*********************************
There were two huge stories in the past 24 hours suggesting the house of cards called "global warming" is getting closer and closer to falling. The first has to do with the cover of The National Geographic that appeared some years ago. It turns out that global warming will not cause the Atlantic Ocean to rise so high to drown the Statue of Liberty. That turns out to be a lie. The Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed yesterday, says the UN is muting its "global warming" alarm:
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.
The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored. Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.
The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. Yet the report still assumes 70% more warming by the last decades of this century than the best science now suggests. This is because of an overreliance on models rather than on data in the first section of the IPCC report—on physical science—that was published in September 2013.
In this space on Dec. 19, 2012, I forecast that the IPCC was going to have to lower its estimates of future warming because of new sensitivity results. (Sensitivity is the amount of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.) "Cooling Down Fears of Climate Change" (Dec. 19), led to a storm of protest, in which I was called "anti-science," a "denier" and worse.If/when I find the second story on global warming, I will link it; apparently Al Gore was involved in quite a scam regarding global warming. But then we all knew that so I won't spend a lot of time looking for the article.
**********************************
So, why is the UN muting its alarm on global warming? Global warming is sucking all the money and effort from other activist agendas. It's interesting. The UN will admit that no species are likely to be lost due to global warming, but whooping cranes may be a species-casualty due to slicers and dicers. Such irony. We had to kill the whooping cranes to same Americans.
**********************************
Oh, here it is, that second note on global warming, from Tallbloke:
It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science."
Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.
Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.
There is no scientific support for the UN theory.
CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.
**********************************
Coal? Coal currently produces more than 40% of the world's electricity and more coal-fired plants are coming: almost 1,200 new coal facilities in 59 countries are proposed for construction and the IEA estimates China will double its number of coal-fired power plants from around 2,000 currently by 2040, Mann reports.
**********************************
Huge spring snow storm predicted for northwestern South Dakota.
**********************************
Happy 65th Birthday! Hydraulic fracking is 65 years old. Somehow the mainstream media thinks this is all something new. LOL.
It is true that 65 years ago this week, Halliburton conducted the first commercially successful application of ‘Fracking’, as it has come to be known, in Stephens County, Oklahoma. But the process itself was actually invented and experimented with two years earlier by Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, in the Hugoton gas field in Kansas. While those experiments did not appreciably stimulate the wells to which the technique was applied, this was the real birth of hydraulic fracturing, and since that time, the process has been safely and effectively applied to well more than a million oil and gas wells in the United States alone.
Regardless of which ‘birthday’ one chooses to acknowledge, hydraulic fracturing is now a veritable senior citizen among the vast array of technologies employed by the oil and gas industry. For the first 60 or so years of its life, the process was completely non-controversial. But then along about 2008, it began to dawn on agenda-driven media outlets and radical ‘green’ groups looking for a new controversy to stimulate fundraising that the marriage of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling was beginning to create an oil and gas renaissance in the U.S. Out of that realization, the anti-Fracking movement was born.
The initial environmental motivation behind the movement was the fear that the new massive reserves of inexpensive natural gas would crowd renewables out of the power generation marketplace, which at least had the positive aspect of being a reality-based concern. So these groups and sympathetic media outlets embarked upon a strategy of turning hydraulic fracturing into a national boogeyman (such efforts always need a boogeyman to demonize, after all) complete with a new name - ‘Fracking’ - that they sought to turn into a new cussword. And, to a large extent, they succeeded in that quest.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.