robb Fraley, told me he’s received numerous angry emails from farmers asking why the company is supporting what some call “this government effort.

Well, of course the farmers are annoyed. Farmers lives are governed by the weather. They live it daily, and they know far, far more about weather, weather patterns, and forecasts that a condescending writer in the offices of Fortune magazine. And more than the salesmen in the offices of “agricultural giant Monsanto MON-0.58,”as well. Their lives are mostly conducted out of doors — in the weather.

That’s how I grew up, at around 4000′ in the foothills of the Rockies, I guess you could say. We had mild summers and hot summers. Some winters we had 5′ of snow on the level, others, not much more than two.  I’ve been snowed in more than once, had floods, and bad fire years.

Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist, wrote today about climate alarmism, and how it all began with the “Ozone Hole.” A perfectly normal thinning of the ozone layer was said (falsely) to be a catastrophe. Yet eventually it was noted that the ozone hole was recovering and almost back to normal.  It was essentially, a dry run, a test case for the deception that human produced CO2 is causing global warming.   Read Dr. Ball’s piece to begin to understand how politics has infused the whole climate deception. But back to Fortune magazine:

I don’t want to suggest that all farmers reject the concept of climate change. That’s not the case. But here’s what some of the numbers show: A survey conducted by Iowa State Professor J. Arbuckle and Purdue University professor Linda Prokopy of 5,000 Cornbelt farmers—representing about 60% of U.S. corn production and 80% of farmland in the region—found that only 8% believed climate change is taking place and caused primarily by human activity. That 8% figure is significantly lower than the general population. A poll from January found that 27% of the general public primarily blames human activity.

There’s a big difference in outlook between apartment people in large cities and American farmers. For city people, it’s deciding whether or not to take the umbrella. For farmers, it’s going out in the rain to make sure the water is going to flow properly into the ditches, and not wash out a newly planted crop, and may take most of the day. Farmers listen closely to the weather forecasts, city people not so much.

The idea of human causation is very nebulous. When humans cut down a forest and start tilling the soil, that’s a major human influence and it does affect to local climate. When acres and acres of natural growth are razed to plant wheat or corn, that’s human influence. Exhaling CO2 by millions of people, not so much, either.

Here’s 4,000 Years of Climate History! by The Elephant's Child


(click to enlarge)

Not quite what President Obama has in mind. Nor what all the fuss was about the “Paris Accords.” As the scientists keep telling us, it has been lots warmer in the past, and lots colder too. So there you are.

ADDENDUM: Please visit the comments to see a better version of this chart that is more detailed and eliminates the “hockey stick” false warming on which President Obama’s climate panic is based.

“Compassion” is what the Hard Left Thinks They’re All About, Except When They’re Not. by The Elephant's Child

The headline at National Review for an article by Wesley J. Smith reads “Keeping Patient Alive Can Be ‘Non-beneficial Treatment.'”

The medical bureaucrats and technocrats are changing the meaning of definitions and terms to permit health care rationing and coerced withdrawal of care.

This is the “futile care” controversy, sometimes called “inappropriate care,” or in my parlance, “futile care theory.”

The idea is that when a doctor or bioethics committee believes the patient’s life not worth sustaining based on their values about quality of life or cost, wanted treatment — even that requested in an advance directive — can be unilaterally refused.

Futile care is akin to a restaurant posting a sign stating, “We reserve the right to refuse service.”

The International Journal for Quality in Healthcare is doing the hard Left’s politically correct trick of changing the language to fit their desired goal. The goal is essentially to get rid of expensive treatments for those whose illness is not expected to result in improvement in quality of life. In such cases the technocrats, bureaucrats, hospitalists and other doctors and bioethicists will decide if it is “non-beneficial treatment (NBT).” Keeping the patient alive because the patient wants to be kept alive has no part in the discussion. The bureaucrats are redefining the core purpose of medicine. And of course there will be an acronym to further disguise what they’re up to.

You have perhaps noticed that one state after another is attempting to pass “Assisted Suicide” laws. They usually succeed by suggesting that you, old and feeble, and suffering from dreadful pain, with no hope might want to end your misery by getting your doctor to kill you. That will help get rid of some whose expectations don’t involve improvement in their quality of life, but adding on a bunch of bureaucrats to make those decisions brings back memories of Logan’s Run, or Solyunt Green. They don’t make movies like that anymore —uncomfortably close to reality, not the politically correct party line.

Anyone who isn’t frightened by the prospect of technocrats, bureaucrats, hospitalists and other doctors, and bioethicists — strangers to the patient — deciding that continuing to live is non-beneficial hasn’t thought the question through.

In Britain, the National Health Service (NHS) has been accused of denying elderly patients food and water to help them die more quickly, but the NHS is socialized medicine.

A Painful Hearing About Ensuring Sound Science at the EPA by The Elephant's Child

The U.S. Department of Energy says the the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, will reduce economic growth, increase the cost of electricity, and result in almost 400,000 lost jobs over the next 15 years.

Testifying before the House Science Committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says that the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy  is wrong and “what they claim is exactly opposite of what we believe will happen based on our independent analysis.” Based on Ms. McCarthy’s record over the years it is highly unlikely that the EPA is correct on anything beyond their grasp for power and control for their agency.

CONGRESSMAN LAMAR SMITH: “The non-partisan Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy has found that the Clean Power Plan will reduce economic growth, increase electricity costs, and result in almost 400,000 jobs lost over the next 15 years; and all this is with very little impact on climate change itself. So why has the Obama Administration imposed this regulation on the American people?”

Administrator McCarthy said she hadn’t read this report, but she’d be happy to take a look. Which sounds remarkably like her past testimony in any of the cases in which she was called to testify, by I may be mistaken.

CONGRESSMAN SMITH: “It’s nice to have the Administration at war with itself.”

%d bloggers like this: