Those Climate Comedians are SO Funny! What will they come up with next?

Claim: Global Warming will cause a deadly Jellyfish Invasion

Box jellyfish warning signpost at a Cape Tribulation beach in Queensland, Australia

It is claimed that climate change will cause deadly Irukandji and Box Jellyfish to invade Sydney Harbour – data shows otherwise

Story submitted by Eric Worrall

The Daily Telegraph warns that deadly Box Jellyfish and Irukandji jellyfish will invade the popular beaches of Sydney Harbour, if we don’t mend our wicked climate ways.

According to the article, which reads like a “B” grade horror movie, Macquarie University’s Professor Rob Harcourt claims that warmer currents are enabling more deadly tropical species to survive further south. 

“Every year scientists from Sydney Institute of Marine Science are taking a tally of new visitors to Sydney waters,’’ he said. “Like Nemo and his friends, the turtle ‘dudes’, lots of tropical animals travel down the east coast each year being swept along in the East Australian Current (EAC).”

Box jellyfish have been blamed for 64 deaths (ever) while the tiny irukandji jellyfish killed two people in north Queensland in 2002.
As someone who regularly swims in the Coral Sea, one of the places where these nasties live, I would like to point out that the risk of being killed by a Box Jellyfish or Irukandji is somewhat less than the risk of being killed in a car accident, or the risk of being struck by lightning.

But a story about killer jellyfish probably sells more newspapers, than a story about yet another irresponsible drunk.

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

UPDATE: (by Anthony)

A check of the range for the Box Jellyfish shows it nowhere close to Sydney:

boxjellyfish_range

Source of base map: http://oceana.org/en/explore/marine-wildlife/box-jellyfish

The distance to the most southern point in the range from about North of Townsville (near the Cape Tribulation warning sign at the head of this post) to Sydney is over 1000 miles. It seems the claim of migration is more than a bit of a stretch.

Here is a plot of the average water temperature of Bondi Beach in Sydney:

Bondi-Beach[1]

Source: http://www.surf-forecast.com/breaks/Bondi-Beach/seatemp

Note the extreme barely breaks 25°C (77F)

And the science says otherwise. From Stingeradvisor.com

 

Box jelly and Irukandji jellyfishes are generally reported at water temperatures above 26°C.

In laboratory conditions, 1-2° warming results in stressed animals that do not recover; animals generally deteriorate rapidly and expire if not maintained in cool water.

Cooler water retains more dissolved oxygen, allowing animals to absorb it with less energy expenditure; cubozoans, with a higher metabolism than most other jellyfishes, and thus higher oxygen demand, probably have a narrow range of tolerance and low adaptational potential. Although the jellyfish are able to swim well, and thus navigate in and out of variable local conditions, the populations are nonetheless tied to regions where their polyps can survive; cubozoan species and populations typically have extremely narrow distributions, suggesting that they are unlikely to adapt easily to alternative habitats if conditions were to become intolerable.

 

Summary of published conclusions: Most authors have concluded that the jellyfish situation is likely to worsen in coming years, as human activities continue to impact on marine environments and other species are affected, opening up niches for jellyfish.

 

BOTTOM LINE: It seems likely that non-thermal perturbations are likely to result in increased jellyfish numbers, whereas thermal perturbations are likely to have detrimental effects on box jellyfish and Irukandji populations

 

 

Agenda 21 Rears It’s Ugly Head! Do Not Let These People On Your Property!

The Curious Story of the MNR and the University of Waterloo by Shirley Dolan

Published August 1, 2014 

Last month Donna Burns wrote about a scheme cooked up by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) that involved a company called Thunderhouse Forest Services (TFS) from Hearst Ontario whereby TFS, with the support of MNR, were studying trees and species habitat on private property – without the permission of the property owner. See the full story here. The study seemed to be taking place mostly in Renfrew County. We now have a similar story coming from Landowners in the Niagara Region – and it is very bizarre!

The MNR administers two programs for eligible landowners: Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP) and Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program (MFTIP). These two voluntary programs are available to landowners and offer 100% tax exception in the case of the CLTIP and 25% of the municipal tax rate for the MFTIP if the property owner is eligible and complies with the program’s land use restrictions.

Landowners in Ontario have been receiving letters from the University of Waterloo School of Planning, requesting their participation in a research project investigating landowners’ views on these two programs. According to a letter sent to the sampled landowners, the study has the support of the MNR, and according to information about the study, the participants’ names and addresses were drawn from the MNR’s database of CLTIP and MFTIP eligible landowners. Eligible appears to mean “could qualify for the program but not necessarily in the program”. Did you know the MNR keeps a list of landowners who might be eligible for these two programs?

The information sheet goes on to say that “It is anticipated that the results from the study will in time assist decision-making as well as design and administration of programs in order to promote successful environmental stewardship on private lands in Ontario”. This statement combined with the fact that the survey director is from the University of Waterloo School of Planning should set off warning bells with anyone who has received a request to participate in the study.

The story gets even more twisted. The study is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Ever heard of them? I hadn’t, so I had a look at their website where it says: leading initiatives that reflect a commitment to ensuring a better future for Canada and the world.

Created by an act of Canada’s Parliament in 1977, SSHRC reports to Parliament through the Minister of Industry.”

Curiouser and curiouser! I’m not sure how the University of Waterloo’s study fits with this mandate, but part of the funding provided by SSHRC was distributed in the form of $5 bills included in the letter sent to the 1200 landowners selected to participate in the study. If this wasn’t bizarre enough, the letter goes on to say that “… because of the rules of the Revenue Canada Agency, we have to let you know that the amount received is taxable and that it is your responsibility to report this amount for income tax purposes.”

So let me get this straight: the University of Waterloo School of Planning is conducting a survey, with the support of the MNR, funded by a federal agency SSHRC, and part of the incentive to participate is an unsolicited gift of $5 of our tax money. And the objective is to learn how to better promote control of private property (my interpretation). Further, the landowner has to remember to claim that $5 bill on his income tax.

Stay tuned! This story warrants more research.

Solar Activity More Likely to Cause Global Warming, than CO2

SOLAR ACTIVITY – NOT CO2 – COULD CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, NEW PAPER SAYS

 
 

The impact of carbon dioxide on climate change may have been overstated, with solar activity giving a better explanation of changes in the Earth’s temperature, according to Chinese scientists.

A new paper published in the Chinese Science Bulletin has found a “high correlation between solar activity and the Earth’s averaged surface temperature over centuries,” suggesting that climate change is intimately linked with solar cycles rather than human activity.

The paper, written in Chinese, says that there is also a “significant correlation” between solar activity over the past century and an increase in Earth’s surface temperatures over the same period. The correlation between solar activity and water temperature is even higher than the correlation between solar activity and land temperature.

The paper, by Dr Zhao Xinhua and Dr Feng Xueshang, adds that a peer-reviewer said the results “provide a possible explanation for the global warming”.

In a press release, posted on the Hockey Schtick blog, The researchers say:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that the release of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases contributed to 90 percent or even higher of the observed increase in the global average temperature in the past 50 years.

However, the new paper casts doubt on the IPCC’s assertion:

Research shows that the current warming does not exceed the natural fluctuations of climate. The climate models of IPCC seem to underestimate the impact of natural factors on the climate change, while overstate that of human activities. Solar activity is an important ingredient of natural driving forces of climate. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate change on long time scales.

Indeed, the study says that the “modern maximum” – a peak in solar activity that lasted much of the last century – corresponds very well with an increase in global temperatures.

There has been increasing evidence in recent years that global warming is linked with solar activity. In 2009, Professor Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Centre,said that the last time the Earth experienced unusually high temperatures, in the later Medieval period, there had also been an increase in solar activity. When this activity dropped, it led to the “little ice age” of the seventeenth century.

In 2011, three further papers suggested the Earth could be heading for a new “little ice age” as solar activity drops once again. Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory in New Mexico said: “The fact that there are three separate lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction is very compelling.”

The Lefties Have Gone Too Far. We Need a Return to Sanity!

Hate Speech: U.K. Political Leader Arrested for Quoting Winston Churchill

Written by 

 
Hate Speech: U.K. Political Leader Arrested for Quoting Winston Churchill

 

A 2009 poll found that more than a third of British teenagers couldn’t identify some of Winston Churchill’s most famous words. Now it turns out that this deficit just might save them from jail.

In a shocking application of hate-speech law, Paul Weston (shown), co-founder and leader of the Liberty GB party and candidate for member of the European Parliament, was arrested on Saturday and now faces a possible two years in prison. His crime?

He quoted one of the 20th century’s most famous Englishmen, that WWII hero Churchill.

 

As Liberty GB reported at its website:

Mr Weston, a candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, was arrested on 26 April in front of Winchester Guildhall for quoting in public a passage critical of Islam written by Winston Churchill, using a megaphone.

He spent several hours in a cell at Winchester Police Station, after which the original charge of breaching a Section 27 Dispersal Notice was dropped and Mr Weston was “re-arrested” for a Racially Aggravated Crime, under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, which carries a potential prison sentence of 2 years.

He was then fingerprinted and obliged to submit to DNA sampling, following which he was bailed with a return date to Winchester Police on May 24th.

Had the woman who complained to the police made an official statement, Mr Weston would not have been released last night, but fortunately for him she did not.

The case is now being presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. If the CPS decides to prosecute, then Mr Weston will be arrested, awaiting trial, when he presents himself to the police on May 24th.

The “offending” words were taken from Churchill’s book The River War, penned in 1899 while he served as a British army officer in Sudan. It is a passage oft-quoted on the Internet:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property — either as a child, a wife, or a concubine — must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

Yet publicly voicing such sentiments in Britain is now often viewed as “racial or religious harassment.” What this means is that were Churchill alive today he could, conceivably, be arrested by the U.K. government simply for espousing his beliefs.

Some may assume Churchill’s fame would save him, but it was no shield for Paul Weston. Nor has it helped talk-show host Michael Savage, the most well-known American victim of British hate-speech law. In 2009, Dr. Savage was placed on a list of people banned from entering the U.K. along with hardened criminals and terrorists. The British government extended this ban in 2011, saying the commentator had not “provided any acceptable evidence to show his repudiation of those unacceptable behaviours.” Note that these “behaviours” amounted to simply voicing opinion.

As for opinion, Liberty GB finds itself an outlier in U.K. politics, describing its ideology as overriding “the conventional dichotomy (and terminology) of Left and Right,” as it rejects “the notion of Britain as a global no-man’s land upon which any of the world’s teeming millions may lay claim” and espouses “Christian ethics and Western civilization” but also is progressive “in areas such as women’s equality and animal welfare.”

But it’s questioning how wide-scale Muslim immigration affects English welfare that can really get you in trouble in today’s U.K. As to this, columnist Mark Steyn recently wrote, recalling how, a decade earlier, he began a piece “with a reader’s recollection of the first weeks of the Salman Rushdie fatwa” (hat tip: American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson):

A couple of years back, I mentioned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and received a flurry of lively e-mails. It was Valentine’s Day 1989, you’ll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims were marching through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed.

A reader in Bradford recalled asking a West Yorkshire officer on the street that day why the various “Muslim community leaders” weren’t being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they’d been told to “play it cool”. The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to “F— off, or I’ll arrest you.”

In his recent piece, Steyn added:

And so it has gone, ever more openly, across the ensuing quarter-century. Point out problematic aspects of Islam, and the British state’s response is “F— off, or I’ll arrest you.” Her Majesty’s Constabulary do not yet police their charges quite as strictly as the Saudi mutaween, but they’re getting there: The day after Drummer Lee Rigby was hacked to death in broad daylight on the streets of London, a march in support of the “Help for Heroes” military charity led to a five-hour standoff between marchers and police, ending with the arrest of Lee Cousins for “mocking the Islamic prayer ritual” by getting down on his hands and knees outside the pub. He was fined 600 pounds.

When was the last time someone was fined 600 quid for mocking any bit of Christian ritual?

And British citizens are noticing this double standard, though not many dare voice opposition too publicly. As a poster going by the name “John” wrote under the Liberty GB article about Weston’s arrest:

How many times did the racist who butchered Lee Rigby violate these [hate-speech] laws without fear of arrest? He was even involved in a scuffle with the police. People who pretend these “efforts” [at enforcement] are neutral are racist liars. These are in fact classic laws of racist colonialism, where the natives are forbidden to criticize the occupying power.

Even the supposed anonymity of the Internet may not offer protection for long, however. Swedes who criticized immigration on the Web were recently tracked down via their IP addresses and persecuted, while the Swedish government has just enacted a new law making it easier to prosecute “net haters.” And now two Democrat legislators in the United States have proposed the “Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014,” which would empower the federal government to scour the Internet for “hate speech.”

Wow, Who Would Have Ever Guessed? Renewable Energy Fiasco = FAIL!

Lunatics Angry About The Insanity They’ve Caused, US Coal Imports To Germany Increasing!!!

image

There are very few things on earth more stupid than a climate alarmist. 

So, what happens when a nation decides to build too many wind and solar plants?  ….. exactly as they were warned, it doesn’t work and the nation then has to install more traditional energy plants to make up for the instability of renewable energy. 

What happens when a nation decides not to domestically use a resource in abundance in that nation, but, demanded in all parts of the world? ….. exactly as predicted/warned exports will necessarily increase. 

Oh, there are plenty other foretold consequences the lunatics ignored, but, we’ll get to a couple of them in a moment. 

Today, we have a couple of sources of information.  Let’s look an AP story first ……

US exports help Germany increase coal, pollution

LUENEN, Germany (AP) — One of Germany’s newest coal-fired power plants rises here from the banks of a 100-year-old canal that once shipped coal mined from the Ruhr Valley to the world.

Now the coal comes the other way.

The 750-megawatt Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Luenen GmbH & Co. power plant relies completely on coal imports, about half from the U.S. Soon, all of Germany’s coal-fired power plants will be dependent on imports, with the country expected to halt coal mining in 2018 when government subsidies end.

Coal mining’s demise in Germany comes as the country is experiencing a resurgence in coal-fired power, one which the U.S. increasingly has helped supply. U.S. exports of power plant-grade coal to Germany have more than doubled since 2008. In 2013, Germany ranked fifth, behind the United Kingdom, Netherlands, South Korea and Italy in imports of U.S. steam coal, the type burned in power plants.

On the American side of the pollution ledger, this fossil fuel trade helps the United States look as if it is making more progress on global warming than it actually is. That’s because it shifts some pollution — and the burden for cleaning it — onto another other country’s balance sheet. …..

“This is a classic case of political greenwashing,” said Dirk Jansen, a spokesman for BUND, a German environmental group. “Obama pretties up his own climate balance, but it doesn’t help the global climate at all if Obama’s carbon dioxide is coming out of chimneys in Germany.” …….

The contribution of this exported pollution to global warming is not something the U.S. administration wants to measure, or even talk about.

…..  In 2012, U.S. coal exports comprised 9 percent of the global export market, the most recent data available. …..

Last year, global coal use grew by 3 percent, faster than any other fossil fuel, according to the 2014 BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Some of that growth occurred in the U.S., where higher natural gas prices and a colder-than-average winter caused power plants to burn slightly more coal.

The explanation for Germany’s increase is simple: Coal is cheaper than alternatives, particularly natural gas. So, too, are the prices on the carbon market in Europe. Companies can afford to buy the right to release more pollution. And the country burned more coal in 2013 to meet rising demand for electricity in other countries in Europe. Preliminary figures for 2014 indicate coal use could be down. And Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation are down from their peak in 2007.

Still, Germany has built five new coal plants since 2008, adding 4,286 megawatts of new generation, according to Bundesnetzagentur, the grid supervisor. The country plans to add an additional 6,661 megawatts in coal-fired plants from 2014 through 2018, while retiring older coal plants that produced 3,779 megawatts. ……

In the U.S., the opposite is happening. Until recently, coal was more costly than natural gas, which is booming. Environmental regulations are further pushing the oldest and dirtiest coal-fired plants to retirement by adding more costs, and any new coal-fired power plants will have to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground if the Obama administration gets its way. Few if any new coal plants are expected to be built.

But the U.S. and other countries have no problem supplying Germany and the world with coal. Last year, U.S. coal exports totaled $11 billion in revenue.

“It’s not taking responsibility,” said Thomas Power, a research professor at the University of Montana in the U.S. who has worked for environmental groups and clean energy foundations and has pushed for a more honest accounting of emissions. “It’s shifting the responsibility to someone else.”

Well, golly.  First, to correct some of the withering stupidity in the article, gas was, only for a very brief moment in time, cheaper than coal, and it was only so if the coal was transported for a significant distance.  On average, for energy generation, coal has always been cheaper than natural gas.  For a brief time, because of a glut of nat gas, it sold for less than the cost of getting it out of the ground. 

Were I Germany, I would not end the subsidies to coal mining, at least to the amount of the cost of transport to import all that coal. 

But, look at the context, and inferences of the article.  It’s some lunatics still crying about something which is good.  Germany is increasing the coal imports for two reasons.  One, there’s an increase in demand for electricity, which, alternative sources are either too expensive or too intermittent and too expensive.  Of course, this article doesn’t say anything about the instability of using renewables. 

World demand for coal is up 3%.  What this means is that more and more people are modernizing and we’re lifting them out of a perpetually impoverished state.  It also means more people are wanting to and doing more things, which is a euphemism for economic growth.  It’s weird, but, some parts of the globe are growing, economically, while nations like the US and Germany are stagnate and withering on the vine.  One of the reasons for this is because both of us have rejected a cheaper more reliable form of energy production.  In the US, we’ve rejected coal, in Germany, they rejected nuclear energy.  Because whirly-gigs and sun catchers are woefully inadequate for a national grid supply, one has to use something else.  In the US, it’s natural gas.  It turns out, it was a good investment for the natural gas energy to invest a few $million to groups like the Sierra Club.  Meanwhile, Germany is turning more to coal. 

So, the nutters have temporarily won in the US in getting some coal plants shut down and the prospects of building another are dim, under current conditions.  But, the same could have been said in Germany just a few years ago. 

And, this is the utter stupidity of the lunatics.  What they don’t understand is that the energy sources will be used.  It’s simply a matter of where, and by whom.  The dumbasses blocked the oil from Canada to the US.  So, Canada will ship it to China.  Or, China will ship it to China.  Regardless, it will be used.  So, the US has a lot of coal laying around that it’s not using, right now.  So, we’re shipping some of it to Germany.  It will be used. 

But, think of the stupidity in all of this, that the lunatics have caused.  Yes, transport increases costs.  But, transport also significantly increases energy use on its own!  The coal has to be shipped by rail to the ports, and then loaded on a boat like the one in the picture above, and shipped half-way around the world.  Canada’ oil is the same story.  The lunatics don’t like a pipeline?  So, it gets shipped by rail. 

Well played, lunatics.  Your advocacy has managed to increase CO2 levels rather than your stated goals of decreasing them.  Idiots. 

Oh, yeh, and here’s another thing not mentioned in the story …….

Germany’s green tech forces 400x increase in power rates

Coal and gas electricity companies are being paid up to 400x times the wholesale price of power, in return for helping to stabilize the German electricity grid.

According to Bloomberg, “Germany’s push toward renewable energy is causing so many drops and surges from wind and solar power that the government is paying more utilities than ever to help stabilize the country’s electricity grid.”

“At the beginning, this market counted for only a small portion of our earnings,” said Hartmuth Fenn, the head of intraday, market access and dispatch at Vattenfall AB, Sweden’s biggest utility. “Today, we earn 10 percent of our plant profits in the balancing market”.

Full story http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/german-utilities-bail-out-electric-grid-at-wind-s-mercy.html

You can read the rest of it at WUWT in the link “Germany’s green tech …..”

So, here’s what the lunatics have managed to do ….. they’ve stymied economic growth in Germany and the US (and many other places).  They’ve managed to destroy industries.  They harm the stability of energy supply to people and businesses, they’ve increased the costs of electricity, and increased CO2 emissions. 

Every bit of that was foretold, over and over and over again. 

Faux-Greenies Long for a New World Disorder!

A Future without Electricity 
That’s what radical Greens want — and President Obama’s policies are moving us toward. 

Back to the Future?: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
 
 

 

 
 

Stephen Moore 

Could the radical-Green movement in America make mankind’s future resemble a science-fiction Earth ruled by apes?

This weekend I went to the see the blockbuster movieDawn of the Planet of the Apes, and an Investor’s Business Daily editorial this week got me thinking about a bleak scenario. Our future won’t have ape rulers, but, IBD points out, a world without energy might well look similar.

In the movie, bands of humans are resisting a global government of super-intelligent monkeys, gorillas and the like. The humans lack access to electricity, making their struggle — let along the normal life we know today — nearly impossible.

They are rendered powerless — literally. The simian despots understand that depriving the humans of access to electricity will keep them underfoot. (The climax of the movie, as IBDexplains, has humans in San Francisco — of all places — heroically reopening a power plant and bringing electricity back to the whole city.)

 I wonder how many Americans got the subtle message here: Energy is the master resource. Without it, we return to a Stone Age existence. Life in its absence is nasty, brutish and short.

Is that where the radical Greens, one of the most influential political forces in America today, would take us? If we continue to follow their advice, electric power and fuel will become more expensive (as President Obama has admitted). TheInvestor’s Business Daily editorial noted, “as the Sierra Club, billionaire Tom Steyer and the Obama administration rage war against coal and other fossil fuel,” we could end up seeing “rolling brownouts and even blackouts in the years ahead.”

In other words, the apocalypse confronting America may not be the havoc of “climate change,” but a slow-motion return to a medieval lifestyle.

Consider the Obama administration’s ongoing war on coal, marked most recently by new Environmental Protection Agency regulations requiring dramatic reductions in carbon emissions from power plants. America gets about 40 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants, as IBD notes.

The greens say, no problem, we will shift to renewable energy. But it’s not so simple, as IBD points out: States with onerous renewable-energy standards such as Colorado and California are still relying heavily on coal to fill in the gaps during bad weather or periods of high demand.

There is a reliable, green, economical alternative: natural gas. It’s become cheap and abundant due to new smart drilling technologies. But the environmentalists are busy devising strategies to shut down natural gas as an energy source as well, raising unsupported objections to fracking, one of the methods used to extract it. The Sierra Club says we have to move “beyond natural gas,” even though natural gas is reducing carbon emissions.

And as IBD notes, the Left has little love for other sources of electricity, either, such as nuclear and hydro. In fact, the editorial notes, we get about 90 percent of our power from sources that the Left is trying to shut down.

Sorry, for the foreseeable future, we aren’t going to get our power for our $18 trillion economy from wind turbines and solar panels. And if we begin to try, prices are going to skyrocket.

As for our major transportation fuel, the Greens think oil is a “dirty” fuel that causes global warming. They’re trying to stop domestic drilling anywhere they can. They say we should move to electric cars. Fine. But where are we going to get the electricity to power the batteries?

Last summer our suburban home in northern Virginia lost power for two days during a storm. No lights, no computers, no air conditioning, no TV, no iPods or iPhones. To my three sons, this was like hell on earth. How did people live without electricity? They wondered. Very poorly, I told them.

I wonder how many young people will be so excited about “green energy” when such outages are commonplace and they come to the realization that life without those “dirty” sources of power won’t be so wonderful.

We don’t need apes to destroy our planet. The green humans seems to be doing a fine job of it all on their own.

— Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation.

 

A Bit of Factual Information on the Topic of Fracking!

Seldon declaims on the issue of earthquakes and fracking

When I read recently so many stupid claims of fracking causing earthquakes, I could not resist asking my favorite FAVORIIIITE PETROLEUM ENGINEER, Seldon Graham, to comment.

 

Seldon was doing frackin when the frackin wasn’t even on the radar.

Back in the 50s.

I can’t tell you how much I respect Sel, WW II soldier, field promoted to officer, West Point, Korea, petrol engineer, attorney.

So might I put up his brief but insightful discussion?

For the leftist Denton newspaper– you might ask leftist? But every newspaper must be assumed to be leftist, with the isolated exceptions like the Washington Times.

Here’s Sel:

Seismographs Cause Earthquakes
Seismographs cause earthquakes. A scientific study has proven it. The
following are observations from a study entitled “Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes
coincident with activity associated with natural gas production,” by Cliff Frohlich
and Eric Potter of the University of Texas and Chris Hayward and Brian Stump of
Southern Methodist University (SMU). The study is at: . It could just as well have been
entitled “Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes coincident with Obama Administration.”
SMU scientists set out six seismographs south of the Dallas-Fort Worth
airport terminal from November 9, 2008 to January 2, 2009. Eleven miniearthquakes
were recorded which had a magnitude too small to be picked up by the
U.S. Geological Service (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC).
Thus, these seismographs caused earthquakes which were undetected by the NEIC.
These tiny earthquakes should be called earth quivers instead of quakes.
They were at a mean depth of 4.8 kilometers. (Don’t these scientists know that oil
and gas terminology uses the American measurement of feet?) This mean depth is
at 15,748 feet below the surface of the earth.
The suspected villain was a nearby salt water disposal (SWD) well and was
not the 54 gas wells that had been fractured, as shown on Figure 8. This is
important to remember. There was no indication that fracturing of natural gas
wells had anything to do with earthquakes. The SWD well was injecting salt water
from 10,752 feet to 13,729 feet, more than two thousand feet shallower than the
mean depth of the eleven earthquivers. There is no theory given as to how this
separation of rock was overcome in order to cause an earth quiver.
Strangely, according to Figure 2, the eleven earthquivers were along the
county line rather than along a nearby fault line of unstated depth. Was Dallas
County rubbing against Tarrant County? The authors did not try to explain this
phenomenon.
Even the “sonic booms” of October 31, 2008 and May 16, 2009 which
caused this earthquake study were not over 3.3 magnitude on the Richter scale. An
earthquake up to 3.9 magnitude very rarely causes damage.
1
The authors state at the end of the study, “There are thousands of injection
wells in Texas, the vast majority of which [emphasis added] produce no felt or
instrumentally recorded seismicity.” Absent data that there is a single incident of
an injection well producing felt or recorded seismicity, that statement is deceptive
and misleading. Injection wells do not produce earthquakes, not even earthquivers.
Seldon B. Graham, Jr.
Legion of Honor Member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
(512) 452-4000
4713 Palisade Drive
Austin, Texas 78731-4516

Greenpeace. No Longer A Name to be Trusted…Faux-Green!

Paul Driessen helps you to understand why I detest greenpeace

I got this note and essay to be published by Paul Driessen of CFACT soon. Paul was at Las Vegas.

 

His note is less than a week after the outstanding outing of Greenpeace that Patrick Moore provided at the climate conference in Las Vegas. Moore had a compelling story to tell about the misanthrope club of arrogant nasties that is the greenpeace mob.

I met a few of them, they were there, I think because they knew Patrick was not going to be kind and I could identify them by their lack of substance, poor posture, pasty faces, and weak chins. I think I could lick the lot of them with a 3 minute break between, and I am an old and average sized man. They are not people of substance, they are true believers. And I would disagree with Paul that the greenpeacer he dealt with is a “bright” person. How is he bright Paul? What part of his portfolio shows his “brightness.”

But that aside, here’s Paul’s story from the beginning–he is a much more civilized person than I. I have no patience with these creeps.

I had a surreal experience last week, being interrogated by a Greenpeace activist, on topics ranging from climate change to funding, an anti-Greenpeace protest … and something he really did not want to discuss: the lethal impacts of his organization’s policies on billions of impoverished, malnourished and diseased people around the world.

As I have noted many times previously, 2.5 billion people still do not have electricity or get it only sporadically, and so must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking. That results in widespread lung diseases that kill two to four million people every year. No electricity also means no refrigeration, safe water or decent hospitals, which means virulent intestinal diseases kill another two million annually.

Greenpeace and its fellow eco-imperialists are directly responsible for much of this misery and death. Their anti-technology, anti-people campaigns insist that the far-fetched and illusory risks of using modern marvels of electricity, insecticides and biotechnology are worse than the life-threatening dangers those technologies would reduce or prevent.

Thank you for posting my article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Have a great week!

Best regards,

Paul

Greenpeace showcases its anti-human side

Greenpeace activist confirms every negative story you’ve ever read about this activist group

Paul Driessen

It was a surreal experience. As the Heartland Institute’s hugely successful Ninth International Conference on Climate Change ended, I agreed to let Greenpeace activist Connor Gibson interview me.

I’d just given a presentation on Big Green’s lethal agenda, describing how “dangerous manmade climate change” is just one of many mantras invoked by the Deep Ecology movement to advance an agenda that is anti-energy, anti-people, and opposed to modern economies, technologies and civilizations. As readers of my book and articles know, this unaccountable movement inflicts lethal consequences on millions of people every year – the result of malaria, malnutrition, lung and intestinal diseases, and other afflictions of rampant poverty imposed or perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable eco-imperialists.

“I read your book,” he told me, and attended some of the talks by globally renowned experts on climate, weather, species extinction, human health and other topics. If so, he obviously hadn’t listened, or had simply chosen to ignore every fact and explanation presented, as not in accord with his ideologies. That would certainly include the keynote address by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, explaining how he left the organization over its increasingly bizarre, irrational and inhumane attitudes and actions.

Gibson’s “interview” quickly became a prosecutorial interrogation, marked by ignorance or denial of basic facts and repeated interruptions to contest my observations. He insisted that hurricanes are more frequent and devastating than ever before (though not one Category 3 or higher ‘cane has made US landfall in eight-plus years, breaking a century-long record, as a panel discussion I had chaired that day made clear); wildfires are worsening (though their number and acres burned are down significantly, and could be driven lower via more intelligent forest management and fire suppression policies); and rising seas will soon drown coastal communities (hardly likely at the current rate of seven inches per century).

He likewise denied the 18-year pause in global warming, even though the IPCC and other alarmists have finally admitted it is real. My references to conference participants and the exhaustive NIPCC report were met with claims that it had not been peer-reviewed. Perhaps not by the closed circle of well-funded IPCC scientists, bureaucrats and activists who rubberstamp one another’s work – while refusing to share data and methodologies, allow outside experts to review their work products, attend Heartland conferences, or debate NIPCC scientists in any forum. (Alarmists know their data, claims, conclusions and economy-killing demands cannot withstand scrutiny.) However, the NIPCC reports and the studies they laboriously analyze and summarize were fully peer-reviewed by numerous scientists.

(Alarmists say twenty years of warming proves Earth is at a “tipping point” for runaway climate chaos, requiring the end of fossil fuels. They say the subsequent 18 years of no warming, and even a slight cooling, is irrelevant and meaningless. Whom do you believe, they ask? Us alarmists and our computer models, or a bunch of “fringe” scientists who cite actual temperature and other evidence?)

After twenty minutes, Gibson got to his real issue: money. Where does CFACT get its funding? The Koch brothers and ExxonMobil? That would be nice, to compliment the cash that Exxon gives to radical green groups. But no, they don’t support us. My mention of Chesapeake Energy’s $26 million to the Sierra Club, to fund anti-coal campaigns, did force him to admit this is a problem for Big Green’s social responsibility mantra. But when I noted Tom Steyer’s billions from hedge fund investments in coal mines and power plants, Gibson insisted that this money was second-hand and thus pure – whereas Koch money was earned directly (via producing energy and creating jobs) and thus was tainted by “self-interest.”

That “ethical” distinction without a difference would also apply, I suppose, to the tens of millions of dollars that Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Fund have received from fat-cat liberal foundations that are heavily invested in fossil fuel and other corporate securities.

Gibson also brought up his organization’s attempted 2003 anti-chemicals rally in New Jersey’s Liberty Park. The event turned into a resounding protest against Greenpeace, when scores of black and Hispanic demonstrators from the Congress of Racial Equality completely flummoxed the Rainbow Warriors with stilt walkers, bongo drums and chants of “Hey hey Greenpeace, what do you say? How many children did you kill today?” He dropped his inquisition when I pointed out that I’m a life-member of CORE.

Indeed, what Gibson really did not want to discuss were the destructive, even lethal effects of Greenpeace policies and campaigns. Some 2.5 billion people still do not have electricity or get it only sporadically, and so must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking, which results in widespread lung diseases that kill two to four million people every year. No electricity also means no refrigeration, safe water or decent hospitals, which means virulent intestinal diseases kill another two million annually.

Worldwide, some two billion people still live in malaria-infested areas, 500 million get the disease every year, and nearly a million die. A primary reason is their inability to acquire insecticides to kill mosquitoes and DDT to keep the flying killers out of homes. Another billion people face malnutrition and Vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness and death in children. In fact, eight million children have died from Vitamin A deficiency since Golden Rice was invented and made available at no charge to poor farmers.

But the Rainbow Warriors and other callous eco-imperialists wage well-funded campaigns against Golden Rice, insecticides and DDT, and coal-fired, gas-fueled, hydroelectric and nuclear power generation – perpetuating poverty, malnutrition, disease, misery and death. To them, a planet free from the wildly conjectural and exaggerated dangers of these technologies is far more important than the billions of lives improved and millions of lives saved by them. It is a vicious war on dark-skinned women and children, who die in the greatest numbers from malaria, lung infections, malnutrition and severe diarrhea.

Greenpeace actions are akin to denying chemotherapy to cancer patients or antibiotics to pneumonia sufferers. Their anti-technology campaigns are eco-manslaughter and should no longer be tolerated.

Personally, I cannot imagine life without modern technologies. I can’t imagine living in electricity-free, disease-ridden, malnourished, polluted poor nation squalor. As my grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.”

But of course, Gibson has an air-conditioned malaria-free home, fine food, access to affordable, reliable electricity and transportation, a refrigerator, video camera and cell phone. He would never give them up, nor would I ask him to. However, some of my African friends would gladly let him “enjoy” a few months in a state-of-the-art, mosquito-infested hut, rely solely on a bed net, drink parasite-infested water, breathe polluted smoke from cooking fires, and walk miles to a clinic when he gets malaria, TB or dysentery – hoping the nurse has some non-fake medicines to treat him. I’d gladly help make the arrangements.

Financially motivated innovators, entrepreneurs and companies have worked wonders to improve and save the lives of billions. Yes, there have been accidents, some of which have killed hundreds of people or thousands of animals. However, the real killers are governments and anti-technology nonprofit activist corporations. Their death tolls are in the millions – via wars and through misguided or intentional policies that institute or perpetuate starvation and disease from denial of food and life-saving technologies.

Gibson is a bright guy. Perhaps one day he will understand all of this, hopefully before the death toll rises much higher. To that end, he and his alarmist colleagues would profit mightily from reading my Eco-Imperialism book and new report Three Faces of Sustainability; the new book About Face: Why the world needs more carbon dioxide; and several recent studies: Climate Change Reconsidered: Physical Science; CCR: Biological Impacts, and Climate Catastrophe: A superstorm for global warming research.

Countless jobs, living standards and lives hang in the balance. The eco-imperialist crimes against humanity must end.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Scientist’s Findings Do NOT Support AGW. (Warming not hiding in the ocean, either.)

More Heat about Ocean Heat – another nail in the AGW coffin

Posted: 14 Jul 2014 08:31 PM PDT

Anthony Cox

 

I have previously written about the fact that the heat in the ocean isn’t there. A Facebook commentator produced some excellent graphs based on the ARGO data which showed NO heat accumulation at any level in the world’s oceans. This lack of warming contradicts completely  (Anthropogenic Global Warming) AGW theory as put forward by such AGW stalwarts as Trenberth and England. It also has Hansen scrambling for weird and whacky explanations.

 

So it is plain in the ARGO era that the oceans are not warming and this contradicts AGW.

In my articles I noted that NODC graphs were shown in joules which allowed a steeper slope compared to a temperature trend. Mischievously I suggested an ulterior motive for this. Alarmism.

 

Another blogger has taken me to task. Rob Ryan has defended the NODC graphs and pointed out that they do indeed have temperature graphs. Indeed they do:

 

Thanks Rob. By way of comparison here is the same graph in joules:

 

 

Well to me the trend slope in the joules graph looks steeper and more alarming than the temperature graph. But Rob doesn’t like OHC as a measure of the energy; it is poor terminology according to Rob. Hey Rob, don’t blame me, argue with NODC and indeed AGW in general; they’re the ones using and relying on it.

What really is poor is the notion that by any measure the oceans are heating. The estimable Bob Tisdale does a comparison of all OHC measures and produces this graph:

 

Plainly Hansen’s model on behalf of AGW is off with the pixies while the MET and the NODC show the opposite trend!

A couple of things about this. 

Firstly the ARGO data is adjusted before it is presented. Obviously NODC and the MET adjust it differently. In fact in another post Bob Tisdale examines the NODC adjustment procedure:

At the 700 meters range NODC have increased the trend by 19%. The NODC adjustments increase the trend at 2000 meters by 36%!

Secondly the ARGO data, even though it is the best we have ever had, is vastly insufficient. Willis Eschenbach notes:

  • The sampling of the oceans is by no means as uniform as I had expected. Part of the ocean is under sampled, sometimes badly so, compared to other areas. Half of the global ocean has been sampled less than 20 times per 10,000 sq. km, and 14% has never been sampled by Argo floats at all.
  • Even when we look at just the area from 60°N/S, half the ocean has been sampled less than 24 times per 10,000 sq. km, and 8% is unsampled.
  •  The area of the El Nino phenomenon is a critical area for the regulation of planetary heat loss. Oceanic heat content in this area can change quite rapidly. However, parts of it are woefully undersampled.
  • Finally, the older Argo floats sample either down to 1,000 metres, and intermittently go to 1,500 metres depth. The newer ones go down to 1800 metres. Which is quite deep, about a mile down. But the estimates of oceanic heat storage include the whole ocean. Figure 3 shows a pair of transects from Antarctica (on the left) to Hawaii, and then Hawaii to Alaska on the right, to give some sense of scale.

Figure 3 (Figure 10 from cited source.) North/South Pacific transect at 150°W.  ORIGINAL CAPTION: Vertical section of potential temperature (°C) along 150°W from data collected in 1991-1993 as part of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment. Data north of Hawaii were collected in 1984 (Talley et al., 1991). Potential temperature is the temperature a parcel of water would have if moved to the sea surface with no change in heat content, and is lower than measured temperature since temperature increases when water is compressed due to the high pressure in the ocean.

The Argo floats operate mostly in the warmer area up top of Figure 3, above the lower thermocline (light blue). Average depth in this entire transect is much deeper than that, about 5,000 metres. So the Argo floats are measuring less than a quarter of the water in this part of the Pacific basin. Makes the whole question of oceanic heat content kinda iffy.

Kinda iffy is a vast understatement! The ARGO floats don’t even go to 2000 meters and yet we have temperature profiles at that depth.

The only reasonable conclusion is that based on the best data from ARGO the oceans are not warming, whether you are considering joules or temperature.

Thanks again Rob; by my reckoning that is another nail in the AGW coffin.