Agenda 21

Climate Alarmists Try to Push Their “Religion”, on the Rest of Us! Just Say NO!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

CO2 GOOD; CLIMATE CHANGE BUNK;

GREENS ARE RAGING EXTREMISTS,

SAYS GREENPEACE CO-FOUNDER

by  19 Jun 2014

“Climate change” is a theory for which there is “no scientific proof at all” says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a “combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one.”

Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

“The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific “proof” at all.”

Moore goes on to list some key facts about “climate change” which are ignored by true believers.

1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.

2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.

3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.

4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.

5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.

6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.

7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.

8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.

9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.

Moore makes his remarks in the foreword to a new book by bestselling Australian geologist Dr Ian Plimer called Not For Greens. The book describes the various, complex industrial processes which go into the making of just a single teaspoon, starting with the mining of various metals.

If Greenpeace’s membership remained true to their principles they would have to eat with their bare hands because, as Moore notes, they are opposed to mining in all its forms.

“If you ask them for the name of any mine that is operating in an environmentally acceptable standard you will draw a blank. They have become so cornered by their own extremism that they must deny their daily use of cell phones, computers, bicycles, rapid transit, and yes, the simple teaspoon.

When it comes to Wind Turbines….there is NO democracy!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Windfarms and local democracy

April 2, 2014

Scotland Against Spin windfarm image Apr 2014 approved for reproduction

By LINDA HOLT

Scottish wind policy has been on a collision course with local democracy for a long time. The Scottish Government has promoted wind energy via target-led, developer-led planning policies instead of a plan-led system with clear restrictions on development, which is what planning is supposed to be about.

Instead there are so many holes in wind planning policy at national level (and often due to expressed or feared central government insistence at local authority level) that to call it a sieve would be to pay it a compliment.

Everything has to be considered on a case-by-case basis and every wind developer argues that his guideline-busting, spatial-plan-busting proposal is a special case, given the overriding nature of the Government’s 2020 renewables targets. Local authorities and reporters are inclined to agree often enough to make repeated punts at several hundred thousand pounds a shot worthwhile.

Scottish Governments have brazenly politicized the consenting process by appropriating the Electricity Act of 1989 to bypass (what remains of) the democratic planning process. The Act allows ministers to consent windfarms over 50 MW (and their extensions) ‘in the national interest’.

It was meant to ensure that NIMBY problems would not stop major power stations, which the country clearly needed, from going ahead. But a 50MW wind farm does not produce anything like the energy of a nuclear power station or even a small gas-fired power station.

In fact while the latter can produce its nameplate capacity or very close to it, no windfarm on earth produces its nameplate capacity for any length of time. Average annual output is very rarely even the 30% of nameplate capacity developers routinely claim and usually closer to 20%. In other words, applying the 1989 Acts to windfarms whose actual capacity is under 50MW is a democratic cheat to get more windfarms built.

The Scottish Government knows people aren’t happy. As with other troubling aspects of wind development, it has commissioned a study to pilot an alternative model for democratic engagement: citizens’ juries. SAS sits on the stewarding board, and Graham Lang has been a witness for three different juries in different parts of Scotland.

The leader of the research Oliver Escobar is speaking at a public event shortly in Edinburgh which seeks to ‘reclaim local democracy’.

According to an industry publication ‘the wind industry in Scotland is single-mindedly focused on delivering every last ounce of onshore and offshore capacity before the Renewables Obligation goes dark in three years’ time’. As the pace of wind development hots up as never before, the Scottish Government is sitting on its hands. Commissioning studies, laudable as they are, looks like fiddling while Rome burns.

Meanwhile those directly affected are taking matters into their own hands. Various legal actions against wind farm consents are underway following in the trailblazing footsteps of Aileen Jackson, Christine Metcalfe, Sally Carroll, Donald Trump and Sustainable Shetland.

Communities are also rising up. Recently, SAS were at a public meeting of Dunkeld and Birnam Community Council where voters called their local MSP John Swinney to account over allowing their iconic area to be besieged by 10 new wind farm developments.

Swinney tried to hide behind the ministers’ code of conduct and to pretend we have a clear and robust planning system for wind, but residents who already have Griffin and Calliacher windfarms on their doorsteps were not convinced. As this newsletter goes topress, another unprecedented communities’ meeting has been called to resist wind development in the Angus Glens.

The Scottish Government should be in no doubt that community councils the length and breadth of Scotland will be following Dumfries & Galloway’s lead. The cries of ‘Enough isenough!’ and ‘We can’t cope’ are growing. Paid employees in the Scottish Government, local authorities, SNH, SEPA and other official agencies cannot say so publicly but we know many agree.

LINDA HOLT is press officer for Scotland Against Spin

Climate Alarmists Can’t Make Reality, Match up With Their Computer Models…

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

The Greatest Climate Myths of All – Part 2.

Posted on June 26, 2014

Guest essay by Jim Steele,

Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

In part one, I wrote “In the simplest of terms, every study that has attributed the recent warming of the 1980s and 90s to rising CO2 has been based on the difference between their models’ reconstruction of “natural climate change” with their models’ output of “natural climate change plus CO2.” However the persistent failure of their models to reproduce how “natural climate changed before,” means any attribution of warming due to CO2 is at best unreliable and at worse a graphic fairy tale.”

 

Like failed modeling results illustrated in Part 1, scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit published Attribution Of Polar Warming To Human Influence1. Again their models failed to account for the heat during Arctic’s earlier natural warming (black line), a warming climate scientists called “the most spectacular event of the century”. Their “natural models” grossly underestimated the 40s peak warming by ~0.8° C (blue line) and when CO2 and sulfates were added the warming event was cooled further (red line). So how much do we trust models’ attribution when they get climate change half wrong?

clip_image002

Over millennial time spans, researchers reported similar failures reconstructing the Medieval Warm Period writing, “Inter-model differences and model/reconstruction comparisons suggest that simulations of the Medieval Climate Anomaly either fail to reproduce the mechanisms of climate response to changes in external forcing, or that anomalies during this period are largely influenced by internal variability.“2 Modeling also fails at smaller regional levels with superior data coverage, such as California. As Dr. Phillip Duffy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote “Neither the nature of climate trends in California nor their causes are well understood.”3

Sidestepping such failures, alarmists note models can generate random unforced warming events about every 150 years and that last a decade or so. And so they suggest early Arctic warming was a random event caused by “internal variability” that can’t be modeled. But there was less than a 13% chance that random warming happened in the 30s, and that random warming could have equally contributed to the 80s and 90s, meaning CO2contributed little. And that arguments does not alter the fact that CO2-driven climate models fail to reproduce natural climate change of the past.

Alarmist believe CO2 is the “control knob” of climate change and Dr. James Hansen, who studied climate on lifeless planets devoid of oceans, proselytizes that belief. On other planets the “radiative balance” is the critical climate variable. But that narrow focus has biased Hansen and his disciples who have underestimated the power of ocean oscillations. Fortunately here on earth, there is a growing awareness that natural ocean oscillations persist for many decades and control how heat is stored, redistributed and ventilated. Those oscillations increasingly appear to be the most powerful “climate control knobs” and many advocates of CO2 warming now blame the cool phases of these ocean oscillations for “masking” or “hiding” hypothesized heat. But natural ocean oscillations have also raised temperatures, and regards to understanding both 20th century warming events in the Arctic, ocean oscillations offer the superior explanation.

From latitudes 40° North or South to the poles, the earth increasingly ventilates more heat than it absorbs. Climate change at those higher latitudes is dominated by variations in the transport of surplus tropical heat. Scientists estimate “Without these heat transports the atmosphere would have an equator-pole surface air temperature difference of 100° C, which is more than twice the present value of 40°C.”4 Equally important, surplus equatorial heat is generated by the sun, with a very small and dubious contribution from CO2. As reported by the IPCC in the Physical Science Basis, “In the humid equatorial regions, where there is so much water vapour in the air that the greenhouse effect is very large, adding a small additional amount of CO2 or water vapour has only a small direct impact on downward infrared radiation. However, in the cold, dry polar regions, the effect of a small increase in CO2 or water vapour is much greater.”

clip_image004

However both 20th century Arctic warming events are associated with greater volumes of warm water intruding into the Arctic driven by the warm phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation. And as would be expected, the poleward range of southerly marine organisms has ebbed and flowed accordingly.

In a 2013 peer-reviewed paper,5 scientists examined the migration of marine organisms into the Arctic reporting, “The fauna of the southern North Sea exhibits clear changes. Particularly conspicuous is the increase of Mediterranean fish species and the occurrence of sardine eggs and larvae. There is no doubt, that these observations are associated with the climate change which has been shown to occur since several decades, and which, over the last years, has had important consequences for fisheries: decrease of catches,northwards shift of fishing grounds, adaptation to fisheries for different species. …particularly interesting questions are: will climate change continue and, also, shifts and changes of fish stocks, how long will this last, and which are the consequences, if this trend reverses?”

Sounds familiar, but the above quote was written by Aurich in 1953. Like the earlier warming event and migrations, the most recent northward advance of small fish such as sardines, anchovies and herring correlate very well with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the current distribution of fish from southerly waters is “almost identical to that described by Aurich for 1951.”5 After the earlier warm event those fish retreated and were absent from the North Sea surveys during the 1970s and 90s. So the next few decades should provide the evidence needed to settle much of the climate debate. If natural cycles are indeed the climate control knob, the next 2 decades should witness a cool phase of the AMO and the retreat of southerly marine organisms. And the current scientific consensus that the upper 300 meters of the oceans have been cooling since 2003 bodes well for natural cycles prediction.13

To support dubious climate model attributions, the scientific literature has been increasingly spammed with papers creating the second greatest climate myth: migrating organisms are evidence of CO2 driven warming. However their arguments fail to account for the myriad of confounding factors affecting the biosphere. The same biological evidence used to instill CO2 fear, is also consistent with interpretations attributing landscape changes and/or natural climate cycles that modulate heat transport to the poles. If marine organisms migrated similarly pre-1950s when CO2 was an insignificant player, then the most parsimonious explanation is identical migrations today are driven by the same natural forces.

clip_image006

Good science demands we examine how climate changed naturally in the past, not to uncritically dismiss the possibility of CO2–caused warming, but to understand to what degree present climate change is driven by historical cycles. Only by thoroughly examining climate history can we estimate natural contributions and evaluate earth’s sensitivity to rising CO2. This is most critical because climate history is now repeating itself.

However those eager to blame rising CO2 have downplayed natural oscillations. Alarmists recently published Global Imprint Of Climate Change On Marine Life,” which press releases hyped in the media. Alarmist websites like ClimateProgress ranted, “The research is more confirmation that “global change is real and has been real for a long time. It’s not something in the distant future. It is well underway.”

The truth is natural cycles are well underway, as they always have been. And that dynamic is being hijacked.

The “Global Imprint” analyses suffered from the same shortcomings uncovered in inflated claims that 97% of the scientists agree about climate change. The authors similarly surveyed on-line abstracts from which they extracted only papers suggesting ecological changes were driven by climate change. Their filter effectively removed all analyses examining other confounding factors. Furthermore most of the papers in their compilation only studied responses during the warm phases of natural ocean cycles beginning in the 70s, after most marine organisms had retreated south. Thus their meta-analyses totally obscured the cyclic warming and cooling that accompanied those migrations during the 20th century. From their carefully filtered database, they claimed, “81–83% of all observations for distribution, phenology, community composition, abundance, demography and calcification across taxa and ocean basins were consistent with the expected impacts of climate change.”8

But like the “97% consensus” methodology, their 83% disguised the fact that the vast majority of species were non-responders. Of the 857 species examined, only 279 (or 33%) changed distribution. Sixty-seven percent had no response and therefore “were not included because failure to detect a change in distribution may have several causes, including barriers to dispersal, poor sampling resolution or the dominance of alternative drivers of change.” Changes in distribution also has several caused but again their data selection guaranteed a statistical bias. If all the 857 species were accounted for, a mere 27% behaved in a manner “consistent” with CO2 theory. More importantly most of those species were also behaving in a manner consistent with natural cycles.

It was not surprising to see the IPCC’s Camille Parmesan co-authored this paper. As I have documented before Parmesan has “inaccurately” blamed CO2 warming forextinctions due to lost habitat from urban sprawl, hijacked conservation success to arguepoleward movement of butterflies was caused by climate change, and blamed CO2 and extreme weather for a population extinction caused by logging while neighboring natural populations thrived. Now she again hijacks marine migrations caused by natural climate oscillations as “proof” of global warming. And both the “Global Imprint” lead author and Parmesan co-authored a paper contradicting scientific consensus, arguing “Species’extinctions have already been linked to recent climate change; the golden toad is iconic.”15

In contrast to the fearful “science via press release,” the peer-reviewed literature is filled with evidence that supports a more parsimonious natural cycles explanation. In 1997 fishery biologists (not climate scientists) discovered the climate changing Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) after realizing that every 20 to 30 years salmon abundance shifted between Alaska and Oregon. When the PDO entered it positive phase around 1976, biologists observed northward migrations of plankton, fish and bottom dwelling organisms. Likewise temperatures increased. Climate scientists also reported “when the PDO value changed from dominantly negative to dominantly positive values, a sudden temperature increase across Alaska was observed.”6 After the 1997 El Nino, the PDO began to trend back to its negative cool phase. Sea surface temperature anomalies reverted “to that seen throughout the North Pacific before 1976.”14 Bering Sea ice began to increase reaching record extent in 2012 and Alaska became one of the most rapidly cooling locations on earth as the average for Alaskan weather stations experienced a extraordinary temperature drop of 1.3° C for the decade.6

As eastern Pacific temperature trends from Alaska to the Southern California Bight reversed, species of fish that had once moved northward are now retreating southward. Researchers in the Southern California Bight reported that above all other environmental factors, the changes in fish abundance has correlated best with the PDO regime shifts.7Such evidence prompted Monterrey Bay Aquariums chief scientist to warn that “These large-scale, naturally occurring variations must be taken into account when considering human-induced climate change and the management of ocean living resources.”8 After all it was the shifting PDO that disrupted Monterrey’s fishing industry as described by John Steinbeck in Cannery Row.

In the Atlantic, poleward intrusions of warm water driven by natural cycles have similarly altered sea ice and the distribution of marine organisms. Satellite pictures (below) clearly show that the recent loss of winter Arctic ice has occurred along the pathway by which warmer waters enter the Barents Sea, deep inside the Arctic Circle, while simultaneously air temperatures far to the south remain cold enough to maintain a frozen Hudson Bay. Before those warm water intrusions facilitated the loss of sea ice, air temperatures in the 80s and 90s reported a slight cooling trend contradicting CO2 theory.12

clip_image008

Much of the warming in the Arctic in the 20s and 40s, as well as in recent decades was likely due to increased ventilation of ocean heat after sea ice was reduced by intruding warm water and the altered atmospheric circulation. A comparison of Danish Sea ice records from August 1937 with satellite pictures from August 2013, illustrate very similar losses of Arctic ice. As would be expected, a slightly greater proportion of thicker sea ice formed during the Little Ice Age would likely remain during the first warming event compared to recent decades. The slightly warmer Arctic temperatures of the recent decade can be attributed to a greater loss of thicker multiyear ice that is ventilating more ocean heat. But past performance never guarantees the future. Scientific opinions and predictions must be validated by experimentation or future observations. If indeed natural cycles are the real climate control knobs, the next 15 to 20 years will settled the debate. While alarmists predict total loss of ice by 2030 (and earlier predictions have already failed), believers in the power of natural cycles expect Arctic sea ice to rebound by 2030. Until then the science is far from settled. And claims that the science is settled just one more of the great climate myths. (Part 3 will look at the chimeras created by averaging and meta-analyses)

clip_image010

Literature Cited

Gillett et al (2008), Attribution Of Polar Warming To Human Influence. Nature Geoscience Vol 1

www.nature.com/naturegeoscience

González-Rouco et al (2011), Medieval Climate Anomaly To Little Ice Age Transition As Simulated

By Current Climate Models. PAGES news, Vol 19.

Duffy, P.B., et al., (2006), Interpreting Recent Temperature Trends in California. Eos, Vol. 88.

Liu, Z., and M. Alexander (2007), Atmospheric Bridge, Oceanic Tunnel, And Global Climatic

Teleconnections, Rev. Geophys., Vol. 45, RG2005, doi:10.1029/2005RG000172.

Alheit et al (2013), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Modulates Dynamics Of Small Pelagic

Fishes And Ecosystem Regime Shifts In The Eastern North And Central Atlantic. Journal of Marine Systems, vol. 133.

Wendler,G., et al. (2012) The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 111-116

Jarvis, E. , et al., (2004), Comparison of Recreational Fish Catch Trends to Environment‑species Relationships and Fishery‑independent Data in the Southern California Bight, 1980-2000. Recreational Fish Catch Trends, CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 45.

Poloczanska et al (2013), Global Imprint Of Climate Change On Marine LIfe. Nature Climate Change Vol. 3.

Chavez et al.(2003) From Anchovies to Sardines and Back: Multidecadal Change in the Pacific Ocean. Science, vol. 299.

Bengtsson, L., et al., (2004) The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism. Journal of Climate, vol. 445-458.

Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony (2002), Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, J. Climate, v. 15, no. 18, pp. 2648 – 2668.

Kahl, J., et al., (1993) Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years. Nature, vol. 361, p. 335‑337, doi:10.1038/361335a0

Xue,Y., et al., (2012) A Comparative Analysis of Upper-Ocean Heat Content Variability from an Ensemble of Operational Ocean Reanalyses. Journal of Climate, vol 25, 6905-6929.

Peterson, W., and Schwing, F., (2003) A new climate regime in northeast pacific ecosystems. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, doi:10.1029/2003GL017528.

Parmesan, C., et al. (2011) Overstretching attribution. Nature Climate Change, vol. 1, April 2011

About these ads

The Climate Change Scam….It has always been, “About the Money!!”

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

‘Climate Reparations’ an idea that seems to be all about money

Posted on June 26, 2014

Climate Reparations—A New Demand

Guest opinion by Peter Wood

At the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, leaders from more than a hundred nations gathered to consider an agenda that included a massive transfer of money from developed countries to the Third World.  The developed states were tagged to provide $130 billion by 2020 to help developing nations deal with the consequences of global warming.  The proposed transfer was widely discussed as “reparations” for the damage caused by use of fossil fuels in the developed world.

 

The Copenhagen proposal went down in ignominious defeat.  A motley collection of Third World countries brought the idea up again in 2013 in the run-up to the UN’s climate conference in Warsaw, but by then whatever impetus the idea had had was gone.  President Obama instructed the U.S. delegate to oppose it.  The State Department explained:

“It’s our sense that the longer countries look at issues like compensation and liability, the more they will realize this isn’t a productive avenue for the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] to go down.”

The U.S. Government may have sidled away from this climate change compensation scheme but the underlying idea hasn’t gone away.  When the broader public and the world at large dismisses a “progressive” idea, that idea is almost certain to find an enthusiastic welcome on university campuses.  The notions of “climate reparations” and more broadly “climate justice” have settled in as things that campus philosophers philosophize about and campus activists activize over.

Possibly this is something that busy people should ignore. “Climate reparations” may turn out to be like the campaign to establish Esperanto as a world language. Esperanto, invented in the 1870s, was put forward as a tool for ending ethnic conflict and fostering world peace.  It enjoyed an American vogue in the 1960s, perhaps best remembered for a 1966 horror movie, Incubus, starring William Shatner, in which the entire dialogue was spoken in Esperanto.

Those who speak to Americans right now of climate reparations might as well be lecturing in Esperanto, since few of us want this economic incubus.  But it is never wise to entirely ignore the ideas gestating in the faculty towers.  Sometimes they get translated into actual political movements.

From Race to Environment

This thought came to mind when I came across an essay by a writer for the New America Foundation.  In “The Cost of Ignoring America’s Past,” Hana Passen begins by setting forth an astonishing parallel:

“If we do not face the lasting impact of slavery, which has been abolished by law and condemned in the court of morality, how will we be able to legislate issues like climate change, which some still deny?”

Passen, it turns out, hadn’t conjured the moral equivalence of slavery and climate change out of thin air.  She was paraphrasing Atlantic editor Ta-Nehisi Coates, who sets it out even more starkly:

“What [slavery] reparations requires is a country and a citizenry that can look at itself in the mirror naked and see itself clearly,” Coates said during a recent conversation with New America President Anne-Marie Slaughter. “And that’s the same argument for climate change. What is required for reparations, that kind of citizenry, that kind of patriotism, is not just required on that front.”

Coates’ article in the Atlantic, “The Case for Reparations,” was a huge hit for the rather stodgy journal.  According to its editor James Bennett, Coates’ article “brought more visitors to the Atlantic [website] in a single day than any single piece we’ve ever published.”  It also sold out on newsstands.  But in his article Coates stuck entirely to the theme of racial reparations and did not raise the green flag of climate reparations he brought up his New America interview.

Reparations for slavery is an idea that has been churning among African-Americans for a very long time, and one that grows less and less plausible as a practical political matter with every year that passes since the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) and the passages of the 13th and 14th Amendments (1865, 1868).  But slavery reparations, or reparations for racial injustice more broadly conceived, are a durable fantasy, and it isn’t wholly surprising that a fresh enunciation of the case for them has excited attention.

But that’s a topic for another day.  The relevance of racial reparations to “climate justice” is that it serves as a conceptual and moral model.  Somebody has done something bad to someone.  Somebody has to pay.

Cotton Mather’s View

Mr. Coates is an editor, not an academic.  But the academic world is astir with ideas about how to apportion responsibility for climate change.  In this realm, any debate whether global warming is occurring and to what degree it can be attributed to human actions is entirely foreclosed.  It is simply assumed or asserted that catastrophic man-made climate change is upon us, and the discussion moves directly to identifying the culprits and apportioning the costs.  In this vein, the discussion bears a certain resemblance to debate in 17th century New England on how to handle the danger posed by witches.  It is as provocative today to express doubt in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as it would have been to argue with Cotton Mather about relying on spectral evidence.  As Mather said, “Never use but one grain of patience with any man that shall go to impose upon me a Denial of Devils, or of Witches.” In what follows, I will abide by Mather’s counsel.

What do academics argue about when it comes to climate reparations?  Simon Carey, a professor of political theory at the University of Birmingham, lays out some useful distinctions in “Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change.”  There is wide agreement on the “polluter pays principle” (PPP), Carey says.  But there is disagreement whether the true polluter is the individual who pollutes or the nation that benefits from his actions.  “Many of those who adopt the PPP approach to climate change appear to treat countries as the relevant units.”  Carey, who might be described as a climate liberal, rejects this collectivist approach, which he said is founded on the “beneficiary pays principle” (BPP). Current generations have benefited from the pollution caused by their ancestors, so the current generation should be held collectively responsible.  The Copenhagen proposal—which came four years after Carey’s article—embodies BPP logic.

Carey himself, however, believes that BPP violates PPP.  The original polluter often doesn’t pay at all, because he is dead, and the payments ignore all the improvements to the standard of living that flow from past industrialization. Carey isn’t against making people pay; he just wants individuals to pay for the harm they themselves do.  Presumably he would endorse making BP (the oil company) pay for the damage caused by the 2010blowout of its well in the Gulf of Mexico.

This summary is probably enough to suggest that the debate over climate reparations is a serious matter drawing serious attention from scholars.  I won’t take the space here for a deep dive into climate reparations scholarship, but a little snorkeling around the reef is enlightening.

Backward-Looking Laws

In 2008, Daniel Farber published “Basic Compensation for Victims of Climate Change” inEnvironmental Law and Policy Annual Review.  Farber attempted to identify the injuries that deserve compensation and the “responsible parties.”  He also gave voice to the racial reparations analogy:

“The problem is somewhat analogous to the diffuse issues raised by those seeking reparations for slavery and past racial discrimination.”

Farber is a professor of law at UC Berkeley where he holds a named chair and co-directs the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment.  He is a consequential and well-published figure.  His works include, not incidentally, a law review article, “Backward-Looking Laws and Equal Protection:  The Case of Black Reparations” (2006).  His books include Disaster Law; Disaster Law and Policy; and Eco-pragmatism:  Making Sensible Environmental Decisions in an Uncertain World.  His article on black reparations is essentially a meditation on Justice Stevens’ approach to reparations, who he says, “clearly prefers forward-looking rationales for affirmative action over remedial ones” and “might vote against reparations on that basis.”

Farber’s article on compensation for victims of climate change elicited a number of responses, most interestingly from Kenneth Feinberg, the man who served as Special Master to the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund and who also ran the $20 billion BP oil spill victims’ fund.  Feinberg disagreed with Farber’s approach that distributes financial responsibility among culprits by a “market share” contribution formula.  Feinberg thinks it “more reasonable—and more politically feasible—to expect governments themselves to fund any compensation regimen.”  Feinberg also thinks it is premature to start cutting the checks.  “There is a great deal to be said for waiting until climate change litigation develops and matures…”

Why Wait?

There are many in the sustainability movement, however, who aren’t inclined to wait at all.  They act quickly, as we saw recently when an adjunct professor at American University ventured a criticism on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal of the climate reparations movement.  Professor Caleb Rossiter noted that:

“More than 230 organizations, including Africa Action and Oxfam, want industrialized countries to pay ‘reparations’ to African governments for droughts, rising sea levels and other alleged results of what Ugandan strongman Yoweri Museveni calls ‘climate aggression.’”

Rossiter argued that the campaign extended to efforts “to deny to Africans the reliable electricity—and thus the economic development and extended years of life—that fossil fuels can bring.”  The reward to Rossiter for his airing this complaint was a prompt firingfrom his position as a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.  (Cotton Mather would approve.)

As part of the National Association of Scholars’ study of the sustainability movement, I have begun to track the “reparations” thread within the universities.  It has several aliases, including “environmental justice,” “climate compensation,” “climate change liability,” “climate debt,” and “climate reparations.”  The last in the list is the term preferred by Maxine Burkett, a law professor at the University of Hawaii, who argues that reparations put the “moral issues” appropriately at the center of the debate and offer the possibility of “galvanizing greater enthusiasm and commitment to repair from individuals, communities and nation-states.”  She thinks reparations would “foster civic trust between nations and manifest social solidarity.”

Judging from the Copenhagen and Warsaw conferences, that dream of international amity is far-fetched.  We might have a better chance by sitting ourselves down to learn Esperanto.

But lest this seem too airy a dismissal of a movement that combines heartfelt sympathy for a world imagined to be warming to disaster with cold determination to plunder the West by litigation and treaty, let me add that I take the reparations movement as a force to be reckoned with.  Hundreds of professors are honing it at law schools, environmental institutes, and schools of public policy.  Who pays?  As we say in Esperanto, Finfine, vi kaj mi. [Eventually, you and me.]

===============================================================

Originally published in Minding the Campus. Peter Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars.

German People Plead With Their Government, to Stop the Wind Scam!

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

Letter to the Members of the 18th German Bundestag

On 26 and 27.6.2014 the German Bundestag wants to adopt the reform of the EEG. Despite harsh criticism by the EU Commission.

To ensure that no Member of Parliament can say afterwards that he knew nothing about health hazards and negation of species protection, wind delusion has all the members of the 18th German Bundestag wrote the following letter and sent by email.

If you want our people Represented write a few lines, come and find here the contact details for all Members: http://www.flegel-g.de/2014-Mailadressen-alle-Bt-18-Wahlperiode.html (you may have replace the semicolon with a comma to insert the list of deputies in an address line of your email program.)

 

Dear Members,

The reform of the EEG is at the Bundestag for a decision.Many lobbyists will contact you for months, so you use your voice to help these economic and ideological benefits. It tries to influence you and many wishes and demands are brought to you.

    We have no claims on you. 

    Rather, we would like to ask for your concerns to include the welfare of your electorate before making your decision.

Many of you have already before the federal election in 2013 of various lobby organizations such as the BWE (German Wind Energy Association) funded ” renewable energy revolution now “or thecitizen energy revolution sponsored by Juwi , BUND , BWE can, inter alia, collect, and these in the event of your choice to Bundestag pledged your support. Here it is not surprising that the official government commissioned report of the Advisory Council promptly disappeared because of the adverse outcome in the sinking and the complaint of the Regulatory Control Council for EEGremained unheard.
We, citizens of this country, taxpayers and voters, many of us living in the countryside, looking for your support. Not to us to enrich with your help or to convince you of an ideology, but because we want to remind you on Friday comply with the vote on the EEG reform your obligation to act for the benefit of the people.

With the themes of economy and national wealth, energy efficiency, unreliability of so-called renewable energy and skyrocketing electricity prices, we do not want to bother you, many others, such as the federal initiative power of reason , have already done to enlightenment. For this report, even the German media.

On the subject of social justice and democracy, which has to do with freedom of speech for dissenters and tolerance, with the village of peace, the preservation of specially unearned property and related old-age security and creditworthiness to read little and you may think it’s all good in the country?

From energy poverty, which was a marginal phenomenon in German society before and today has already reached hundreds of thousands of households the power switched off, you have heard certain. Also assume that the cost of the energy revolution by the EEG are not calculable by the perks for many lobby groups to absurdity of paying for not produced and not abzunehmenden power because of overload or not existing networks.
already today calls on the EU that in the foreign electricity produced from so-called renewable on domestic support measures must be subsidized if it is consumed domestically.
Surely you have already thought about how, for example, prices will explode only when, as with “Northern Link is planned, “in a big way power would be transported from the Norwegian pump storage plants in Germany, who is also the Norwegian producer profits through EEG would give to EU demands.

From the damage to nature and biodiversity, to the “gold rush” has done for wind power plants, biogas and photovoltaic fields, transported through the EEG, you must have heard this before.barotrauma caused by differences in air pressure can the lungs of bats and birds burst, the avifauna is driven by the effect of displacement from their habitats. Birds, especially Griffins as red kites are, by 300 km / h fast slain rotating blades . The avifauna is no food and no more breeding sites aftermonocultures have destroyed their habitat . Grassland birds are scared away either by wind power plants, such as the lapwing or the skylark or robbed by new animal by newcomers such as the fox and the wild boar of their nest. Avifauna lands in search of water on huge photovoltaic fields and burns . , the continental and intercontinental bird migration are robbed of their flight paths through huge barriers of wind power plants up to their altitude. nature and animal protection laws are a means of a license to kill with the granting of planning permission and successive reduction of the habitat of biodiversity through new spacing rules as a gift for EEG lobbyists undermined. square kilometers way forests are vanishing, and huge bogs are drained and abused as locations for wind power plants, and thus destroyed the main CO2 storage. , the right to rest in nature and an intact landscape is one of the human rights. These are sacrificed for years the energy turnaround.

The injustice against nature and against the civil rights will eventually trumped by the threat to the health of residents.
From botulism , the slow poisoning of humans and animals through the application of Gärschlämmmen from biogas plants you have already read?
Each funded by EEG biogas plant increases the spread of this dangerous disease!
make also of the rare earths for use in wind turbine gearboxes and photovoltaic their promotion of thousands of workers and their families sick, to destroy the environment in the producing countries?continuous noise than for Illness is you will be aware, he is often discussed, unless it comes from highways, factories, airports and was defined as “bad” noise. Continuous noise of wind power plants, pumps and cooling units, with additional noise peaks by impulsiveness, audio components and information is from local residents in accordance with policy specification to endure as a “good” noise, Ebeso as the non-audible, but by the vibrations from tactile infrasound and visual pollution Shadow Strike and Flashing continuously in a formerly quiet and relaxing surroundings in a natural environment. These diseases affect not only the psyche of the residents, but provide some of them serious disease symptoms.

The following diseases caused by noise are sure many of you do not realize it, because the issue of low-frequency and infrasound, which although researched for decades , it will infrasound weaponsare and the New York police demonstrators by infrasound wards, but is not made ​​by the local media publicized . If it does is once wrote or sent via infrasound, the lobbyists and ideologues sitzten in editing or in the editing room. This is abgewiegelt immediately and through studies vonPartner universities ( here and here ) of the various lobby groups that still against better knowledge of the hazardous nature of infrasound report which, although situated below the hearing threshold of 20 Hz, but body organs and material to vibrate and brings to vibrate the inner ear tissue, cardiac muscle, vein walls , among others damaged, forcing stressors for continuous activity and stimulates the immune system and leads to dangerous interference with the development of white blood cells and the appearance of immature cells in the blood .

For example demonstrates the latter study from 2010 clearly shows that the immune system by infra-sound even at low sound pressures is damaged. Thus, investigations of Dr. Pierpont, Dr. Harry, Professor Salt or Dr. Laurie were confirmed, which could prove beyond doubt in their studies, among other things, that emitted by wind turbine infrasound damages human health

That the selection of different sound disorders not only meeting people but also breeding animals shows the most recent example of Denmark, where in 1600 mink after commissioning of neighboring wind power plants dead, malformed and arrived early to the world, adult mink each other with bites have seriously injured to Death.
studies and investigations on the vibration-acoustic disease (VAD) of the team led by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira and Dr. Nuno Castelo Branco from the University of Lisbon, conducting research since 1980 on the subject of infrasound, first at cabin crew and pilots, since the late 90 then to wind power plants, there injured people have led to the introduction of an occupational pension for infrasound. The investigations of Vibro Acoustic Disease (VAD) deal with the lobby-independent-working team of the University Lusófona with tissue changes in humans and animals (horses, goats).
The first research there were in fact already in 1912 and 1917 in Austria .

Especially after Your MEPs colleague Ms. Hoehn of the Greens recently claimed in a letter of reply to a wind power opponents citizens’ initiative that the opinion of Prof. Salt a personal opinion and his research was flawed, it seems to be necessary to make reference to the long period of research and their diversity.

Call we want only some, but allow us the following request:
Pay attention to the relevant source information among the various studies. You’ll be amazed at how much research already operated for infrasound for 100 years and how many more studies have been published worldwide!
Mc Cauley, Kelly , Carl Philip, Nina Pierpont , Dres Enbom , Harry, Nissenbaum, Hubbart & Shepherd, Thorne , Laurie , mouse field, hamlets, Scholz and many more

There is even a study by Vestas in Australia who came only once to the public in 2004 during a wind energy conference. There, the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas warned of the effects of infrasound on the neighbors of its wind turbines. On their official website , however, they summon harmlessness of infrasound.
In Canada and Australia are currently established long-term measurements for infrasound place inDenmark is one such under the auspices of two ministries and carried out by the company to combat cancer in preparation.
, the Here in Germany there are now at least recently released feasibility study by Prof. Krahé of the University of Wuppertal . Mr. Krahé talks and publishes about infrasound way as his colleagues Salt , Kelly, Alves-Pereira, Nissenbaum , Hubbart & Shepherd, Ambrose & edge , Iser , Nobbs Doolan & Moreau , inter alia, the Inter-Noise. The texts are freely available to all interested parties.

(This link is important wg. Many of the various information, also affected!http://windwahn.de/index.php/krankheit-56/vibro-acoustic-disease/krank-durch-schall

You might wonder why nothing about reading in the general press and why it makes virtually no sound sick and attending doctor to speak in the FRG.
In a society that has delivered the various lobbies for years and that no questions this provides that lobbyists sit in Germany in droves in the Bundestag and the ministries make policy for their interest group and write the bills that are hardly tested adopted as law.
Harmful effects of tobacco and asbestos were at the instigation of the respective lobbies also many decades long downplayed with the help of lobby-dependent doctors, denied and covered up until you could no longer overlook the serious sequelae and wanted to finally to draw conclusions!

Quoting Prof. Dr. Alec Salt to the Ministry of Health in Victoria , AU, we would like you to please put your heart to ensure that it diemal not as long and our country is not ruled by lobbyists but by you as representatives of the people responsible for the welfare of your fellow citizens, which of course decide independently and freely without being guided by economic interests of others and of ideologies.
” It is irresponsible to maintain the highest degree of a Ministry of Health that low-frequency sound can have no physiological effect when publicly available experimental results prove the contrary. Ministry of Health of the public fails to protect against the potential risks of low frequency sound by its lack of objective and balanced assessment. “

By the way: There are quite politicians who have the courage to have their own opinion and this also known to do: For example, Senator Madigan, he buttoned up in the Australian Parliament during a 20-minute speech, just the, well paid by the beneficiaries of the use of wind energy and always most cited on the subject of nocebo effect Prof. Simon Chapman before and calling his “scientific” lobby study together with his cynicism in dealing with concerned and affected citizens by infrasound.
Whether there will be in Germany one day politicians who do the same by dieLobbystudien ofpsychologist Dr. John Pohl , Martin- Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg clear for all to hear as make the public what they are, courtesy report for the wind power industry, appears still very questionable.
A recent example of how the study leader Hübner and Pohl a study of annoyance due to wind turbines of the Faculty of Psychology tangible physical symptoms caused by infrasound negate simply click here . The fact that the interviewed residents of the expert absurdum which leads immediately ad by referring to the once positive attitude of local residents before the construction of the facilities and is plagued by disease symptoms but in the aftermath, speaks volumes, but is hardly noticed.

How many residents in the radius of 10 km and depending on sound sensitivity sometimes even more ill results, in addition to the many studies that 30-40 % of residents speak world from the personal accounts on many websites. . Therein you will find evidence of unsaleable property after the construction of wind farms, people who leave their homes due to unbearable symptoms but who give up their company and financially lose in addition to the home and all
Please visit the websites and make yourself a picture: windturbinesyndrome.com, illwind.org, waubra-foundation.org.au, stilhed.eu, windwahn.de (illness, WTS, wind delusion Story Chapter 3, Affidavit, WTS initial symptoms in the search function), etc. Many of the information pages have a translator function.

That it for several years in Germany, more and more doctors out there that inform and symptoms of the disease by sound, occurred after the commissioning of wind power plants, pumps or other technichen plants and thus take seriously affected residents, is a poisitive development. The fact that many of these doctors being tempted to provide education, to write articles and give lectures is another step towards a more offensive approach to the compulsive hushed topic infrasound:
Article by Dr. Vogt , Dr. Nelting , Dr. Kuck (Ärzteforum Emission Control) – Videos Dr. Mayer andDr. Repp

These lectures and articles allow any interested party, all parties concerned and the sick, to become familiar with the subject infrasound in relative brevity, and to understand its symptoms. 
It would be a great asset to our company if you would take the time , the Enlightenment and view videos from PPPs and to read the article. 
Possibly would also awakened in your interest to deal more effectively with this is, by the increase in technical, infrasound-emitting plants, since two decades propagating environmental disease – for the benefit of the population.

Please provide us fellow citizens, residents of infrasound-emitting plants by the wind power plant on pumps to chillers, among others devices the necessary protection against low frequency and infrasound!

Thank you for taking note of our concerns on behalf of all affected or threatened by infrasound and other specified environmental conditions members of the EPAW (European Platform Against Windfarms) in Germany, as well as our “wind delusion” readers and wish you and us make wise choices among concerns above instructions.

Sincerely,

Jutta Reichardt and Marco Bernardi
spokeswoman for EPAW in D and editors and Webmastering by www.windwahn.de

 

Aussie, Clive Palmer, Supports Demolition of Carbon Tax Scam….while Al Gore, Looks On!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The truth inconveniently dawns on the Clive show THE AUSTRALIAN

  • JUNE 27, 2014

CLIVE Palmer must have been tempted to throw out some chicken pellets as he left. The former media adviser to Joh Bjelke-Petersen had just sold the chooks of the Canberra press gallery a chopping block and rotisserie, and they gobbled it up.

Journalists and commentators who had long campaigned against Tony Abbott and in favour of a carbon price had just been advised of a package that would kill the carbon tax, defer an emissions trading scheme into the never-never and put an end to carbon abatement through “direct action” — and they applauded. “Palmer in carbon tax blow to PM,” bellowed the front page of The Age, suggesting the Prime Minister’s plans to abolish the tax were in “chaos”, while The Sydney Morning Herald, which favours a price on carbon, editorialised that Mr Palmer’s intervention was a “positive” move for the environment.

That the Queensland coalmine developer and nickel-refining billionaire was audacious enough to think he could snow the media just by having Al Gore share his podium was bizarre enough. That so many in the media fell for it is droll and depressing in equal measure. As for Mr Gore, given his claims about the origins of the internet, he might have found 10 minutes to Google his new political ally before administering self-harm to his diminishing reputation as a climate evangelist. Did Mr Gore even know he was sharing the stage with a man who had often denied global warming was a problem and was planning to make billions of dollars from coal exports? Did the man who shared a Nobel prize for climate activism not even take the time to ascertain that what he was endorsing was the abolition of any and all substantial carbon emissions reduction schemes in this country?

SMH columnist Mike Carlton took to Twitter saying the announcement would “screw the Tories” but succeeded only in demonstrating his venom and lack of political acuity. “Cute of Palmer to front with Al Gore, though, it will drive the climate change deniers at News Corpse to an apoplectic frenzy, just watch,” was his take. If that weren’t embarrassing enough, no lesser figure than the managing director of the ABC shared an identical sentiment. “Sensing hyperventilation in The Australian’s editorial room,” tweeted Mark Scott. We should welcome Mr Scott’s honesty in publicly aligning himself with the embittered left fringe of politics but we should also despair that the ABC’s editor-in-chief should misunderstand policy and politics so comprehensively.

The policy implications of Mr Palmer’s stand are neither disappointing nor surprising. As expected — indeed, as promised — he will support the abolition of the carbon tax. Further, he has vowed to oppose Mr Abbott’s direct action plan. The Australian has always been sceptical of this policy because it will not lead to the lowest cost abatement. However, Mr Palmer’s stand means that the nation could be left with no scheme at all to enable the delivery of its emissions reduction target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The trump card, strangely lauded by much of the media, is his proposition to legislate an ETS that would be set at $0 until our major trading partners adopted similar schemes. This is a fundamentally sensible position at one level but includes some obvious paradoxes. Australia, effectively, already has an ETS because the carbon tax is due to switch to a market price next year. So what Mr Palmer really suggests is that a fixed price should be kept in place indefinitely but cut to the rate of zero. It would be a carbon price signal without a price signal. This is bizarre, of course, and really no more than spin. Few people could or would argue against an ETS to be imposed if and when our major trading partners adopted one. In fact that has been the consistent policy thread of most sensible advocates in this country since the Shergold report first informed the Howard government on these matters in 2007. And this newspaper has always supported that policy direction: an Australian ETS acting in concert with our trading partners. This is the only way to ensure we do not place ourselves at an economic disadvantage or simply export emissions, and jobs, offshore. The elephant in the room, which we suspect Mr Palmer sees but his media throng doesn’t, is that this won’t be happening any time soon. If ever. To demonstrate what a setback this is for carbon price supporters we simply need to consider the most optimistic scenario. Let us pretend for a moment that global agreement for a trading scheme occurred a decade from now. If that were the case we could see now that the ABC and Fairfax press have been cheering a policy that switches the nation from a $25.40 a tonne carbon price escalating every year for 10 years and raising a minimum of $70 billion, to one set at $0 raising nothing across a decade. Some progress.

And to shatter their climate dreams further, Mr Palmer, with Labor and the Greens, promises to axe the Coalition’s $2.5bn direct action plan that would have been spent entirely on domestic schemes to reduce carbon emissions. This is a great win for carbon pricing in the same way that the Titanic’s maiden voyage was a great win for trans-Atlantic travel.

Mr Palmer is demanding the renewable energy target remains in place. This initiative has long held bipartisan support but is under government review. Dismantling or reducing it would be difficult economically and politically, but keeping it will continue to put upward pressure on electricity prices. The heaviest burden will fall on the poor; not businessmen like Mr Palmer. By also insisting the Clean Energy Finance Corporation remains, Mr Gore’s newest friend ensures only some ongoing government subsidies and investments for industry; although without a carbon tax to fund it, the CEFC soon may wither and die.

So let’s consider the winners and losers from this week’s theatrics. Mr Palmer certainly wins because he has ensured that none of his companies will pay carbon tax and he has again been lauded by the ABC and other media, blowing more CO2 into his political balloon. Mr Abbott wins because he gets rid of the carbon tax and pockets the unexpected bonus of a $2.5bn budget benefit because he can’t get his direct action plan through the Senate. The Labor Party and the Greens lose because they will have conspired to eradicate any emissions reduction scheme — unless either of them backflips and supports direct action. The Greens eventually should wear the odium of having pulled off the extraordinarily counterintuitive feat of killing off climate action under Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Mr Abbott. The hypocrisy eventually may catch up with them. Or not.

The Palmer United Party may stay united or may fracture in the Senate; we would not presume to guess where this coagulation of characters and interests might end. But in the best traditions of the Queensland white shoe brigade, Mr Palmer has spun the media and the southern politicians to his personal advantage. Wednesday night on the ABC’s 7.30 Sarah Ferguson said the PUP leader was “putting himself at the vanguard” of climate policy. A couple of hours later on Lateline Tony Jones asked Mr Palmer what had caused his “road to Damascus conversion” on climate. At least Jones also asked Mr Palmer if he was “feeding the chooks”. Still, praise from a Nobel laureate, the ABC and the Fairfax press is not bad for a bloke who killed off climate action.

Eventually, reality began to set in. Even the Ten Network’s Paul Bongiorno, who tends to make Radio National hosts sound mainstream, could see through the smoke and mirrors. “The Australian seems to call it as it is,” he summarised, referring to our front page headline of “Palmer kills carbon action”. Independent senator Nick Xenophon declared the Palmer-Gore doctrine was “more ham than plan” and Mr Palmer emerged from talks with the Prime Minister confirming the carbon tax would, indeed, be axed. Almost 24 hours on from the excitement of seeing Mr Gore take the stage with a man who has an equally large carbon footprint, the overexcited media pundits started to grasp what was happening. It dawned on the Greens that they had been sold a pup (pun intended) and they began hoping Mr Palmer was befuddled. And over at Fairfax, Tony Wright had worked out that an ETS dependent on action from our trading partners might be some time off. “Say, just after world peace is achieved,” he mused. “Or when Clive becomes Jenny Craig’s poster boy.” Or, perhaps, when Mr Gore next endorses a death blow to climate action.

We Must Stand up to Greentard Bullies. They are Consummate Liars!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

GREEN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: HOW ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE WORLD

by  25 Jun 2014

Greenpeace has been having a rough time of it, of late. Good. As I argued yesterday, Greenpeace – and similarly powerful, unaccountable, virulently anti-capitalist environmental NGOs – represent one of the greatest economic and socio-political menaces in the world today. If you’re still in any doubt of this, you should read Richard North.His latest post contains damning evidence of the degree to which our laws and regulations are now created by green pressure groups and shadowy, green-infiltrated institutions over which we have no democratic control.

These include:

Green 10 (“an informal platform of environmental NGOs” in Europe including Birdlife International, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the WWF, funded by the EU and by the governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom);  the OECD’s Environmental Policy Committee (EPOC); the European Environment Bureau (EEB); the OECD Environment Directorate (which, with the International Energy Agency (IEA), serves as the Secretariat for the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and undertakes studies of issues related to the negotiation and implementation of international agreements on climate change); and the Geneva Environmental Network listing 110 green organisations in a subsidised office, supported by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and led by UNEP.

Do you find this sort of thing as agonisingly tedious as I do? Of course you do. Even just writing that last paragraph, it was all I could do not to stick forks in my eyeballs. I’m surprised you didn’t die reading it.

But this, you must understand, is the whole point. As I argued in Watermelons, boredom is the deadly secret weapon of the bien-pensant technocrats of the EU and the UN. “They wear outsiders down with the tedium of their arguments and the smallness of their fine print, so that by the time anyone else notices what they’re up to the damage has been done and it’s too late to do anything about it.”

So let me just explain simply, and without the use of any more distracting initials, what the problem is here. At every level of government across the Western world – from town councils (via Local Agenda 21) to supranational bodies like the United Nations (and its myriad environment programmes) the decision-making process has been hijacked by environmental activist groups like Greenpeace. Like some hideous green ouroborus, they simultaneously feed on and nourish one another. So, for example, various branches of the EU and the UK government give funding to green NGOs which then repay the favour by proselytising on behalf of the EU’s and the British government’s environmental initiatives and lobbying for more to be introduced.

By rights these activists ought to be treated with tremendous suspicion. As we know, for example, from Greenpeace’s appalling campaigning track record – such as its mendacious smearing of Shell over Brent Spar, and its dishonest representations about the Greenland ice shelf – these environmental groups comprise hard-left political activists entirely unsuited to dispensing unbiased policy advice. Yet, time and again, these misanthropic, Gaia-worshipping Luddites with their Mickey Mouse degrees in sustainability, whale management and polar bear empathy studies and their half-baked, junk-science-fuelled opinions on how to save the world from capitalism and the non-existent problem of “climate change”, are granted seats at the top table in every government environmental decision-making process.

We didn’t vote for these soap-dodging, bunny-hugging loons yet, increasingly, they are ruling all our lives. It’s time we followed India’s example and told them exactly where they can stick their green agenda.

Global Warming!! Just a fear tactic used to push the socialist Agenda 21.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

GLOBAL WARMING STUDY RIDICULED AFTER TEMPERATURES DROP

by  26 Jun 2014, 8:53 AM PDT 20POST A COMMENT

A UK Met Office study that predicted temperatures would rise by up to half a degree centigrade over the past 10 years faces ridicule after it was revealed that temperatures actually dropped over that period.

The peer-reviewed study by Doug M. Smith et al, entitled “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model” – and whichfeatured in the journal Science – also incorrectly predicted that several years over the past decade would see record heat.

The paper says:

“…predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004. Furthermore, at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record.”

However, now we are able to analyse the data on how temperatures really changed, we can see that there was actually a cooling of 0.014 degrees over the past 10 years, which is below even the lowest estimate.

Also, not a single year was warmer than 1998, despite the paper predicting that at least three years would be.

The above chart (credit: Kalte Sonne) shows the Met Office’s observed data (thin grey line) with the Smith et al predictions (red and blue lines) and the real trend (thick black line) overlaid. We can clearly see that not only does to real trend fall well outside the range of Smith et al’s predictions, it actually drops slightly.

Writing for the German climate blog Die Kalte Sonne, scientist Frank Bosse says that the Smith et al study failed to take into account known ocean cycles and other natural factors.

Smith has since written another paper, taking more factors into account, but Bosse writes that the range of uncertainty in it makes it “more or less useless”.

In a translation by NoTricksZone, Bosse concludes:

“As long as man is unable to determine with the needed precision the role natural variability plays in our observed climate, calculating the impact of greenhouse gases will remain prophecy. Do you feel guilty that you are still using incandescent light bulbs? Don’t fret over it!”

 

Citizens Fight the Unjust Green Energy Act, and the Lib. Gov’t

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Government cannot just let Goliath win

Government cannot just let Goliath win

Government cannot just let Goliath win

Grimsby Lincoln News

By  Amanda Moore

I really didn’t think David had a chance.

No offence to David — in this case, an ordinary group of citizens who have spent an extraordinary amount of time becoming pseudo-experts on all things industrial wind turbines — but at first there didn’t appear even the slightest chance of stopping the threat of wind power. It certainly seemed that way when the turbines began to rise from the rural landscape last fall. Though I understood your efforts, it seemed as though they were futile.

Yet you pushed on, and because of you operation of the project was stalled, and the project’s status went from approved to awaiting approval.

Four out of the five were built closer to neighbouring property lines than the stipulated distance — the height of the turbine from base to hub. That’s an 80 per cent error rate. If that was a math test, they’d have failed miserably.

If your neighbour builds a shed or fence too close to your property, there are steps that you can take to correct that action. But when the something they built too close is a 95-metre tall metal tower weighing 205 metric tonnes (plus the blades), it’s a little tricky. But in this case, I don’t know how the provincial government can justify letting this madness continue.

Land owner Anne Meinen wrote to the ministry to tell them; the location of one of the turbines is impacting her ability to farm her land — something she has done for more than 40 years. One of the turbines encroaches on two of her property lines (the property is L-shaped) and limits her use of aerial technology. Meinen made these points clear in her comments on the amendment that project proponents Vineland Power Inc. and Rankin Wind Energy filed after their mapping error was discovered.

Meinen and many of the other residents didn’t want the wind turbines in the first place. One drive around the site of the towering whirly birds will clearly give you the impression of a 100 per cent neighbour disapproval rating. So to have to just accept that big business can get it wrong and still get a rubber stamp is a slap in the face of the supposed democracy we have in this country.

When former premier Dalton McGuinty said he was going to get rid of the NIMBY crowd (Not In My Backyard), I don’t think he realized just how much people are willing to fight for their rights. Rights that we have today because our forefathers fought for them. McGuinty and his Green Energy Act may have enabled big business to move ahead with their wind agendas, but it didn’t quiet the bystanders. They are doing anything but standing down, and it’s paying off.

The latest disrespect shown by big business may be the stone that helps David take Goliath down; without consent from the Ministry of the Environment, the project was turned on, on June 12. They were told that doing so would be out of compliance, but that didn’t seem to matter.

It seems that big business thinks it can walk all over the residents without any recourse, and there hasn’t been any up until this point. When it was discovered the turbines were not built to the specified setbacks the province said that’s OK, you can file an amendment. A slap on the wrist that for some, is not enough.

What will happen now? Wind turbines are turned on without warning, without permission. What recourse is there for that? Premier Wynne, you say you became the minister of agriculture to fix your party’s broken relationship with rural Ontario. Now is the time to prove you were serious. How can you let big business stomp on the toes of innocent rural residents? Of Ontarians who chose to live in the country for the peace and quiet, not for the whomp, whomp, whomp of industrial wind turbines?

Your Green Energy Act has done more to harm the concept of green energy than it has in convincing Ontarians to embrace it. The township’s efforts to attract young families is thwarted by the bad reputation the wind turbines have garnered.

Municipalities like West Lincoln and Wainfleet have turned down applications for solar projects to express their dismay at the Act. That certainly is not helping Ontario, or anyone else end their reliance on draconian oil burning technology.

Solar, biomass, hydroelectricity and yes, even wind all have a place in Ontario but there needs to be more thought on how to implement these technologies in a way that is both affordable and appropriate. Ontarians deserve a clean environment but they don’t deserve to pay the price of ludicrous subsidies to live with technology they don’t want. Perhaps it is time for government sponsored programs which install solar panels on Ontarians roofs to minimize reliance on central power generation stations.

Premier Wynne, it is now up to you to do the right thing. Will you let big business step all over the little Davids who have little more than stones to cast at the business giants threatening their peaceful environment or will you take a stand? If you rubber stamp this project you are setting a dangerous precedent in this province. By approving the amendment, you are telling big business it is OK to break the rules. You are saying it’s OK for Goliath to pick on David with no recourse.

There is an Agenda Behind the Global Warming Scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

George Will: “Global Warming Is Socialism By The Back Door”

George Will sits down with The Daily Caller‘s Jamie Weinstein.

GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.

Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, “We are the real defenders of science,” and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.

I own a house in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, facing the Atlantic, where the hurricanes come from. After Katrina, the global warming people said, “This is just a sign of the violent weather that’s going to become more common because of global warming.” Well, that certainly interested me. Of course, since then, there’s been a collapse of hurricane activity.

I was a columnist in the 1970s when Newsweek, Time, all sorts of media outlets said the real problem is global cooling. I remember the Washington Post reporting that the armadillos were going south to escape the coming chill, the threat of glaciation over northern Europe. We’ve been through this before. You say, “What happened to global cooling?” They say, “Well, our models were wrong.” Now we’re supposed to risk several trillion dollars of global growth and spending on new models that might be wrong?

One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: “In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science.” Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.