Tag Archives: climate change

Four problems with the new climate change report

Climate change research


1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs.

One statistic that media outlets have seized upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost the U.S. 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100.  The 10 percent loss projection is more than twice the percentage that was lost during the Great Recession.

The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer’s organization, calculates these costs on the assumption that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. That temperature projection is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, it is completely unrealistic.

2. It assumes the most extreme (and least likely) climate scenario.

The scary projections in the National Climate Assessment rely on a theoretical climate trajectory that is known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5. In estimating impacts on climate change, climatologists use four representative such trajectories to project different greenhouse gas concentrations.

To put it plainly, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 assumes a combination of bad factors that are not likely to all coincide. It assumes “the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.”

Despite what the National Climate Assessment says, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 is not a likely scenario. It estimates nearly impossible levels of coal consumption, fails to take into account the massive increase in natural gas production from the shale revolution, and ignores technological innovations that continue to occur in nuclear and renewable technologies.

When taking a more realistic view of the future of conventional fuel use and increased greenhouse gas emissions, the doomsday scenarios vanish. Climatologist Judith Curry recently wrote, “Many ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change don’t really kick at the lower CO2 concentrations, and [Representative Concentration Pathway] then becomes useful as a ‘scare’ tactic.”

Nasa graph

3. It cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines and causality.

A central feature of the National Climate Assessment is that the costs of climate are here now, and they are only going to get worse. We’re going to see more hurricanes and floods. Global warming has worsened heat waves and wildfires.

But last year’s National Climate Assessment on extreme weather tells a different story. As University of Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and “low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.”

It’s hard to imagine all of that could be flipped on its head in a matter of a year.

Another sleight of hand in the National Climate Assessment is where certain graph timelines begin and end. For example, the framing of heat wave data from the 1960s to today makes it appear that there have been more heat wavesin recent years. Framing wildfire data from 1985 until today makes it appear as though wildfires have been increasing in number.

But going back further tells a different story on both counts, as Pielke Jr. has explained in testimony.

Moreover, correlation is not causality. Western wildfires have been particularly bad over the past decade, but it’s hard to say to what extent these are directly owing to hotter and drier temperatures. It’s even more difficult to pin down how much man-made warming is to blame.

Yet the narrative of the National Climate Assessment is that climate change is directly responsible for the increase in economic and environmental destruction of western wildfires. Dismissing the complexity of factors that contribute to a changing climate and how they affect certain areas of the country is irresponsible.

4. Energy taxes are a costly non-solution.

The National Climate Assessment stresses that this report “was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem.” Yet the takeaway was clear: The costs of action (10 percent of America’s GDP) dwarf the costs of any climate policy.

The reality, however, is that policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.

Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by the year 2030. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.

These policies would simply divert resources away from more valuable use, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or investing in new technologies that make Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 even more of an afterthought than it already should be.

The Trump administration is coming under criticism for publishing the report on Black Friday. To the extent that was a conscious strategy, it certainly isn’t a new tactic. The Obama administration had frequent Friday night document dumps in responding to congressional inquiries about Solyndra and the Department of Energy’s taxpayer-funded failures in the loan portfolio. The Environmental Protection Agency even released its Tier 3 gas regulations, which increased the price at the pump, on Good Friday.

No matter what party is in charge, the opposite party will complain about their burying the story. Regardless, the American public would be better served by enjoying the holiday season and shopping, rather than worrying about an alarmist report.


[From an article published by THE DAILY SIGNAL]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis









Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Climate change science: “The earth is so cold right now because it’s getting warmer”

Scientists look at the real world and work carefully to reach a conclusion that fits what they see. Fanatics like Al Gore work backwards: They take an assumption that they want desperately to be true, and force it on top of reality like hammering a square peg into a round hole.

That’s exactly what the failed presidential candidate seems to be doing, bending over backwards to explain that freezing temperatures in the U.S. are proof the world is getting warmer.

As much of the country battles bitter cold weather and temperatures well below zero, Al Gore used Twitter to spread his twisted brand of circular reasoning.  “It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis,” the politician-turned-guru declared.

“Climate crisis,” of course, is a term that’s being used as a substitute for “global warming,” which fell out of favor as a talking point as people became worried about freezing to death. Make no mistake, global warming is still what Gore is peddling, no matter the label.

The former vice president famously predicted that global warming would cause the arctic ice cap to melt… with a due-date of several years ago. It didn’t happen.  “Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979,” Forbes Magazine reported in 2015.

“Ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles per day,” the National Snow and Ice Data Center stated earlier this month.

It would be one thing if global warming zealots like Al Gore admitted that they came to the wrong conclusions, and updated their models and predictions to match reality — you know, like actual scientists do.  Instead, leftists are engaging in the exact same broken logic they claim to despise. The crowd constantly lectures people that “weather is not climate,” and a short-term spell is not the same as a long-term trend.

That’s what they did after Donald Trump posted a tongue-in-cheek take-down of global warming. The president humorously pointed out that the East Coast was facing near-record low temperatures over New Year’s Day, while liberals smugly scolded him that weather isn’t climate.

Yet, magically, when Al Gore needs it to make his case, it suddenly is climate.  Gore simply flipped the same argument, and pointed at the recent cold snap as “evidence” of earth-threatening climate change.

Media outlets frequently do the same thing: Use heat waves in the summer to whip up doom-and-gloom articles about global warming, while suddenly forgetting about a “climate connection” when icy winter weather shows up.

Here’s a thought: Maybe we don’t actually know enough about millennia-long climate patterns to predict the future. Maybe we should keep digging and asking questions, and not treat people who have healthy skepticism as some sort of Inquisition-era heretics to be burned at the stake.

That would never sell documentaries, though, would it?  Inconvenient truth, indeed.


[From an article published by CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis





Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

How real is man-made climate change? Here are the facts…

The climate change facts...

Ever since the 1980s, hardly a week has passed without some new report warning about the apocalyptic effects of man-made climate change. However, these reports routinely exclude data that might cast doubt on their conclusions.

The hypothesis of man-made climate change states than when human beings burn fossil fuels, the resulting carbon dioxide gases insulate the planet to an unnatural extent.  This then causes the planet to warm and the polar ice caps to melt.  While few people deny that the planet seems to be about a degree and a half warmer than it was a century ago, the link between rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels is not nearly as obvious as all the climate doomsayers would have you believe.

According to NASA Earth Observatory, Earth’s average temperature increased by almost one degree Fahrenheit between 1918 and 1941.  Over the same period carbon dioxide levels increased 5 percent.  Between 1941 and 1978 carbon dioxide levels increased another 5 percent, while temperatures decreased by about half a degree.

The media at the time were raging about global cooling, only to see temperatures increase another degree between 1978 and 1998.  Since 1978, carbon dioxide levels have risen fifteen percent, but global temperatures have remained stable.

These facts cast serious doubt on the theory that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of the planet’s 0ne-degree temperature rise over the past century.  Government-funded scientists are ignoring evidence that global warming does not correlate to carbon dioxide emissions, and that no warming has been recorded for the past nineteen years.  They are also ignoring the evidence proving that Earth has experienced higher temperatures than at present — before sources of carbon emissions were even invented.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, natural factors play an insignificant role in climate change compared to the man-made factors.  But in order to believe this, you have to ignore reams of data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings, and ocean sediment cores.  The vast storehouses of scientific evidence all indicate that Earth naturally alternates between warm and cold phases in roughly 1000-year cycles.  During the warm period prior to the one we are now in, the Earth warmed 800 years before the start of the Industrial Revolution and its accompanying carbon dioxide increases.

The evidence demonstrates very clearly, in fact, that carbon dioxide emissions, while certainly contributing to climate change, are insignificant when compared to effects from the sun.  As solar activity increased from 1900 to 1940 and decreased from 1940 to 1970, this correlates much more closely with global temperatures than with levels of carbon dioxide.

Our rabid climate scientists — and we use the term “scientists” very hesitantly — still find it politically expedient to deny, bury, and discredit the research that proves them wrong.  The climate change alarmists systematically ignore the evidence of naturally occurring climate change due to the sun.  Using manipulation of data to push a political agenda is not science,  and it threatens both the economy and the environment.  Attempting to shut down the fossil fuel industries due to a climate change alarm which does not exist is not just misguided, it is foolish, stupid, and dishonest.  Let’s find good alternative energy sources instead of spending billions upon billions of dollars subsidizing unprofitable industries and supporting the UN’s panicky climate fund efforts.


[From an article by Andrew Miller in The Philadelphia Trumpet]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why you are hurting the economy by sending your hard-earned dollars to Uncle Sam…

Just in time for Tax Day comes John Tamny’s counter-intuitive view of the economy, including why you are harming the economy by sending your hard-earned dollars to Uncle Sam. Titled “Popular Economics: What the Rolling Stones, Downton Abbey, and LeBron James Can Teach You About Economics,” it shows why money left in the hands of individuals, even rich ones, benefits the economy more than sending the money to the government to be spent by bureaucrats on Solyndras. It upends traditional views on the supposed evils of outsourcing, climate change, and budget and trade deficits.

Tamny, who was my editor when I wrote for RealClearMarkets.com, has never been afraid to swim against the stream. He has written a brave book, a courageous book, that should be read and discussed by all who are interested in America’s future. Here are three out of many counterintuitive nuggets from “Popular Economics.”

The best way to “spread the wealth” is to leave it in the hands of the wealthy. The justification for progressive systems of taxation is that the government can make better use of funds than the individuals who earn the dollars. Therefore, the traditional argument goes, higher-income earners should pay taxes at a higher rate. Not so, writes Tamny. Unspent funds left in the hands of wealthy individuals are saved and used to power a broad array of investments.

Tamny offers numerous examples. If corporate taxes had been in place in the early-20th century, Henry Ford might not have had the capital to invent the Model T at Ford.   In 1989, Jerry Jones bought the money-losing Dallas Cowboys for $149 million and turned the team into a powerhouse, with three Superbowl wins in the 1990s. That encouraged Robert Kraft to buy the New England Patriots for $172 million in 1994. The team is now worth $1.8 billion.

Most companies and the jobs they create are the result of private investment. Yet the tax code gives government spending preference over investing in the next Steve Jobs.

“If the capital-gains rate had been 98%, or even 50%,” writes Tamny, “Jones probably wouldn’t have built the wealth he needed to buy the Cowboys, and Kraft would have been unable to attract the financing for his purchase.”

Most companies and the jobs they create are the result of private investment. Yet the tax code gives government spending preference over investing in the next Steve Jobs. No government program would have invested in Steve Jobs’ garage, where he was building future Apple computers, or in Michael Dell. Jobs, Dell and others had to persuade private citizens to take risks and support their fledgling companies. “The French Connection” was turned down by scores of studios before 20th Century Fox took it on and released it in 1971. Now these companies are multibillion-dollar entities enriching shareholders, employees and consumers alike, and “The French Connection” is now considered a film classic.

That’s why Tamny suggests that Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin helped the economy by renouncing his U.S. citizenship to avoid capital-gains taxes. Saverin’s assets were in Singapore, but they were able to be invested to help private companies grow. That meant better sports teams, more movies, more private successful companies.

Tamny’s solution: a flat consumption tax with an end to the Internal Revenue Service, which “is politicized no matter which party is in power.” But the IRS’s behavior under Director of Exempt Organizations Unit Lois Lerner and Commissioner John Koskinen is unprecedented. Lerner investigated her political enemies, and it’s widely believed that Koskinen lied under oath that her emails had been destroyed — without even asking officials who were in charge of the back-up servers. There are many reasons to end the IRS, but tarring all politicians with the same brush as the Obama administration is not one of them.

Outsourcing makes Americans better off. Most people, Republicans and Democrats, think outsourcing is wrong and un-American. In 2012, President Obama attacked Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for outsourcing jobs to China when he worked at Bain Capital. House Speaker John Boehner and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposed America’s Olympic uniforms, which were made in China.

“Popular Economics” shows that normal people outsource every day. Hardly anyone manages without outsourcing. People outsource cooking by going to McDonald’s and laundry by going to the dry cleaners. In recent days, many have outsourced tax filing by going to H&R Block or buying software programs such as TurboTax. This makes people better off by giving them more time to engage in productive activities.

Similarly, firms that outsource do better too. It’s no coincidence that some of the most profitable companies in Silicon Valley outsource to China, according to Tamny. They bring together the technology and the marketing but leave the assembly to workers in other countries. It has been said that only one American touches the Apple iPhone before it gets to its user, and that is the UPS driver. (Of course, some iPhones are sold in Apple stores, where the retail clerks touch them too.)

In contrast, some of the poorest areas in America are those with little outsourcing, such as Detroit. The Big Three auto companies employ American workers and are attacked when they outsource car parts.

Sea levels aren’t rising. It’s not popular to be a climate denier these days, but Tamny is a skeptic. Markets talk to us through price signals, and they tell us that climate change will not have the disastrous effects described in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” If climate change were resulting in rising sea levels, coastal homes would not go for such fabulous sums. Rather, properties near the sea would be dropping in value every year. A quick look at the “Mansion” section of Friday’s Wall Street Journal shows that this isn’t happening.

Popular Economics cover

“Even more troublesome for climate alarmists is that the most expensive coastal communities — places like Malibu, Manhattan and the Hamptons — are filled with people who say they believe in man-made global warming,” writes Tamny. Al Gore’s mansion close to Montecito, Calif., shows that “global warming’s most famous advocates apparently don’t take their cause all that seriously.” When climate change begins to cause the seas to rise, expect prices to fall.

In contrast to many boring economics tomes, “Popular Economics” is filled with sports and movie references that illustrate the value of individual initiative. A better name for the book would be called “Unpopular Economics.” These days it’s not popular to say, as Tamny does, that the economy would be better off if the rich were allowed to keep more of their income; that inequality doesn’t matter; and that climate change isn’t damaging America’s coastline. And space does not permit me to mention bank bailouts that caused the Great Recession and the floating dollar that crippled economic growth. For that, you’ll have to read the book.

[by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, writing for MARKETWATCH]

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  This is one more very powerful example of something many of us know intuitively: Money given to the US government is not only not spent wisely, it’s not even wasted wisely. Or honestly. The Obama administration has proven this over and over again. Whole truckloads of American cash completely vanished when shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan. More than half a billion dollars of taxpayer money given to Solyndra as the next wonderful showstopper on the road to economic solar power…only to watch the company go bankrupt in little more than a year. (There were many more Solyndras to follow, to the tune of about $80 billion.) More than 40 million US taxpayer dollars used by Obama and family for vacations. Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, cheated on his taxes, got caught, and paid fines. His cohort, Larry Summers, director of the White House Economic Council, collected millions in fees from troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations, a clear conflict of interest. (Guess they were just following Obama’s lead, who hasn’t told the truth to America any time before his election or since.) Obama’s Financial Reform Bill did not prevent banks from returning to the trading practices that got us into the global recession in the first place, which means the banks can go back to their risky behavior anytime they want. Obamacare was, and is, the most divisive, convoluted program of his White House tenure and could yet bankrupt the country. (He promised in 2008 that he would not force US citizens to buy health insurance, which is exactly what the Affordable Care Act does.) And he is still taking our national debt level into the stratosphere at over $18 trillion and counting, a sum we have not a prayer of ever repaying. When you vote a liberal into office, and one who has no experience whatsoever outside of government and very little in it, you have no right to be surprised at the results. Such a man could at least be an honest one, but it seems that honesty is in very short supply in Washington…as Harry Reid proved to us only recently. Liberals believe government is the answer. Conservatives know government is the problem.


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

California runs out of water while the world’s ice continues to melt…

As melting ice makes worldwide flooding a real possibility, California has a really serious drought problem…

What will a flooded USA look like?

The USA will look a lot different when the ice is gone…

The drought in California is getting a lot worse.  As you read this, snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada mountains are the lowest that have ever been recorded.  That means that there won’t be much water for California farmers and California cities once again this year.  To make up the difference in recent years, water has been pumped out of the ground like crazy.  In fact, California has been losing more than 12 million acre-feet of groundwater a year since 2011, and wells all over the state are going dry.  Once the groundwater is all gone, what are people going to do?  A hundred years ago, the population of the state of California was 3 million, and during the 20th century we built lots of beautiful new cities in an area that was previously a desert.  Scientists tell us that the 20th century was the wettest century in 1000 years for that area of the country, but now weather patterns are reverting back to normal.  Today, the state of California is turning back into a desert but it now has a population of 38 million people.  This is not sustainable in the long-term.  So when the water runs out, where are they going to go?

I have written quite a few articles about the horrific drought in California, but conditions just continue to get even worse.  According to NPR, snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada mountains are “just 6 percent of the long-term average”

The water outlook in drought-racked California just got a lot worse: Snowpack levels across the entire Sierra Nevada are now the lowest in recorded history — just 6 percent of the long-term average. That shatters the previous low record on this date of 25 percent, set in 1977 and again last year.

California farmers rely on that water.  Last year, farmers had to let hundreds of thousands of acres lie fallow because of the scarcity of water, and it is being projected that this year will be even worse

More than 400,000 acres of farmland were fallowed last year because of scarce water. Credible sources have estimated that figure could double this year.

Fortunately, many farmers have been able to rely on groundwater in recent years, but now wells are running dry all over the state.  Here is more from NPR

Last year was already a tough year at La Jolla Farming in Delano, Calif. Or as farm manager Jerry Schlitz puts it, “Last year was damn near a disaster.”

La Jolla is a vineyard, a thousand-or-so acres of neat lines of grapevines in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. It depends on water from two sources: the federal Central Valley Project and wells.

Until last year, Schlitz says, wells were used to supplement the federal water.

“Now, we have nothing but wells. Nothing. There’s no water other than what’s coming out of the ground,” he says.

Last year, one of those wells at La Jolla dried up. The farm lost 160 acres — about a million dollars’ worth of produce, plus the wasted labor and other resources.

Are you starting to understand the scope of the problem?

Despite all of the wonderful technology that we have developed, we are still at the mercy of the weather.

And if this drought continues to drag on, it is absolutely going to cripple a state that contains more than 10 percent of the total U.S. population.

In an attempt to fight the water shortage, Governor Jerry Brown has instituted statewide water restrictions for the first time ever

California announced sweeping statewide water restrictions for the first time in history Wednesday in order to combat the region’s devastating drought, the worst since records began.

Governor Jerry Brown issued the declaration at a press conference in a parched, brown slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains that would normally be covered by deep snow.

“Today, we are standing on dry grass where there should be five feet (1.5 meters) of snow,” Brown said. “This historic drought demands unprecedented action.”

So what will these restrictions include?

The following is a summary from Natural News

• A ban on non-drip irrigation systems for all new homes.

• A requirement for golf courses and cemeteries to “reduce water consumption.” (And yet, the very idea of green golf courses in the middle of a California desert is insane to begin with…)

• Force farmers to report more details on their water usage so that the state government can figure out where all the water is going (and where to restrict it even further).

• Outlawing the watering of grass on public street medians.

• Discussions are also under way to throw “water wasters” in jail for up to 30 days, according to another LA Times article. The most likely source of intel for incarcerating water wasters will be neighborhood snitches who monitor water usage of nearby homes and call the authorities if they see too much water being used.

If the drought does not go on for much longer, these restrictions may be enough.

But what if it continues to intensify?

The following graphic shows the U.S. Drought Monitor map for the state of California for each of the last five years in late March…

California drought worsening...It doesn’t take a genius to see the trend.

And scientists tell us that this might just be the beginning.  There have been megadroughts in that area of the country that have lasted more than 100 years in the past, and there are fears that another megadrought may have begun.  The following comes from National Geographic

California is experiencing its worst drought since record-keeping began in the mid 19th century, and scientists say this may be just the beginning. B. Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California at Berkeley, thinks that California needs to brace itself for a megadrought—one that could last for 200 years or more.

As a paleoclimatologist, Ingram takes the long view, examining tree rings and microorganisms in ocean sediment to identify temperatures and dry periods of the past millennium. Her work suggests that droughts are nothing new to California.

“During the medieval period, there was over a century of drought in the Southwest and California. The past repeats itself,” says Ingram, who is co-author of The West Without Water: What Past Floods, Droughts, and Other Climate Clues Tell Us About Tomorrow. Indeed, Ingram believes the 20th century may have been a wet anomaly.

If this is a megadrought, it is just a matter of time until massive migration will become necessary.

In fact, one UN official is already talking about it

If the state continues on this path, there may have to be thoughts about moving people out, said Lynn Wilson, academic chair at Kaplan University and who serves on the climate change delegation in the United Nations.

“Civilizations in the past have had to migrate out of areas of drought,” Wilson said. “We may have to migrate people out of California.”

Wilson added that before that would happen, every option such as importing water to the state would likely occur— but “migration can’t be taken off the table.”

So how many people will ultimately have to leave if this drought continues for many years?

5 million?

10 million?

20 million?

And where will they go?

[from The Economic Collapse Blog and other sources]


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Global warming now being called “biggest science scandal” ever foisted on US citizens…

Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph calls man-made global warming the “biggest science scandal ever,” and it’s easy to see why.

Recent studies have shown:

  • Temperature data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was dramatically altered, and rather than showing a 1.5-degree Celsius increase from 1950 to 2014, the raw data actually showed a 1-degree Celsius temperature decrease over those 65 years.
  • Two of the official data records for climate temperatures — Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) — have recorded 18 straight years of no temperature increases, and 2014, recently called the “warmest year ever” was, in fact, only the sixth warmest year since 1997.
  • Arctic ice levels, it turns out, have nothing to do with alleged man-made global warming. The decrease in Acrtic ice is simply a byproduct of naturally occurring cyclical shifts in warm water currents. In fact, when the warm water currents last peaked 75 years ago, Arctic ice had retreated even further back than it has recently.

None of this is news to John Casey, who has been at the forefront of the movement calling man-made global warming a total hoax.

Casey, a former White House space program adviser, consultant to NASA headquarters, and space shuttle engineer, found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies — that destroys the argument for “global warming.”

Using their own data, John Casey has proven that “global warming” is a scam backed by a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists conspiring to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite clear evidence that no such “global warming” exists.

Casey’s analysis is shocking…and all of this is a must-read exposé.


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  When you DO read the real facts behind this scandal, you will begin getting even madder than you probably are already at the way the US government has been “playing” its citizens for the last few decades.  Remember Al Gore, and his fanatical focus on this non-existent issue? Remember John Kerry and Mr. O, his boss, telling us even very recently that climate change was more important than any other issue, even the murdering Islamic terrorists and their determination to expand their control of the Middle East? We are now being put in the position of having to doubt everything the US government tells us. Everything. Why would the government do this, and do it deliberately? One simple reason: The climate change issue can be made to look so big and so important, with enough focus and attention in the media, that it will distract from all the other stupid stuff the government is trying to do. Or cover up. And with climate change, all it takes is a little fudging of the numbers, and the end result looks like calamity. But as we’ve been saying for years now, the real calamity in the US is the one in the White House. Why would Obama spend billions of dollars on an issue that doesn’t exist? Because it’s not his money, and he doesn’t care about YOUR money. Why would corporations get on the same silly bandwagon? So they can (a) get more government money, like the now-bankrupt Solyndra, and (b) sell more stuff like solar panels, smart thermostats, and other unnecessary equipment. Mr. O also doesn’t care about the truth behind the news reports you get. (In fact, he appears not to care about truth in any form.) Obama is just treading water in the White House, trying not to drown in a job he has never been able to handle. Nor does he care about doing a good job at his elected position, for the same reason. He never sought the office of president to do a good job, he sought it only to promote himself, build his ego, and assure his future financial well-being. (YOUR financial well-being was something that has never even crossed his mind.)  Why would supposedly self-respecting scientists decide to become climate change champions? Because (a) they were too lazy to verify all the details (and not all scientists graduated at the top of their class, y’know), (b) they wanted to be associated with a huge and popular issue (scientists have an ego too, y’know), and (c) they too wanted to belly up to the government money trough (by getting research grants, writing books and papers, or getting climate-related, high-paying government jobs).


[by Christopher Booker, writing for The Telegraph in the UK]

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama’s new “historic” global warming agreement with China is another one of those White House deals that Americans are “too stupid” to understand…so here are the details


Such is the ubiquitous description of the climate agreement recently announced in Beijing between Barack Obama and Xi Jinping in which China promised for the first time to cap carbon emissions.

If this were a real breakthrough, I’d be an enthusiastic supporter. I have long advocated for a tangible global agreement to curb carbon. I do remain skeptical about the arrogant, ignorant claim that climate science is “settled,” that it can predict with accuracy future “global warming” effects and that therefore we must cut emissions radically, immediately and unilaterally if necessary, even at potentially ruinous economic and social cost.

I nonetheless believe (and have written since 1988) that pumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. We don’t know nearly enough about the planet’s homeostatic mechanisms for dealing with it, but prudence would dictate reducing CO2 emissions when and where we can.

However, anything beyond that, especially the radical unilateralism advocated by climate alarmists, would be not just economic suicide but economic suicide without purpose. It would do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 as long as China, India and the other developing nations more than make up for our cuts with their huge and increasing carbon emissions.

China alone is firing up a new coal plant every eight to 10 days. We could close every coal mine in Kentucky and West Virginia and achieve absolutely nothing except devastating Appalachia and, in effect, shipping its economic lifeblood to China.

The only way forward on greenhouse gases is global reduction by global agreement. A pact with China would be a good start.

Unfortunately, the Obama-Xi agreement is nothing of the sort. It is a fraud of Gruberian (as in Jonathan) proportions. Its main plank commits China to begin cutting carbon emissions 16 years from now. On the other hand, the United States, having already cut more carbon emissions than any nation on earth since 2005, must now double its current rate of carbon cutting to meet a new, more restrictive goal by 2025. In return for which, China will keep increasing its carbon emissions year after year throughout that period — and for five years beyond.

If this sounds like the most one-sided deal since Manhattan sold for $24 in 1626, you heard right. It becomes even more absurd when you realize that, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, China was on track to plateau its carbon emissions around 2030 anyway because of a projected slowdown in urbanization, population growth and heavy industry production. We cut, they coast.

The carbon-emission graph is stark. China’s line is nearly vertical; America’s is already inflected and headed downward. The Obama-Xi agreement simply ratifies U.S. unilateralism — the U.S. line declines even more steeply, while China’s continues rocketing upward unmolested.

Proponents of the Obama-Xi deal will then point to a second provision: China’s promise to produce 20 percent of its energy from non-carbon sources by 2030. But China had already been planning to begin substituting for its immense use of fossil fuels (mainly by using nuclear power) because Chinese cities are being choked to death by their traditional pollutants — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury compounds, particulates, etc.

These are serious health hazards. CO2 is not. Whatever its atmospheric effects, CO2 does not poison the air. So in return for yet another Chinese transition that has nothing to do with CO2, Obama has committed the United States to drastic CO2 cuts.

Moreover, beyond substance, there is process. Or more accurately, its absence. What’s the structure to sustain and verify the agreement? Where are the benchmarks? What are the enforcement mechanisms? This is just a verbal promise. Nothing more. Sixteen years from now, China is supposed to remind the world of its commitments and begin cutting?

I repeat: I would unequivocally support a real agreement with the Chinese where they cut contemporaneously and commensurately with the United States and where there is built-in reporting and independent verification. Such a bilateral agreement would need to be internationalized by bringing in such rising powers as India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. This would be a breakthrough.

Climate enthusiasts will say that I refuse to take yes for an answer. Of course I would take yes for an answer. But the Obama-Xi agreement is not yes. It is “check back with me in 16 years.” Aren’t the people advocating this deal the same garment-rending climate apocalypticists who’ve been warning of irreversible planetary changes beginning now, and the supreme imperative of acting immediately?

Except, you see, for China, the world’s No. 1 carbon polluter. China gets a 16-year pass.

[by Charles Krauthammer, writing for The Washington Post]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Bottom line here: Our lame duck president is even lamer than we imagined. His wonderful deal with China will restrict US industry even further, while it has absolutely no effect on China for 16 years. Any polluting nation would sign a deal like that!



As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized