Scientists betting on “Global cooling”!

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun’s activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: “There isn’t much money in climate science and I’m still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension.”

To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

In May, during BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.

Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.

Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.

“Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders,” he said. “By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid.”

Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.

More on Climate Alarmism!

Via.GREENIE WATCH.

17 April 2014

Crooked old Joe Romm defends Showtime’s Series On Climate Change

Note: Romm served as the series’ Chief Science Advisor. He doesn’t mention that in his article.

Romm also quotes “the country’s top climatologist” Michael Mann to support his temper tantrum. Mann is also a Science Advisor for the series. Romm didn’t mention that, either.

Romm repeatedly uses the word “they” rather than “we” to describe the film project.

The closest he comes to transparency is near the very end of the article when he writes, “I was not one of the producers of the show, but I have worked with them long enough to know that that sentence sums up their guiding philosophy.” True, he was not a “producer,” but his statement gives the impression he merely “worked with them” in some sort of minor, outside way. He never mentions just how central his role was as Chief Science Advisor.

Ironic that Romm’s article title accuses people who criticize the series as “dishonest,” yet he fails to be forthcoming about his role in the series and his lack of objectivity writing the article.

As soon as I saw the much discredited Michael Mann described as “one of the country’s top climatologists”, I stopped reading. Sometimes total detachment from the facts makes itself obvious — JR

The good news is the video of episode one of Showtime’s climate series, “Years Of Living Dangerously,” has been getting great reviews in the New York Times and elsewhere.

The bad news is the Times has published an error-riddled hit-job op-ed on the series that is filled with myths at odds with both the climate science and social science literature. For instance, the piece repeats the tired and baseless claim that Al Gore’s 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth” polarized the climate debate, when the peer-reviewed data says the polarization really jumped in 2009 (see chart above from “The Sociological Quarterly”).

As I said, “Years Of Living Dangerously” — the landmark 9-part Showtime docu-series produced by the legendary James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jerry Weintraub — has been getting great reviews. Andy Revkin, often a critic of climate messaging, wrote in the NY Times Monday:

“… a compellingly fresh approach to showing the importance of climate hazards to human affairs, the role of greenhouse gases in raising the odds of some costly and dangerous outcomes and — perhaps most important — revealing the roots of the polarizing divisions in society over this issue….”

George Marshall, “an expert on climate and communication,” — who is also often a critic of climate messaging — wrote me:

“What impressed me about the two episodes I watched was the respect that it showed to conservatives, evangelicals and ordinary working people…. it is still the best documentary I have seen.”

The New York Times op-ed is from the founders of the Breakthrough Institute — the same group where political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. is a Senior Fellow. It pushes the same argument that Pielke made in his fivethirtyeight piece — which was so widely criticized and debunked that Nate Silver himself admitted its myriad flaws and ran a debunking piece by an MIT climate scientist.

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two widely debunked eco-critics who run The Breakthrough Institute (TBI), begin by asserting “IF you were looking for ways to increase public skepticism about global warming, you could hardly do better than the forthcoming nine-part series on climate change and natural disasters, starting this Sunday on Showtime.” But they never cite anything other than the trailer in making their case, dismissing the entire enterprise on the basis of 2 minutes of clips!

They base their entire argument on a misrepresentation of climate science and a misrepresentation of social science. They assert:

“But claims linking the latest blizzard, drought or hurricane to global warming simply can’t be supported by the science.”

I asked one of the country’s top climatologist, Michael Mann, to respond to that….

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/09/3424593/showtime-years-dangerously-response
/

Why I’m cheering for fossil fuels this Earth Day

“The heavens reek, the waters below are foul … we are in a crisis of survival.” That’s how Walter Cronkite and CBS hyped the first Earth Day, back in 1970. Somehow we’ve survived since then, and most of life got better, although I never hear that from the worrywarts. Of course, some things got better because of government: We passed environmental rules that got most of the filth out of the air and sewage out of lakes and rivers. Great — but now we’re told that we’re in big trouble because greenhouse gases cause global warming. I mean, climate change.

Time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like “renewable” energy.

“Crop yields are down, deaths from heat are up,” says the Los Angeles Times. The “Worst Is Yet to Come,” warns The New York Times. This hype is not new. Alarmists always fool the gullible media. They once fooled me. A few years back, we were going to be killed by global cooling, overpopulation, pesticide residues, West Nile virus, bird flu, Y2K, cellphone radiation, mad cow disease, etc. Now it’s global warming. Reporters don’t make these scares up. The recent hype about global warming comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Most of its members are serious scientists. But reporters don’t realize that those scientists, like bird flu specialists, have every incentive to hype the risk. If their computer models (which so far have been wrong) predict disaster, they get attention and money. If they say, “I’m not sure,” they get nothing. Also, the IPCC is not just a panel of scientists. It’s an intergovernmental panel. It’s a bureaucracy controlled by the sort of people who once ran for student council and are “exhilarated by the prospect of putting the thumb of the federal government on the scale.” Actually, that wasn’t a quote from a global warming alarmist. It’s from anti-marijuana alarmist and former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joe Califano. But it’s the same crisis mindset. Scientists who disagree, who are reluctant to put their thumbs on the government scale, don’t feel welcome in the IPCC. It’s possible climate change may become a problem. But even if industrialization brings warming, we’ve got more important problems. On my TV show this week, statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out that “air pollution kills 4.3 million people each year … We need to get a sense of priority.” That deadly air pollution happens because, to keep warm, poor people burn dung in their huts. Yet, time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like “renewable” energy. “The amazing number that most people haven’t heard is, if you take all the solar panels and all the wind turbines in the world,” says Lomborg, “they have (eliminated) less CO2 than what U.S. fracking (cracking rocks below ground to extract oil and natural gas) managed to do.” That progress occurred despite opposition from environmentalists — and even bans in places like my stupid state, New York, where activists worry fracking will cause earthquakes or poison the water. Do environmentalists even care about measuring costs instead of just assuming benefits? We spend $7 billion to subsidize electric cars. Even if America reached the president’s absurd 2015 goal of “a million electric cars on the road” (we won’t get close), how much would it delay warming of the Earth? “One hour,” says Lomborg. “This is a symbolic act.” Symbolic. Environmentalism is now more religion than science. It even comes with built-in doomsday stories to warn people about what will happen if they disobey — a bit like the movie “Noah” that’s in theaters now. While environmentalists lament that our time is running out, environmental indicators get better, technological improvements reduce carbon dioxide, water gets cleaner for millions, and human life expectancy goes up. This Earth Day, instead of attacking those who sell fossil fuels, I will applaud them for overcoming constant environmental hysteria — while providing affordable energy that will allow us to fight poverty, which is the real threat to the people of the world.   John Stossel joined Fox Business Network (FBN) in 2009. He is the host of “Stossel” (Thursdays at 9 PM/ET), a weekly program highlighting current consumer issues with a libertarian viewpoint. Stossel also appears regularly on Fox News Channel (FNC) providing signature analysis.

The truth about Agenda 21!

Agenda 21? What is Agenda 21?

  • Agenda 21 kids book

Most people have never heard of Agenda 21. If they have heard of it, they likely believe it to be a vague United Nations program that will never see the light of day, or they believe it is imagined by conspiracy theorists. Yet, the principles contained in Agenda 21 are at the heart of many of our federal programs since the late 1990s. They reach every corner of the United States and impact millions of Americans who don’t even realize the document exists.

Although Agenda 21 was decades in the making, it was showcased to the world at the 1992 UN “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. It was there that President George H. Bush, along with leaders from 177 other nations, signed onto this “non-binding” UN action plan that was purportedly designed to assist governments at the local, national and international level implement the principles of so-called “sustainable development.” The “21” in the name refers to the 21st Century.

Agenda 21 made its way into the U.S. the following year when President Clinton quietly established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD codified Agenda 21 into U.S. policy through a program called Sustainable America. Today, nearly all federal programs dealing with land management, education, environment and much more are linked to Agenda 21 through Sustainable America.

Because of grassroots pushback, the federal government today rarely uses the term Agenda 21 or Sustainable America anymore – especially with any program it is promoting. Instead, programs which administer Agenda 21’s sustainable development principles are given warm and fuzzy titles like the America’s Great Outdoors InitiativePartnership for Sustainable CommunitiesObama’s Climate Action Plan and many more. Even the newest education fad,Common Core, is linked to Agenda 21, as are the new Next Generation Science Standards.

Google has over 300 million referenUN buildingces to Agenda 21, yet it’s hard for most people to get the truth about Agenda 21 because of the truckloads of smoke and misinformation generated by government bureaucrats and the progressive media. This UN program is indeed real and it is an affront to our personal liberties.\Agenda 21 is supposedly designed to make the world “sustainable” by limiting human activities that environmental extremists believe are harming the planet. That may sound fine to many people – until they understand what it means in practice. In order to protect the environment, Agenda 21 instructs governments to micromanage virtually all human activity – which the governments either severely restrict, or regulate to the point that such activity can be minimalized.

A good case in point took place in California recently, which as has been widely reported, experienced a major three-year drought. In mid-March 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal guidelines that guaranteed minimal flow of the Sacramento River to benefit “endangered” Delta Smelt – totally neglecting the needs of local farmers. Most farmers are getting no water even though most of them have long-term contracts guaranteeing it to them.

Delta smeltIronically, the Delta Smelt have survived many severe droughts in the past when farmers got virtually all the available water from the Sacramento River. Yet today the smelt get the water and the farmers don’t – even though many of the farmers will not survive the cutbacks. Seeing the needs of nature as being in conflict with the needs of people is a principle that is at the very heart of Agenda 21.

This is no small matter. Thousands of workers are being put out of work in California, and up to 700,000 acres of prime farmland will be removed from production. Since one-third of America’s fruit and vegetables originate in California’s Central Valley, this means that food prices could jump as much as 3.5%. While that may not seem like much to the more affluent in our society, it could be devastating to seniors and the poor who may no longer be able buy essential fruits and vegetables.

Simply stated, the only way Agenda 21 can work is to deny private citizens their private property rights. This should surprise no one since the UN has maintained that “public control of land use is…indispensable” since the 1976 Habitat I Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. Yet, recent research sponsored by the World Bank has shown that legally protected private property rights drastically reduce corruption, while establishing the foundation for wealth creation. This in turn also helps the environment as weathier nations spend more on environmental protection than poorer ones. The research stressed that “since these people do not have access to a comprehensive legal property system, they cannot leverage their assets to produce additional wealth.” The bottom line? “Nearly five billion people are legally and economically disenfranchised by their own governments,” reports the Bank.

The vast bulk of this is occurring, of course, in the developing world – but not all. The same thing is happening in the U.S. as Agenda 21 principles are adopted into policy. It has already had devastating effects. According to the Fraser Economic freedom wordsInstitute and CATO’s Economic Freedom of the World, the legal-system and-private-property-rights ranking for the U.S. plummeted from number one in 1980 to38th in 2011; which not unsurprisingly has occurred since Agenda 21 principles began to be implemented in the 1990s. The U.S. combined economic ranking in the world from 1980 to 2000 was second or third place behind Hong Kong and Singapore. It plummeted to 19th between 2000 and 2011—mostly due to federal spending, debt, skyrocketing regulations (especially from EPA) and, most importantly, loss of a stable legal system and property rights.

Is it any wonder the current “economic recovery” is so anemic. Certainly not all of the economic woes we have experienced since President Obama’s election can be blamed on Agenda 21 policy. But Agenda 21 is no doubt a big factor in ravaging the U.S. economy. Citizens can begin to restore America’s health by supporting rational candidates at every level of government that are committed to ridding this nation of Agenda 21’s “sustainable development” policy plague.

Mike Coffman

About the Author: Michael Coffman

Michael Coffman, PhD, is CEO of Sovereignty International and has worked to raise awareness about the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, one of the key goals of Agenda 21

 

Climate Alarmists Have an Agenda…..and it is NOT a Good One!

HOW THE IPCC MANIPULATES SCIENCE TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING

Kevin Mooney — Capital Research Center– April 15, 2014

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How a U.N. group manipulates science to “prove” Global Warming (pdf here)
By Kevin Mooney

Summary: The most prestigious international group claiming we face a global warming crisis has a history of twisting the scientific evidence involved in the controversy. It is so duplicitous that it has even misrepresented the findings of its own reports.

Why do so many people believe in Global Warming theory? Global Warming theory isn’t just that the earth is getting warmer, any more than the theory of evolution is that things evolve or the theory of relativity is that everything is relative. There’s a lot more to it than just warming.

Global Warming theory (sometimes fudged as “climate change” theory), in the words of Green Watch editor Steven J. Allen, is “that the earth as a whole is getting catastrophically warmer due not to natural causes but to ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions—especially carbon dioxide (CO2)—from human industry, transportation, and energy generation, and that the looming catastrophe of Global Warming can be averted with policies that are compatible with peace, prosperity, freedom, and democracy.”

That’s a lot of believe, and it’s inconsistent with what we know about both physical science and human behavior.  Continue reading here…..

A-Year-After-UK-Bribery-Act-2010-How-does-Translation-Play-a-Role

Wind Turbines being placed in important birding areas. Green energy? At what cost?

Voices from the Thedford Bog: Wind turbines are “a social experiment, a mess, a failure”

IMG_4200

Protesters joined the remaining migrating tundra swans at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014, to condemn plans to build a bristling barrier of industrial wind turbines in what is a designated Important Bird Area. Every March some 10-15,000 tundra swans stop at the Thedford Bog and environs to rest and feed before continuing on their migration to the western Arctic.

Waterfowl scientist Dr. Scott Petrie told CBC News in 2012:

By putting the turbines in inappropriate places, it actually is tantamount to habitat loss. You wouldn’t put an office tower next to a coastal wetland, why would you put a wind turbine there?

Monte McNaughton, Progressive Conservative Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario (MPP) for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, reminded the protesters that his party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has promised, if elected, to repeal the Green Energy Act, the draconian legislation that has given unprecedented rights to industrial wind turbines over people, communities and wildlife. The Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009 in part as a response to the fake planetary emergency of man-made global warming/climate change.

“Worst economic policy ever”

“Worst economic policy ever”

CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)

The Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal governments have allowed the Ontario landscape to be despoiled and blighted by thousands of useless industrial wind turbines. The machines, towering as high as 50-storey buildings, built on a foundation that requires 800 tons of concrete each that will remain in the ground of prime farmland forever, have been erected in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis or human health studies, and accorded special rights by the Liberal government with its elimination of environmental restrictions inconvenient to wind companies.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to build thousands more of the extortionate-to-taxpayers, destructive, un-green industrial monstrosities.

Climate Alarmists have an agenda…..don’t be fooled!

Exploiting Human Misery and Distorting the Science: An environmentalist’s critique of “Years of Living Dangerously”

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

In “Years of Living Dangerously” Hollywood’s Don Cheadle partners with Christian climate scientist Katharine Heyhoe to convince fellow Christians that they should trust the climate scientists who blame the misery brought by a Texas drought on rising CO2. Indeed in times of natural climate calamities, people suffer and become insecure as they confront nature’s awesome power.

Unfortunately that is when charlatans exploit their misery, making it truly a time of living dangerously. Quick interviews with ranchers who still believe the drought was caused naturally or by God was a feeble attempt to suggest it is religion that has blinded ranchers to the purported “science” of catastrophic climate change. Instead the documentary evoked memories of the 1956 movie “The Rainmaker.” Rancher Noah Curry tells Burt Lancaster (who is playing the Bill Starbuck the rainmaker), “We don’t believe in rainmakers!” Lancaster snaps back, “What do you believe in mistah? Dyin’ cattle?” Cheadle and Heyhoe were employing the age old rainmaker’s trick of exploiting natural catastrophes and human misery. I have documented similar ploys herehereherehereand here.  

The ranchers’ belief in natural drought cycles actually grew from life long experiences, and most will tell you the 1950-1957 drought was likely much more devastating. Even Heyhoe admits the cycle of floods one year and droughts the next is the norm for Texas. The research by ten NOAA climate scientists also supports the ranchers’ belief, and their climate models indicated that at least 80% of Texas’s drought was due to the cooling of the eastern Pacific Ocean associated with La Nina and the natural cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.1 In fact most climate scientists have shown that droughts and floods in the American southwest are the result of ocean cycles,2,3,4,5 but Cheadle and Heyhoe did not share such research. Climate models driven by CO2 had predicted extreme drying in the southwest during the 80s and 90s. But those model predictions failed due to misunderstanding ocean cycles.2 Actual observations revealed a trend of increasing precipitation during the 80s and 90s due to more El Ninos. The most recent drought has occurred as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reversed again to its cool phase, just like devastating Texas droughts of the 50s that happened when the PDO entered its cool phase and promoted more La Ninas.

The NOAA’s models did suggest that perhaps 20% could be blamed on human caused climate change but researchers warned:

“There are various difficulties in interpreting such an analysis and assessing its relevance to understanding observations. First, no summertime warming over Texas in the long historical record has been detected, and we emphasized in this paper that the CMIP5 model-simulated Texas warming over the last century is inconsistent with observations…based on CMIP5 experiments, these estimates of changes in event probability drawn solely from CMIP5 must be viewed with great caution.1[emphasis added]

Instead of driving to west Texas, Cheadle merely had to look at the Plainview TX temperature trends found online from the US Historical Climate Network to confirm that had been no climate warming.

clip_image002

Instead, to counter the beliefs of those Christian ranchers who had actually experienced those natural drought cycles, Heyhoe and Cheadle highlighted a statistical virtual reality – a “hockey-stick graph” of global warming. But the global average temperature is a chimeraof many different climate dynamics and artificial adjustments. Droughts and heat waves are not global, but regional phenomenon. It is disturbing that Heyhoe, who has been hailed as a Christian committed to the truth in both science and faith, committed major sins of omission. The truth is there has been no climate warming in Texas. If Heyhoe was truly promoting objective climate science, she should have included the science of natural cycles and addressed why Texas had been getting wetter in the 80s and 90s and why it had not warmed during te 20th century.

But perhaps her misleading presentation was not all Heyhoe’s doing. One of the chief science advisors for this fearful climate documentary is the rabid CO2 advocate Joe Romm. Romm has previously teamed with the advocacy journal Nature to publish opinion pieces that CO2 is causing global “Dustbowlification”. Romm also uses his blog ClimateProgress to attack those scientists who have demonstrated that in fact natural ocean cycles have driven most droughts. That would explain the slanted drought presentation.

It is also the only reasonable explanation for the outlandish attempt to marry the civil war in Syria to rising CO2. Natural climate change does create insecurity. However Romm’s concern about the Dustbowlification proves slightly schizophrenic. While climate scientists have shown that the ocean surface temperatures are the best predictor of regional droughts, the extremes of the American Dust Bowl can only be explained when degradation of the landscape is also taken into account.6 Likewise the drought in Syria can not be understood without understanding how politics have altered the Syrian landscape. I thought NY Time’s journalist Thomas Freidman who has studied Middle East conflicts for decades would provide that historical background. But Freidman’s role was to marry the current Syrian drought to the simplistic notion that CO2 had caused climate change and thus the war, and landscape and political causes of stressed farmers were never brought to light.

The Syrian revolution has indeed been led by hungry displaced farmers. But to blame CO2 is simply climate fear mongering. To understand the enormous complexity of the problem I suggest reading “Unsustainable land use in Syria: Drivers of Unsustainable Land Use in the Semi-Arid Khabur River Basin, Syria”7 by Yale University’s Dr. Frank Hole. Scientist know this region’s climate is highly variable and we know from “archaeology and history that settlements in this semi-arid steppe have expanded on cycles of 200–300 years of good weather and retreated on cycles of 1000 or more years of poor weather and political instability.” Recently multiyear droughts happened in 1968–1971, 1997–1998, 1999–2000 and 2000–2001. “A drought in 1961 resulted in the loss of 80% of the camel population and nearly50% of sheep.” 7

“In 1940, the Khabur could be considered a self-sustaining steppe [a semi-arid grass and shrub land] for the pasturing of camels and sheep, with highly productive rain-fed agriculture, and equally productive gravity irrigation along stretches of the river. Fishing and hunting of wild gazelle were important contributors to the diet. Both are now extinct, with no foreseeable possibility of regeneration.” 7

A dramatic drying of this region began during the Little Ice Age, forcing many tribes to abandon fixed settlements and adopt a nomadic lifestyle. The vast steppe then became controlled by migratory tribes who pastured camels and sheep seasonally, holding the land in common according to well-established customary tribal law. The tribes migrated with sheep and camels to fresh pastures on an annual cycle, which allowed vegetation to regenerate and also support herds of gazelle. The closing of the border between Syria and Turkey in the 1940s curtailed some of the traditional movements of Syria’s nomadic tribes, which once migrated into the pastures of Turkey’s Taurus Mountains during summer.

The American DustBowl had been created in part when the government subsidized wheat prices to meet the demand during World War I. This resulted in a loss of native buffalo grass that sustained the semiarid American west. An area the size of state of Ohio was quickly ploughed to plant wheat. When prices fell and governments no longer guaranteed farmers a high price, many abandoned the land. Without natural vegetation to hold the soil, when the natural cycle of droughts began the Dust Bowl ensued. Similarly the “demand for grain during the Second World War encouraged expansion of Syrian agriculture. In the early 1950s, when the new Syrian State abolished tribal land tenure, that agriculture, supported by mechanical ploughs, expanded on to virgin steppe but most proved to be unproductive.” Much of the land degradation has been the result of deep that ploughing that removed native vegetation and exposed soil to wind and water erosion, as well as destroying much of its organic content. It is no coincidence that many of Syria’s revolutionary leaders are failed cotton farmers who once depended on the whims of government subsidies.7

Syria’s Khabur River is a principal tributary of the Euphrates and flows entirely within Syria. However it is largely fed from limestone springs that are recharged by precipitation that falls in the adjacent Turkish mountains. Huge increases in the use of groundwater for irrigation in both Turkey and Syria have left the fields dry that depended on drawing irrigation water from the springs and upper course of the Khabur River. Furthermore recently built dams in Turkey now control the flow of water into Syria and the amount of water allowed to reach Syria and Iraq is now wielded as a political weapon. 7

As refugees dramatically increased Syria’s population, they added greater and greater stress on a landscape already in serious decline. While regional strife increased the flow of refugees into Syria, it also limited the flow of incoming water. “In 1987, Turkey guaranteed a minimum water flow of 500 cubic metes per second and Syria, in return, promised to cooperate in security matters. A few months later, Turkey complained about terrorist activities and accused Syria of supporting. Turkey allegedly hinted at a cut in the flow of Euphrates water to Syria over Syrian support for Kurdish terrorists. In January 1990, Turkey completely stopped the flow of the Euphrates [emphasis added]. The official justification for the interruption was to fill the lake behind the Ataturk Dam and the interruption was intended to be only for one month. Behind the scenes, this interruption was an indirect threat to Syria for its continued support of the PKK. Turkey did not care about Iraq’s reaction as Syria and Iraq were bitter enemies; however, Turkey’s actions united both Iraq and Syria against it.”10

The myriad of factors stressing the revolutionary farmers is very complex. Obviously blaming Syria’s water woes on CO2 is a simple-minded ploy. But one could still argue that “unprecedented climate change” had exacerbated any problems created by bad government and landscape abuse. However as in Texas, there are no unprecedented climate trends other than those created locally by landscape abuse. Historical records of droughts in Turkey’s Anatolia and neighboring countries corroborate the data furnished by tree-ring widths to indicate that cycles of major droughts and famine events have occurred in 1725, 1757, 1887, 1890–1891, 1893–1894 and 1927–1928, long before rising CO2 could play a role. As seen in Fig. 5 the lack of recent precipitation is a minor bump in the road when compared to records over the past 350 years.9

clip_image004

And as in Texas, based on proxy data there has been no “global warming” in this region either. Tree ring researchers striving to put recent temperatures into a historical context concluded, “Low-frequency variations, which were associated with the medieval warm period and the little ice age, were identified in the winter-to- spring temperature reconstruction, however, the twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our temperature proxy record.”8 [emphasis added]

clip_image005

The third segment of the documentary exposed how government corruption was destroying the Indonesian ecosystem. However anyone concerned about deforestation should ask why Harrison Ford failed to mention the most powerful driver of Indonesia’s disappearing rain forests and the endangerment of the Orangtuans. It is not climate change, but climate fear mongering. Politicians have used climate fear to justify government handouts in the form of subsidies for planting more corn in America, sugar cane in Brazil and palm oil in Indonesia. These subsidies have upset world food markets and destroyed efforts to protect wild lands. In the 2013 research article “The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?” by The International Institute for Sustainable Development, they report the European Union alone has provided $11 billion dollars in biofuel subsidies and the bulk of that has subsidized palm oil for the biodiesel industry. I loved Harrison Ford for his ability to provide such gripping Hollywood illusions as Indiana Jones, but I am deeply troubled by his current role in distorting climate reality.

The emotional, virtual realities created by modern technology can indeed be dangerous. The speed of modern communication and the ease by which our fears can be exploited demands that we become better critical thinkers. The baby boom’s motto of the 60s to question authority is more important now than ever. We all can fall victim to our own predilections and be blinded by our beliefs. Only respectful debate can free us from our illusions. Unfortunately people like Joe Romm who are pushing climate catastrophe, also argue that the debate is over. Increasingly alarmists demand that skeptics should be banned from public forums and seek to “deny the deniers the right to deny”. They want us to only believe that the Hollywood illusions presented in “Years of Living Dangerously” are the real truth. Yet their sins of omission and the distortion of published science illustrates why, now more than ever, more climate debate is needed.

Literature Cited

1.Hoerling et al (2013) Anatomy of an Extreme Event. Journal of Climate, vol. 26

2. Dai (2012) The influence of the inter-decadal Pacific oscillation on US precipitation during 1923–2010. Climate Dynamics, vol

3. Seager, R. et al. (2008) Drought in the Southeastern United States: Causes, Variability over the Last Millennium, and the Potential for Future Hydroclimate Change. Journal of Climate, vol. 22, p. 5021-5047.

4. Cook, E., et al., (2004) Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States. Science 306, 1015-1018.

5. Herweijer,C., et al., (2007) North American Droughts of the Last Millennium from a Gridded Network of Tree-Ring Data. Journal of Climate, vol. 20, p. 1353-1376.

6. Cook, B., et al., (2011) Atmospheric circulation anomalies during two persistent North American droughts: 1932–1939 and 1948–1957. Climate Dynamics, vol. 36, p. 2339–2355

7. Hole (2009) Unsustainable land use in Syria Drivers of Unsustainable Land Use in the Semi-Arid

Khabur River Basin, Syria. Geographical Research March 2009 47(1):4–14

8. Heinrich (2013) Winter-to-spring temperature dynamics in Turkey derived from tree rings since AD 1125. Clim Dyn 41:1685–1701

9. Akkemik (2005) A preliminary reconstruction (A.D. 1635–2000) of spring precipitation

using oak tree rings in the western Black Sea region of Turkey. Int J Biometeorol 49:297–302

10. Hipel (2014) Strategic Investigations of Water Conflicts in the MiddleEast. Group Decis Negot (2014) 23:355–376

11. (2013) The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?” The International Institute for Sustainable Development

De-programme your kids when they come home from school….

Schools “climate-brainwash” children, reveals report (United Kingdom)

Apr 9, 2014

school

.
Editor’s note
:  If you’re not familiar with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), you’re missing out.  Click here for their statement, “Who we are.”  Clickhere for their Board of Trustees.  And here for the Academic Advisory Council.

Basically the GWPF is a group of former high level U.K. government officials, Members of Parliament, and a host of scholars from heavy-weight universities, worldwide, who are alarmed at the hysteria and brainwashing being orchestrated by energy corporations (read:  Wall St. banks) who have much to gain.  (Note:  The GWPF does not accept money from any energy company or donor representing the interests of an energy company.  In other words, it is not a front for Big Oil or Big Wind or Big Nuclear, or Big Anything for that matter.)

The GWPF does not deny climate change; indeed, its members cover the entire spectrum, from those who are convinced it’s chiefly human-caused to those who think the whole thing is moonshine.  Listen carefully to what I’m saying:  The GWPF is insisting on real science, not agenda-driven science.  It is insisting on rational decisions, not “climate dogma,” as we chart our future.  Their goal is to tone down the rhetoric, strip ideology out of climate science, and remove the corporate financial agenda and government power-grabbing from the whole climate conversation.

As a retired professional historian, I agree.  History is loaded with paroxysms of mass hysteria about one “belief system” or “cause” or “noble ideal” after another — with results that were always disastrous.  That’s not all:  Someone always got very wealthy and powerful from championing that noble ideal or doctrine or to-kill-for worthy cause.  Someone always morphed into a tyrant and became completely corrupt, and did incalculable damage, from being the “savior-in-chief” of humanity — whatever the issue du jour.

I warn you:  Don’t let this happen!  I see the GWPF as a sane voice in the gathering madness of “Oh my god, the earth is about to incinerate as a result of human misbehavior, and governments and corporations and schools need to do something about it, NOW!”  This is a recipe for dictatorship.  Tyranny.  Big Brother.  Totalitarianism.  The likes of which humanity has never seen.

Anyhow, the GWPF has just issued a stunning document on how children in British public schools are being brainwashed (greenwashed) about global warming.  Again, I caution you:  The GWPF is not taking a position “yea” or “nay” on global warming; it’s stripping the discussion of junk, agenda-driven science, corporate interference, and political opportunism and imperialist ambition.

“Imperialism”?  Yes, as with natural gas fracking becoming a weapon, a tool of public policy over who supplies Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine, with fuel.  When matters of empire, politics, ideology, or corporate profit enter the debate — be it wind energy, fracking, solar power, oil, nuclear — science and reason immediately become corrupt and, frankly, dangerous.  Readers of this blog have witnessed this aplenty in the wind energy uproar — rife with ideologically-driven science and medicine.

greenwash
.

“Climate Control:  Brainwashing in Schools”

— by Andrew Montford & John Shade
.
_ (Click here for PDF of the report, here for its appendices, and here for a link.)

Children are being treated as political targets by activists who wish to change society in fundamental ways. This is unacceptable whether or not they are successful — from the Introduction, p. 10.

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body — John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.”

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.  The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.  The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling — Thomas Sowell, “Inside American Education.”

.
Foreword
 by Professor Terence Kealy, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham

Politicians and political activists have always wanted to control the schools, for obvious reasons. St Francis Xavier of the Jesuits may or may not have said ‘give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man’ but too many politicians have wanted the child until he or she is seventeen, just to make sure.

In this impressive paper Andrew Montford and John Shade have shown how effectively eco-activism appears to have captured our schools’ curriculums. It is of course true that the greenhouse effect is based on good physics, but even better physics recognises that the globe is a complex system and that many different effects – not just the greenhouse effect – will influence the climate. And since we cannot yet model the world’s climate with confidence, we must be suspicious of the certainty with which eco-activists seek to influence the schools’ curriculums.

Eco-activism is, as Montford and Shade have shown, only the most recent example of attempted curriculum-capture by political activists, so we need to construct institutions to protect the schools from such capture. Montford and Shade have invoked the horrible examples of education under the communist regimes of Eastern Europe or China, and in so doing they point the way to the only solid future – democracy.

Educational researchers such as EG West (Education and the State, 1965) and James Tooley (The Beautiful Tree, 2009) have shown how the nationalisation of the schools in England and Wales during the 19th century was a mistake, which neither increased the expenditure per pupil nor fostered social justice – it only handed the schools over to John Stuart Mill’s ‘dominant power in government.’

But the nationalisation of the schools is now effectively irreversible, so how can we protect the curriculum within it? One harbinger is provided by the UK Statistics Authority, which is funded by government but which reports not to a minister but directly to Parliament. Thus its independence is optimised. Perhaps we now need a Curriculum Authority, reporting to Parliament via a select committee, because by its nature a legislature can foster a wider range of views than can the executive branch of government.

In the meantime, let us echo the call from Montford and Shade for an independent review of our current climate curriculum, because if – as the title of their paper suggests – schools are indoctrinating rather than educating, we have a problem.

.
Executive summary

We have found examples of serious errors, misleading claims, and bias through inadequate treatment of climate issues in school teaching materials. These include many widely-used textbooks, teaching-support resources, and pupil projects.

We find instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools encourage their pupils to attend. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think. In some instances, we find encouragement to create ‘little political activists’ in schools by creating a burden of responsibility for action on their part to ‘save the planet’, not least by putting pressure on their parents.

The National Curriculum has recently been reviewed by the government, but the proposed changes seem unlikely to prevent such practices.

Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.

Teachers and administrators have a fairly free hand to choose textbooks, other materials, visiting speakers and school trips for pupils provided they fit in with curricular goals. This raises the risk that some may select alarming and politi- cally loaded sources in order to win children over to the ‘environmental cause’. This ‘cause’ is often presented through the notion of ‘sustainability’, a poorly- defined catchword covering political and personal actions for which funda- mental criticism is rarely entertained.5 Many campaigning NGOs and other organisations with vested interests such as energy companies proffer teach- ing materials and other resources for use in schools. Some of it is presumably being used.

There are clear grounds for very serious concern. We therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to undertake urgent inquiries into climate change education in our schools. Only a systematic evaluation of what is going on can determine the extent of the indoctrination as well as the emotional and educational harm to pupils that is undoubtedly resulting.

 

 

Can’t trust the climate fear mongers!

nomoreliesblog

Debunking the lies that support the wind farm scam

Search

The global warming flapdoodle …

 

and the global COOLING evidence

Global warming has been the cry of government climate scientists since the 1980′s. But actual government data proves global cooling has taken over from warming during this century, as per the official U.S. satellite records (see graph).

2014 02  NOAA temperature anomalies graph
Global land and ocean temperature anomalies as at February 2014
Anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

  
What’s interesting about this graph? Well, first we see that, since 1977, the world temperature has been consistently hotter than the 20th century average. But if we look more closely, we can see that the heat has been abating since 1998.

This data has been collected by NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) which is part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), a scientific agency of the US Administration. NOAA is an international leader for temperature data. The two others are NASA’s GISS in the US, and the UK’s University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climate Research Unit), working jointly with the Hadley Center (of the Met Office).

The GISS webpage cannot be accessed presently at:http://www.data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp, but HAD-CRUT did publish their graphs for February, which confirm the new cooling trend:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Government-financed scientists, who collect and interpret the data, have in the past done their best to “hide the decline” (Climategate). Today, unfortunately, climate science continues to be corrupted by billions of dollars of government money. NOAA are arguably less corrupt than the other two, but they are still very much so in the way they present things. On their webpage below we can read: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″. It would have been more objective to say: “… is larger than in 2012, and the 5th smallest since 1979″.

NOAA arctic sea ice winter 2013 5th smallest on record
NOAA: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″



The following title, on the other hand, was objective: “Surface melt on Greenland Ice Sheet back near average in 2013.”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2013-arctic-report-card-surface-melt-greenland-ice-sheet-back-near

NOAA Greenland melt back to average in 2013
NOAA: Greenland melt back near average in 2013

 
Anyway, what’s interesting is that we are witnessing a reversal of the warming trend. This was expected by “climate skeptic” scientists, who’ve been arguing for years that cooling and warming follow the variations of solar activity, not the emissions of CO2.

As solar radiation has been declining lately, it is not surprising that world temperature should be declining as well. Never mind the ritual IPCC flapdoodle* – political gesticulation meant to scare us into accepting carbon taxes and subsidies to the wind farm scam. Politicians won’t give up dishing out money to the wind industry, as part of it is returned to finance their electoral campaigns. They LOVE that “green” revolving door.

* flapdoodle: nonsense. Originally, “the stuff they feed fools on”, 1833.

In fact, we are half-way into solar cycle 24 (the sun’s activity follows cyclical patterns, the shortest lasting 10-13-year). Solar cycle 24 happens to be the weakest in 100 years. We are presently near or past its peak, and from the graph below you can see how low it is in comparison to the previous cycle.

Solar cycle 24 to Feb 2014
NOAA: Solar cycle 24 is peaking much lower than the previous one

 
As we pass the peak, more cooling is to be expected. If solar cycle 25 is weaker still than # 24, temperatures could drop to the level of the Little Ice Age, a cold period from 1550 to 1850, which saw the Thames frozen solid, and crops rotting in the fields from too much rain. This prompted many Europeans to emigrate to America. In France, which was Europe’s grain basket, starving Parisians took to the streets asking for bread. Soon they developed a fancy for the guillotine, and executed their rulers. This begs the question: will history repeat itself?

If a “little ice age” would happen now, with 7 billion people on earth plus 75 million added every year, skyrocketing food prices and mass starvation would ensue. Yet, foolishly, our governments keep wasting money on ineffective wind turbines to cool (sic) the climate. Perhaps they do deserve the guillotine after all?

This article is also published here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-global-warming-flapdoodle-and-the-global-cooling-evidence.htm