American Elephants


Cap and Trade: A $3.6 Trillion Tax On the Economy, for No Reason At All. by The Elephant's Child
October 21, 2009, 10:22 pm
Filed under: Economy, Energy, Environment | Tags: , , ,

Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming.  Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change.

The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system.

Read that again, carefully.  It comes from Dr. Roy Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.



Just when it is all coming apart, here’s another push. by The Elephant's Child
November 21, 2008, 8:37 pm
Filed under: Economy, Energy, Environment, Europe, Global Warming | Tags: , ,

These clueless bureaucrats plan to revamp the entire U.S. economy based on the notion that CO2 is the cause of global warming, and that they can do something about it by bankrupting coal-fired power plants and substituting clean alternative energy. There is no evidence that this is other than fantasy.

Environmentalist dreams of a “clean-energy” economy in the U.S. have long yielded to a glimpse of the price tag.  Now the cost of making the transition — hundreds of billions of dollars — is being offered by President-elect  Obama and his advisers as a selling point. Think New Deal II.  FDR extended the Great Depression by more than seven years with just such experimentation.

They believe that a multibillion-dollar government investment in everything from wind turbines to a “smart” electrical grid is just what is needed to prop up the economy.  The fantasy is millions of government subsidized “green jobs.” Mr. Obama’s theory, which he argued on the campaign trail, is that spending $150 billion over the next decade to boost energy efficiency would create five million jobs.

The jobs would include insulation installers to make houses more energy-efficient, insulation businesses , wind-turbine builders, energy efficient bulb installers, and would displace coal-fired electricity, coal mining and transportation workers. And the existing insulation companies, and wind turbine companies, the coal miners? Construction workers would be required to build greener buildings and rebuild the electrical grid. Direct inquiries about green buildings to Seattle’s Mayor Greg Nichols.  And see Bastiat’s ‘Broken Windows’ theory.

The idea is that big capital investments in green-energy technology will be offset by savings in reduced fossil fuel costs. The rest of the world is looking askance at climate change legislation in a time of global economic turmoil.  New Zealand is looking at competing views on the scientific aspects of climate change. In England, power suppliers are turning back the clock to use coal-fired plants as their main source of electricity in a bid to avoid shortages over the winter. The EU is backing off from their climate change legislation.

The studies that estimate millions of new green jobs do not consider the jobs that are lost elsewhere if the country shifts to more expensive sources of energy. Part of the theory of so many new jobs comes from the fact that jobs in the fossil fuel industry do not require more infrastructure, because it already exists.  New “green’ jobs would require building new infrastructure. The price of oil has dropped substantially in the wake of the financial crisis. It is suggested that the cost will go up even  higher as the financial crisis stabilizes.

Please note that at the same time that they want to switch our economy to energy sources that have shown no evidence whatsoever that they can effectively supply the power that we need, no matter what the investment, they want to destroy the use of fossil fuels because they believe that will save the planet.  But the globe has warmed and cooled in the past, long before there were industry or automobiles or SUVs. The warming and cooling corresponds closely to the activity of the sun, and seems to have no connection to increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.  But it isn’t about CO2, no matter how much they pretend that it is.

Physicist Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen:

“Owing to bad economic conditions, most of the countries in Europe are fleeing from the commitments they once made to the “Kyoto treaty” to reduce emissions of CO2.  Scientists all over the world are speaking up against the notion of a “consensus”, the presumption that “everybody agrees” that global warming is caused by mankind (the AGW hypothesis). Nobody has any confidence any more in long-range computer calculations that are unable to predict the past, let alone the future.  And most of all, people are beginning to remember that CO2 is plant food.”

“This all comes at the time when the incoming administration of Obama seems about to impose draconian and expensive regulations (on CO2 emissions) upon American industry and utilities.”

Consider this quotation from a green enthusiast:

“An authentic green economics system is one that would mark the end of capitalism, and one that would ensure labor rights and organizing, collective ownership and equality are all at the heart of it.  The real green movement has not started yet.”

Steve Hayward added:

“More than 20 years ago political scientist Anthony Downs discerned what he called the “issue-attention cycle,” a five-stage process by which the public and especially the news media grow alarmed over an issue, agitate for action, generate piles of scary headlines, and then begin to draw back as we come to recognize that the problem has been exaggerated or misconceived, and the price tag for action comes in.  While Downs thought that the issue-attention cycle for the environment would last longer than most issues, it appears the mother-of-all-environmental scares — global warming — is following his model and is going to begin to fade like other environmental alarms of the past such as the population bomb and the “we’re running out of everything” scares.”



Meet Dr. Murry Salby, Atmospheric Physicist, And The Trials and Tribulations of scientific Research Today. by The Elephant's Child
April 27, 1915, 6:32 am
Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , ,

Professor Murry Salby in London, March 2015

Dr. Murry Salby is an American atmospheric physicist in Australia. He has been on a lecture tour in Europe, explaining his new research. His research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, are revealed including its increase during the 20th century. His analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emissions. Sounds complicated, but it will throw a big monkey wrench in the IPCC “consensus,” and President Obama’s fixation on “carbon pollution.”

Well, we just ‘celebrated’ Earth Day, and the president said:

Our carbon pollution has fallen by 10 percent since 2007, even as we’ve grown our economy and seen the longest streak of private-sector job growth on record.  We’ve committed to doubling the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China has committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions.  And because the world’s two largest economies came together, there’s new hope that, with American leadership, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to prevent the worst impacts of climate change before it’s too late.

And from Rupert Darwall, writing at City Journal:

And yet, highly credentialed scientists, including Nobel Prize–winning physicist Ivar Glaever, reject what is often called the “climate consensus.” Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of the group’s statement that evidence of global warming was “incontrovertible” and that governments needed to move immediately to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Sixteen distinguished scientists signed a 2012 Wall Street Journal article, in which they argued that taking drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy—an effort that would have major effects on economic growth and quality of life, especially in the developing world—was not justified by observable scientific evidence. And, like Giaever, they objected to the notion of a climate consensus—and to the unscientific shutting down of inquiry and the marginalization of dissenters as “heretics.” Most recently, renowned climate scientist Lennart Bengsston stepped down from his post at a climate-skeptic think tank after he received hundreds of angry e-mails from scientists. He called the pressure “virtually unbearable.”

Another dissenter, the American atmospheric physicist Murry Salby, has produced a serious analysis that undermines key assumptions underpinning the AGW worldview. His work and its reception illustrate just how unsettled climate science remains—and how determined AGW proponents are to enforce consensus on one of the great questions of our age.

Dr. Salbly’s story is astonishing. Pure science which involves research, testing of hypotheses, doing it all again, and seeing what is supported by direct observation, good honest science without pre-conceptions is in direct conflict with the quest for grants and publicity, and especially the “settled science” which is the basis for getting those grants and awards. Settled science does not exist in the scientific profession. Everything is open to what is supported by direct observation and what can be established by someone else repeating your experiments. Climate science has been captured by politics. There is no such thing as “consensus” in science.

The article is long, but the story of what happened to Dr. Salby is important, as is grasping the nature and consequences of his work. Apparently true believers in Australia aren’t about to allow anyone to cast a skeptical eye on their claims. Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has replicated Dr. Salby’s work. Dr. Salby presents research that challenges the IPCC “consensus.”

As I wrote in an earlier post, Christina Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate change admitted that the goal of environmental activists was to get rid of Capitalism as an economic development model. She also thinks the world has too many people and wants to get rid of significant numbers of them. Never mind that you could put the entire population of the world in Texas, with the density of New York City. So you can see, it’s all about carbon dioxide!

With the hard Left, the issue is never the issue. In this case, it’s grants for wind farms and solar arrays, electric cars, (which by the way are not selling) and now Obama’s crusade to save Americans’ health from the ravages of too much CO2 — you know, the stuff we exhale every time we breathe.




%d bloggers like this: