Goldilocks1

By Nancy Thorner – 

When it comes to human-caused global warming, most people think there are two camps: “alarmists,” those who acknowledge it, and “deniers,” those who deny it. But this is far from true.  There are credible scientists – such as those at The Heartland Institute’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) last month – that accede to the existence of some global warming taking place, but question to what extent man is to blame.

For instance, participants and scientists at Heartland’s conference, S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, maintain that a warmer planet will be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet and that “corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.” Meanwhile, other reputable scientists attending ICCC-12 believe a period of cooler weather looms ahead in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of sunspots.

Now there is another camp, the “lukewarmers” as defined by Dr. Pat Michaels and Paul “Chip” Knapperberger. Both are recognized environmental climate scientists who believe that man-made global warming is real, but they refuse to buy into the politicized pseudoscience that has increasingly been used to buttress the case that global warming is also likely to be dangerous. In their book, Lukewarming: The New Climate Science That Changes Everything, Michaels and Knappenberger, refer to themselves as “lukewarmers,” and expose many myths about climate change.

In a way the lukewarming view of climate change set forth by Michaels and Knappenberger relates to the English Fairy Tale, The Story of The Three Bears. Goldilocks, in tasting the porridge that had been left to cool by the bears while they took a walk in a forest, found the Great Big Bear’s porridge too hot, the Middle-sized Bear’s porridge too cold, while the Little Wee Bear’s porridge was neither too hot or too cold.

The too-hot temperature of the Great Big Bear’s porridge is the same claim made by climate change alarmists like Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who falsely predict catastrophic occurrences unless drastic measures are taken. The lukewarming concept of climate science introduced by Michaels and Knappenberger, represents the neither too hot or too cold porridge of the Little Wee Bear – or, just the right approach.

Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, explained all this as a featured speaker April 19 at The Heartland Institute where he talked about his book. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004.

While introducing Michaels, Heartland Institute President Joe Bast expressed with apparent delight, three happenings of note in the past 100 days:  1) The election of Donald Trump as president, whose accomplishments are acceding expectations – such as Trump cutting EPA spending by 31 percent, which was long overdue. 2) Heartland’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) held in Washington, D.C. in March – which attracted 300 participants without a formal invitation being sent. The conference featured 40 speakers attracted 55 members of the media, most of whom heretofore had not been interested in what Heartland had to say on the topic. 3) Heartland sending some 350,000 copies of Why Scientists Disagree with Global Warming to science teachers in K-12 and colleges, as well as 400 CEOs. The message: There is no consensus on global warming. The media and some activist teachers organizations have chosen to respond with accusations that Heartland’s mailing is an attempt at brainwashing – a notion Bast thoroughly rebutted.

 Michaels Explains his Lukewarmer Thesis

Michael’s remarks, tailored to his slide presentation, showed time and again the misuse of the flawed, always too-hot climate models, and the tremendous incentives that exist for their continued misuse. So it follows that unreasonable and unnecessary climate policies have been based on the too-hot and frequently manipulated climate models. Clearly, he said, if the climate models can’t properly simulate the past, they can’t be relied upon for the future – and are a terrible basis for energy and economic policy.

Other aspects of the Michael’s Lukewarmers Camp include:

  • Life thrived on Earth through hot time and cold, mostly with much higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures than we are experiencing in the current era. This enhanced CO2 allows plants to take advantage of warmer temperature. Tropical rain forests have greatly increased because of the increase in CO2.
  • Market forces compel adaptation to all kinds of change, including slight changes in climate. Even if the United States continues to burn half of its corn production, the rest of the world still is able to produce tremendous amounts of food to meet the needs of its growing population.
  • Health effects of climate change on the U.S. are negligible and are likely to remain so. Forty-six percent of all U.S. deaths directly attributable to weather events from 1993 to 2006 were caused by excessive cold; 28 percent were from excessive heat.
  • After 75 years of rapidly increasing CO2 emission, hurricanes have responded only lukewarmly. Severe weather is a characteristic of earth’s atmosphere and every day some kind of story or extreme event will (and likely will) be associated with global warming. Even if the issue of the day were global cooling, such extreme weather events could be made to fit that paradigm, too.
  • Arctic ice has declined before, even in the last century before humans had put very much CO2 into the atmosphere. The Arctic was even ice free for long stretches, both before the end of the last ice age and afterwards.  The Washington Post on November 11, 1922 reported of hitherto unheard-of temperature in the Arctic zone. The seals were finding the water too hot and great masses of ice had been replaced by moraines of earth and stones. Nevertheless, there’s always plenty of ice in the Arctic Ocean, even in the beginning of the fall when it reaches its minimum extent.
  • As for the survival of the iconic polar bear, the polar bear has weathered – and maybe even prospered – during many periods when the Arctic summer’s end was ice free.
  • The Paris Climate Treaty is an unenforceable document that requires its signatories to prepare new “determined contributions” every five years, counts all warming since the Industrial Revolution as having been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, uses the mean sensitivity of the UN climate models, and requires an immediate cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions (fossil fuels) to meet its aspirational goal of keeping future warming below 1.5 degree C. This reduction in potential warming is operationally meaningless, and would result in a lukewarm agreement meant for a lukewarm world, in which only the United States and the EU stand to be harmed.

Michaels predicted a new warming of only six-tenths to a quarter degree by the end of the 21st century.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to plan for and then take measures to prepare for an event that has only a finite chance of happening, but which would greatly reduce our standard of living and further destroy this nation’s economy.

To watch the entire presentation by Michaels, click here.

Comments

Monday, September 12, 2016

By Nancy Thorner – 

As previously discussed, (read it here) renowned scientist, speaker, author and Heartland Institute Science Director Dr. Jay Lehr and Colorado State University Atmospheric Science Professor Dr. Scott Denning debated two film clips from Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. The debate was hosted by The Heartland Institute on Wednesday, August 31, 2016, to determine how the movie has fared through the test of time on its 10th anniversary.

The first two film clips debated in Part 1 were; “Solar Radiation in the Form of Light Waves Passes Through the Atmosphere,” and “The Coral Reefs Off the Coast of Australia Are Being Bleached and Destroyed Due to Global Warming.” (View the entire debate here.) In Part 2, I will recount how Lehr and Denning debated the final four of the six featured film clips.

Film Clip #3: Fresh Meltwater is Tunneling Straight Down Through Greenland.

Claim: Tony Blair’s Scientific Advisor said in 2005 that if Greenland breaks up (even half of it) maps will have to be withdrawn because the Netherlands and other low lying areas would be covered with water. Among areas affected would be San Francisco Bay, Beijing, Shanghai, and Calcutta.

Denning: Sea level rising has gotten much worse because of melting ice. Ice can melt very fast with a huge impact, such as in property loss and the creation of a refugee crisis worse than the one that exists today.

Lehr: This is fear mongering at its worst, a global warming fraud that is casting an extremely negative impact on the future of the world. Between 1000 and 1250 there was farming in Greenland during a mini warming period. Corn and barley were grown. As far as loss to our economy, billions have already been squandered trying to develop green energy to replace fossil fuels. Why? Because green energy sources are more expensive to operate and maintain.

Film Clip #4: Polar Bears Are Endangered Because Ice Is Melting.

Claim: Polar bears have drowned when having to swim 60 miles to find ice and food.

Lehr: Polar bears can swim 100 miles. This cuddly little icon of global warming was a poor choice for Gore. Polar bears have been around for 500,000 years and are thriving today, with ample evidence population is increasing. Some 10,000 visitors come every year to view the polar bears feed at Churchill Matoba (Hudson Bay) where polar bears have been studied for 21 years. Polar bears coming to feed at Churchill increase every year.

Denning: Denning didn’t deny the increase in polar bear population at Churchill, but as ice is the habitat of the polar bear, due to melting ice there is less habitat available for polar bears. As Denning did when he spoke about the exposure of the Great Coral Reef as being a side issue to global warming, he likewise considered the polar bear a side issue in the overall discussion of climate change. Economics once again became the dominant issue for Denning as he reiterated the lost economic growth that would take place if 10 times more fossil fuel were burnt as has occurred to date.

Film Clip #5: Are We Capable of Rising Above Ourselves and History?

Claim: After all, freedom and self-determination was established here in the U.S. and spread around the world. We landed on the moon and defeated fascism.

Denning: We are fortunate global warming is a problem that is not all that expensive to solve. Our problems today aren’t as difficult to deal with as were some that faced our forefathers. Our grandparents did well for themselves by building roads, bridges and highways. Our generation built the Internet. The American people are capable of solving problems. We know how to do it. Economics was again cited: A 1 percent reduction in GPD over the next century beats a 25 percent reduction if we fail to deal with the global warming problem now.

Lehr: The mention of economics by Denning raised his dander. Lehr mentioned that we have already spent well over $1 trillion with zero results in trying to develop alternate salable and affordable sources of energy to reduce CO2. The U.S. and France were cited as the only countries that have reduced CO2 levels: France because of using nuclear energy, and the U.S. because of scrubbers installed on coal plants. As a nation, we are capable of doing great things. However, the so-called global warming crisis is fear mongering, which hasn’t yet, nor will ever, come true.

Film Clip #6: Gore compared a photo of Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa taken 30 years ago with one recently taken.

Claim: Human-caused global warming is causing the famed Snows of Kilimanjaro to disappear.

Lehr: Lehr had no quibble about the photos. At 19,340 feet high, Kilimanjaro was losing ice long before man began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Since the temperature at the top of Kilimanjaro has never risen above freezing, why then is the ice melting? Lehr attributed the melting to what is known in physics as “sublimation” from solid to gas. Because of deforestation over the centuries at lower levels, the resulting dry air rises up the mountain and causes ice to go from solid to gas. Like the polar bear, Dr. Lehr considered Kilimanjaro a poor choice by Al Gore to include in his movie.

Denning: The melting is not just happening at Kilimanjaro, but at every mountain in the world. 70 million people depend on water from melting mountain snow. In Colorado, a state Denning is familiar with, snow pack is down 20 percent since 1980, and this has happened with only 1 degree F of global warming. What will happen if 10 times more fossil fuel is burnt?

Debate Wrap up

Denning: He noted again his three S’s of climate change: Simple, Serious, Solvable. In referencing how Lehr denies climate change is taking place even if 10 times as much fossil fuel is used, Denning challenges Lehr’s inability to explain why. According to Denning, it’s very easy to explain: heat in, heat out. When six-and-a-half watts was added to the world for 100 centuries, the sea rose hundreds of feet. When either heat or cold is added, temperature changes occurs as they did during the Medieval warming period and the mini ice age which followed.

If we deal with the problem now, it will cost our kids a hundred times less than if we fail to take immediate steps to solve global warming. Denning strongly suggested that as a free market think tank The Heartland Institute must become involved or else the Left will take over completely. The market system is not weak. We must be brave. Modern free-market solutions must be applied. As civilization comes from inside us, this nation will be just fine if our kids remain creative and hardworking.

Lehr: In offering a critique of his challenger, Lehr questioned how it was possible to like someone yet disagree so much with everything he says? Lehr spoke of global warming as a political ploy to gain power. Global cooling was tried during the ’70s, but that didn’t scare the world. Global warming is not about the environment; it is about reducing individual freedom. It’s also about the elimination of fossil fuels. But why eliminate fossil fuels when they are improving the quality of live all across the world? This nation is awash in shale gas. In Colorado, for instance, there is more oil and gas reserves than in all of Saudi Arabia. Yet the push continues to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power when both require backup energy sources.

Climate alarmists are predicting how the weather will be much warmer 100 years down the road with possible catastrophic results, even though predicting the weather one week ahead is risky to attempt. Eliminating the generous subsidies given to developers of wind and solar power will bring out new and better things. As an self-described extremely optimistic person, Lehr opined how the future is always better than what went before, but this still doesn’t prevent a new scenario of doom and gloom from being offered up during next year’s Earth Day celebration.

Debate Finale

Jim Lakely, communications director at The Heartland Institute, fielded question for Lehr and Denning from event participants and from those watching the live-stream on YouTube. (Click here to view.)

Not disputed was what is considered our most valuable resource which is found between our ears, the human mind.

Notable is that global warming is near the bottom of the list of concerns people have around the world. And global warming deserves to be near the bottom of the list. As related in this recent, hard-hitting and credible article about climate change posted on September 2, 2016, Tens of Thousands of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax, a staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward saying man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.

One of the experts is Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being realized by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore. In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Natural News reports:

“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”

Monday, September 12, 2016 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

 

Thursday, September 08, 2016

 
 
 
 

cco2President Obama has made 2014 his “year of action” and plans to use his executive authority to implement various actions of his agenda that are too divisive for Congress to consider. John Podesta, as White House adviser, was brought on board late last year to help Obama find ways to use executive orders to unilaterally push climate policies.

The EPA has already released emissions limits for existing coal-fired plant.  Early last month the EPA rolled out new proposed rules that would require power plants to slash carbon emissions by 30 percent over the next 15 years as part of the Obama administration efforts to curb air pollution and fight climate change.

Recently (July 23) a coalition of top business groups expressed rising concerns over the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants and demanded more time to respond.  The same business group coalition is also eying a legal battle against the Obama administration if called for.  According to the EIA (Energy Information Administration), if power companies are further mandated to comply with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) which limit mercury emissions and others pollutants, it is estimated that by 2040 this nation will have lost 15% of its coal-fired capacity.

Before drastic action is taken to curb CO2 emissions which would result in higher energy prices, the loss of jobs, certain electricity black outs, and an overall drag on this nation’s economy and productivity, shouldn’t both sides of the global warming argument be heard?  Given a fair and balanced approach, those Americans who accept Global Warming as settled science might not be so willing to go along with alarmists who are prepared to ruin the economy, sacrifice jobs, and our standard of living all for the sake of a crusade being promoted and conducted by politicians and world leaders seeking to tell everyone else how to live.

Undoubtedly Al Gore has done much to promote alarm and concern that catastrophic Global Warming is taking place through his 2006 Academy Award winning documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth.

UN as a Promoter of One World Government through social engineering

Understanding how the issue of Climate Change originated and why green energy vs. carbon-produced energy sources is now being pushed by nations all over the world (including the U.S.), requires some historical knowledge.  Social engineering has been the orchestrated role of the progressive-oriented United Nations since its founding in 1945, when 50 nations and several non-governmental organizations signed the U.N. Charter.  Today almost every fully recognized independent states are member states in the U.N.  If accepted for U.N. membership, member states must accept all obligations outlined in the Charter and be willing to carry out any action to satisfy those obligations.

An attempt at U.N. social engineering took place this week on Tuesday, July 22nd, when the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee began discussion of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(CPRD).  Should the Senate approve the UN CPRD treaty, it could threaten U.S. sovereignty and parental rights, putting this nation under international law when it comes to parenting our special needs children by giving the U.N. discretion over healthcare and education decisions for special needs kids.   Our nation already has laws to protect Americans with disabilities!

UN’s Rio+20 conference:  a blueprint for sustainable development worldwide, with emphasis on the environment

Operating within the U.N. is the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established in 1972, with its mandate “to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment.”  This agency has become the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental agenda, that promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimensions of sustainable development within the United Nations system, and that serves as the authoritative advocate for the global environment.

Twenty years after the establishment of the UNEP, the UN Climate Change crusade began in earnest.  Initiated at the UN Rio+20 Conference (also known as the “Earth Summit”) held from June 3-14, 1992, the Conference themes were that of a green economy in the context of an institutional framework for “sustainable development” to eradicate poverty.  The two-week 1992 UN Earth Summit produced Agenda 21, adopted as a climax to a process that had begun in 1989 through negotiations among all U.N Member States.  Its intent was to serve as a wide-ranging blueprint for action to achieve sustainable development worldwide.  As written, Agenda 21 was a  Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest Principles, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

172 governments participated in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, 108 as heads of State of Government.  George H. Bush represented the U.S.  The UN Rio+20 “Earth Summit” set the agenda for further UN conferences, at which time the emphasis continued on the need for “environmentally sustainable development” — that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Subsequent U.N. Conferences included those held Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010), and Durbin (2011).

Sustainable government in the here and now

An example of sustainable development presently being enacted throughout the world under the guise of saving the planet from global warming, was brought home in a recent article titled, “Agenda 21:  Home Sweet Home in Freight Shipping Containers,” written by senior columnist for Canada Free Press, Ileana Johnson, and best-selling author of UN Agenda 21:  Environmental Piracy.  Ileana Johnson relates how damaged shipping containers are now being tuned into housing units in this nation and throughout the world

Writes Ileana Johnson:  These tiny spaces are expensive but they give the occupants a false sense of saving money and the planet by not using a car, walking or biking everywhere, just like the zoning environmentalists have been pushing for a while now, high density, and high rise living, five minutes from work, school, shopping, and play while the metro is nearby. Absolute heaven if you want to live like a rat in an 8-by-40-foot box! Who would not enjoy living in “lovingly repurposed steel husks” that have been previously sloshing across oceans.

So it is that the progressive UN-inspired social engineering projects of Sustainable Urbanism, Sustainable Development, and Equitable Communities are now being implemented around the world.  Having been adopted  at the UN’s Rio+20, the UN’s social engineering projects are not just aimed at destroying national sovereignty, language, and cultural identity.  Social engineering, as being imposed on entire neighborhoods, is resulting in a massive replacement of rural areas and suburban sprawl with high density, high rise urban dwellings, all in the name of green environmentalism as a way of saving the planet from the destruction of manufactured man-made global warming/climate change.

UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

In tandem with the UN Conferences, which have colored the thinking of world leaders since 1992 and have led them to become advocates of Global Warming, is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments.  So far there have been five reports.  All of the IPCC reports assess scientific information relevant to:

1.  Human-induced climate change.

2.  The impacts of human-induced climate change.’

3.  Options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (WGII AR5) was the product of this year’s March 25-29 meeting in Yokohama, Japan. As with the other four assessment reports, the consequences of Global Warming were many and required the issuance of a thirty-two page report for policymakers!  The AR5 report reads like a bad novel with consequence after consequence stated unless human induced climate change is addressed without delay.

Evaluatng IPCC scientists

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, describes the IPCC as a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organized to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important land relevant findings.  These finding are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth’s climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and or even adjust the predicted outcome.

Although Christy refers to most IPCC participants as scientists who bring an aura of objectivity to the task, he does note two drawbacks which limit the objectivity of IPCC scientists: 

1. IPCC is a political process to the extent that governments are involved.  Lead Authors are nominated by their own governments.

2. Scientists are mere mortals looking at a system so complex that it’s impossible to predict the future state even five day ahead.  It doesn’t help that it’s tempting among scientists as a group to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade.”  Scientists like to be the “ones who know” and not thought of as “ones who do not know.

As far as process is concerned, IPCC scientist trust computer simulations more than actual facts and actual measurements.  Many times there are not exact values for the coefficients in computer modes.  There are only ranges of potential values.  By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other, a scientist of computer modeler can usually get very different results — ones that are favorable to the individual or institution doing the study which, in turn, insures a continuance of government funding.

Patrick Moore, Ph.D., once a Greenpeace Insider, lashes out at UN’s IPCC. 

Screen Shot 2014-07-24 at 9.04.21 AM

Patrick Moore, Ph. D. at the 9th International Conference on Global Warming  

Moore co-founded the environmental activist group Greenpeace as a PhD student in ecology in 1971, but left Greenpeace in 1986 after the group became more interested in “politics” than science.   Patrick Moore has angered environmentalist groups after saying climate change is “not caused by humans” and there is “no scientific proof” to back global warming alarmism.

On February 28, 2014, Moore told a US Senate Committee:  “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,”  “If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see.  No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

Patrick Moore is critical of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for claiming “it is extremely likely” that human activity is the “dominant cause” for global warning, noting that “extremely likely” is not a scientific term.

Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist is Moore’s firsthand account of his many year as an ultimate Greenpeace insider.

Dr. Patrick Moore was the winner of The Speaks Truth to Power Award in Las Vegas at the 9th International Conference of Climate Change.

Articles by Nancy Thorner based on Heartland’s 9th International Conference on Global Warming:

 

[Originally published at Illinois Review]

 
by Nancy Thorner, July 28, 2014
 

snowpClimate change hysteria has become the mantra of U.S. government since Al Gore’s 2006 Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. The latest is that the U.S. Defense Department has embraced Al Gore’s message. According to a Defense Department official, Daniel Chiu, “All Pentagon operations in the U.S. and abroad are threatened by climate change.” Chiu, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development, gave this additional warning to senators at a hearing on Tuesday, July 22:

The effects of the changing climate affect the full range of Department activities, including plans, operations, training, infrastructure, acquisition, and longer-term investments. By taking a proactive, flexible approach to assessment, analysis, and adaptation, the Department can keep pace with the impacts of changing climate patterns, minimize effects on the Department, and continue to protect our national security interests.

The Defense Department’s proclamation is in keeping with an alarming statement made by President Obama at a recent fundraiser outside Seattle when he called for a Collectivist “New World Order.”  Obama bemoaned that the old new order isn’t working around the world, but “we’re not quite yet towhere we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economics that work for all people.”

As discussed in Thorner’s Illinois Review article of Thursday, July 24UN and its auspices bear responsibility for Climate ChangeAgenda 21, as a product of the UN’s Rio+20 conference, is all about the new World Collectivist Order espoused by President Obama in which environmental goals are integral to its success.

The 97% Consensus Figure

Repeated time and again is that almost all scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous, even though there are skeptic world-wide among scientists studying weather and climate who question pronouncements of certitude that due to man’s emissions of CO2 runaway global warming will occur.

This past May Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”  John Kerry’s comments mirror those publicized by UN IPCC reports, which have been unequivocally accepted by the Obama administration.  It goes without saying that  all IPPC scientists are self-professed members of the fictional 97% consensus of world scientists who believe in earth changing, man-made global warming.

Ignored by the media is a petition circulated for signatures by a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif.  Known as the Petition Project, it attracted more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.).  The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Heartland Institute fills a need and reaches out to present “hard” science

The Heartland Institute initially started looking at the issue of global warming in 2006, realizing that the debate as being presented by the UN and its auspices was all one-sided.  According to Heartland’s president, Joe Bast, it was “time to bring together global warming skeptics to develop personal relationships and a social movement” to counter the published reports released by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with its “self-interest to exaggerate the threat, to ignore any doubts, and to pursue one avenue, which is reducing emissions.”

The 1st International Conference on Climate Change was held in New York City in 2008.  Between 2008 and 2014 nine international conferences were held.  The just completed Las Vegas 9th International Conference on Climate Change from July 7-9, attended by Thorner, featured 64 speakers, from a multitude of disciplines and rightly qualifies as the most star- studded climate conference yet.  Visit this site to watch all of the #ICCC9 conference videos.

NIPCC as a Counter to IPCC

In addition to Heartland’s sponsorship of nine international climate change conferences to inform the public that there is another side to the global warming debate and that science is not settled, The Heartland Institute’s association with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is noteworthy and is recognized worldwide, sometimes with scorn, with findings that reducing CO2 emissions, especially here in the United States alone, will not effect the global temperature. In 2009 the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute combined forces to produce Climate Change Reconsidered,which was the first comprehensive alternative to the alarmist reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The newest volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, was released on April 9: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. The second volume was released in June. These two volumes are the fifth and sixth in a series of scholarly reports produced by NIPCC.  Previous volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series were published in 200820092011, and 2013.  Reports are available for free online on this site. 

Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability.  Whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a favorite of Conference attendees, issues a warning

It was during the 12th panel discussion at the recent Las Vegas 9th International Conference on Climate Change on Tuesday, July 8, titled, International Perspectives on Climate Change, when panelist Lord Christopher Monckton, a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher and one of the most visible and outspoken voices against climate change science as a climate change skeptic, gave pertinent details about past UN conferences, along with a grave warning about the Paris Conference (COP21) that will take place in the summer of 2015.  If the Paris Conference succeeds in its goal, as Lord Monckton feels that it might, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations all the nations of the world, including the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will be bound by a universal agreement on climate change.  Monckon is calling for a “Get out” clause insert – or freedom clause — if countries wish to withdraw from the treaty because of changed minds about the dogma of Global Warming as a threat to mankind.  In reality, there hasn’t been any global warming for 17 years and 10 months!

Normal or hard science, contrasted with Post-normal science

Just what is the basis of real or hard science and how does it differ from post-normal science?  The concept of post-normal science was introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990’s. Climate change as promoted by UN IPCC reports, fall in the post-normal science category in that the process of science is linked to who gets funded, who evaluates quality, and who has the ear of policy makers.  Predictions are made on the basis of a theory or hypothesis. This contrasts the use of real world observations to test predictions as do the NIPCC reports published by The Heartland Institute.

In Climate Change and the Death of Science, Christian British blogger Kevin McGrane nails practitioners of post-normal science.  In their own words Kevin McGrane demonstrates that even they know and admit they’re no longer doing science but politics.  McGrane’s article strikes at the very root of many environmentalists’ routine practices.

A good explanation of Normal vs Post-normal science was contained in a brochure published and distributed by The Cornwall Alliance at the Las Vegas Conference.  The Cornwall Alliance is a coalition of clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development. Not only was the Cornwall Alliance a cosponsor of the Las Vegas Conference, but its president, founder and national spokesman, E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. , participated in Panel 21 (Global Warming as a Social Movement).  Dr. Beisner was likewise honored as the winner of Heartland’s Outstanding Spokesperson in Faith, Science, and Stewardship Award.

Normal or Hard science (NIPCC reports) consists of a rigorous process in which scientists formulate hypotheses to explain how some natural process works; test those hypothesis by careful observation of the real world and of laboratory experiments, diligently disciplining themselves to look as carefully for results that might falsify their hypotheses as results that are consistent with them; and freely share the raw data and the computer codes by which they interpret those date with other scientists so that they can try to replicate their observations and experiments, or find flaws in them.  Post-normal science (UN IPCC reports) is a process in which someone formulates a hypothesis, pays attention only to experimental and real-world observations that seem to confirm it but ignores and even suppresses contrary observation, refuses to share his date and methods with other scientists, and seeks to intimidate scientists who disagree with him or to prevent publication of their research.

What happens if Post-normal science wins?

This is what we are up against.  To put it bluntly, practitioners of post-normal science have stabbed real science in the back on their hurried way to declare how an “overwhelming scientific consensus” exists on manmade global warming.

Nigel Lawson asks in A Wicked Orthodoxy published May 5, 2014:

How is it that much of the Western world has succumbed to the self-harming collective madness that is climate orthodoxy?  It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate-change orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion. . .

Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that use to vie for popular support, Christianity and the theistic belief system of Communism, are each clearly in decline.  Yet people still feel the need both for the comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide.  It is the quasi-religion of global salvationism that has filled the vacuum, of which the climate-change dogma is the prime example.

Although the Western world will suffer economically with countless hardships befalling its inhabitants, it is with the masses in the developing world where the greatest immorality is even now taking place. How can you ask the millions of people in third world countries who live in dire poverty to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy while suffering malnutrition, disease, and premature death. Not only is the global-warming orthodoxy irrational. It is also wicked.

In Conclusion

A new Pew “Global Attitudes Project” poll of July 22 offers details on the way citizens of the world think about climate change.  Unfortunately the poll has been interpreted in a way that brands the American people as ignorant to the risks of global warming.  Why?  Because only one in four Americans indicated that climate change was a “major threat,” making the U.S. the least concerned nation.  Maybe Americans as a whole are smarter than we sometimes give them credit for being.

If real scientists don’t rise up and point out that the emperor of “post-normal science” has no clothes, the whole scientific enterprise will die and the world and its people will suffer  The Heartland Institute must be applauded and supported for its fearless stance as a global warming skeptic, noted by The Economist, for taking action through its presentation of international conferences, and for its fact-based NIPCC reports which challenge the UN IPCC reports that advance unproven hypotheses.

Articles by Nancy Thorner based on Heartland’s 9th International Conference on Global Warming:

Article 1:  http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/07/ready-thorner-a-climate-change-holocaust.html#more

Article 2:  http://blog.heartland.org/2014/07/heartlands-science-director-breaks-ground-to-rein-in-us-epa/

Article 3:  http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/07/scientist-honored-at-heartland-conference-seeks-us-congressional-seat.html

Article 4:  http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/07/ready-thorner-un-and-its-auspices-bear-responsibility-for-global-warming-hysteria.html#more

[Originally published at Illinois Review]

 

 

Monday, September 23, 2013

Part 1

Th-13By Nancy Thorner –

On Monday, September 16th, a debate took place in the Wilmette Public Library on the topic of Global climate variations:  A looming crisis or natural changes. The debate was between Steve Goreham, a speaker and researcher on environmental issues and author of two books, the most recent, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania, and Kent Taylor, a long-time resident of the Chicago area, a 20-year volunteer at the Shedd Aquarium as a lecturer on coral reef ecology, and now an Al Gore-trained presenter through Gore’s Climate Reality Project to spread Gore’s message of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming.

Of interest was how Ken Taylor became an Al Gore global warming presenter.  It all started when Taylor and his wife visited St. John’s National Park.  A year later, when again exploring the same reef formations, they found that over a period of just one year 50 to 60 percent of the reef had been lost, prompting Mr. Taylor to conclude that if nothing were done St. John’s coral reef formations would be lost.  In 1996, learning that Al Gore was seeking volunteers to be presenters for The Climate Project, Taylor applied and was chosen to participate in a three-day training session in Nashville, Tennessee, to master Al Gore’s global warming slide presentation.

The Wilmette debate was a timely one given the release a day later, September 17th, of the newest volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Heartland Institute and members of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which challenges the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC – AR5) report scheduled for release tomorrow, Sept. 24, in Stockholm, Sweden. The U.N. IPCC AR5 is supported by governments in almost every county in the industrialized world, including the Democrats in America and the Obama administration.

Despite leaked conclusions of the 2013 IPCC report to The Daily Mail in England contradicting many of the doom and gloom scenarios projected in the lauded 2007 U.N. IPCC report, what might the odds be that the new findings will throw a monkey wrench to alter the thinking of alarmists who believe that the science of global warming is settled — that the debate is over — as physics tells them so?

No chance, as the leaked 2013 IPCC report, although admitting that most of its major conclusions in 2007 were incorrect, still holds firmly to the belief — with a certainty of 95% or more — that human action was the cause of half of the warming occurring from 1957 – 2001.  Kent Taylor wavered very little in the debate as the presenter of Al Gore’position on global warming.

The rules of the debate were set by Robert Armbruster, President of Armbruster Company, specializing in new works and restoration of historic concrete.  Taylor and Goreham were each given 30 minutes to advance their positions on global warming, accomplished through detailed slide presentations.  Following the presentations, a 10-minute rebuttal period was allotted each to counter the facts presented by their challenger. The event ended with a question and answer period.

Robert Armbruster cautioned those in attendance that he expected the debate to be civil in nature, which left no room for rabble rousing in keeping with Wilmette’s image and its people.

For the most part Armbruster’s caution was heeded, although the announcement to end the event to honor the closing time of the library did bring some vocal protestations from those who still had questions to ask of Goreham and Taylor.  Evident was that the index card system used to note questions, which were then screened, was not well received by all.

For those present at the Wilmette debate who had knowledge of the global warming debate and all of its twists and turns, and who likewise have  experienced the animosity and name-calling that goes along with being a skeptic who doesn’t accept the “science is settled argument” spewed forth regularly by the media, the debate was a no-brainer.

For readers who are less knowledgeable about global warming and the arguments used in trying to convince the public that global warming is either happening or it isn’t, the views expressed by Kent Taylor’s and Steve Goreham will be noted below each other in Part 2 so the two divergent and opposite viewpoints can readily be observed and evaluated.

Part 2 will explore three question through contrasting the global warming statements made by Kent Taylor (a believer) and Steve Goreham (a skeptic) during the course of the debate.

1.  If no action is taken what will happen?
2.  How do CO2 levels affect climate change?
3.  Is CO2 the main culprit of climate change?

Related articles

Monday, September 23, 2013 at 09:00 AM | Permalink

 

Polls_global_warming_panic_0821_267046_poll_xlargeBy Nancy Thorner – 

Ever since President Obama took office the American people have been told they have reason to worry. Repeated claims by Obama have given the impression that a constant state of emergency exists. Obamacare was considered a crisis of major importance, and was hurriedly past into law before legislators or the public had a chance to read the massive bill which now prints out to 20,000 pages of Obamacare regulations, with more to come.

 

Similarly, immigration reform (1,200 pages) is following the same pattern toward adoption as Obamacare. Hurry up and get it done before legislators and the public learn what misleading statements and weak promises make up the Senate’s proposed bill.

 

Enter crisis #3: President Obama in his weekly address on Saturday, June 29, urged voters to commit to action on climate change through their legislators to reduce carbon pollution and protect our country from the effects of climate change, even though the series of actions planned by Obama’s don’t require congressional approval:


Remind everyone who represents you, at every level of government, that there is no contradiction between a sound environment and a strong economy — and that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/308561-obama-urges-voters-to-demand-climate-action-at-the-ballot-box
 

Those who disagree for good reason with Obama’s crushing regulatory approach as outlined in his ‘Climate Action Plan’ address at Georgetown University on Tuesday, June 25 (including carbon emissions rules for power plants that are a top priority for environmental advocates), were brushed aside by Obama as individuals who stubbornly cling to the “flat-Earth-society.”      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brieing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society

 

According to Heritage’s Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow and Nicolas Loris, the President has a dilemma:

 

But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately.  Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months.  Shut down the power plants.  Stop driving our cars.  No talking.  The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius — by 2100.  These regulations are all pain no gain.   http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/24/previewing-president-obamas-climate-change-speech/

 

Energy and environment policy experts at The Heartland Institute  (http//heartland.org) wasted no time in giving their same day opinions on June 25 of Obama’s energy and environmental agenda address. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMT870P21mo

 

Alan Caruba, Founder, The National Anxiety Center, and Policy Advisor at The Heartland Institute, wrote:   http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/06/25/heartland-institute-experts-react-obamas-climate-change-speech

 

President Obama’s climate policy speech is best understood as the audacity of deceit.  It has no basis in climate science and asserts that the Earth is subject to ‘carbon pollution.’

 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.  It is essential to all life on Earth insofar as it is vital for all plant life, from a blade of grass to a giant redwood, but most essential to the growth of the crops that are the basis of feeding humanity and the livestock it depends upon as a food source.

 

The Earth and of living things on it would benefit from more carbon dioxide, but the president is asserting the very opposite of this while vilifying CO2 and the business and industrial sectors that produce it in the process of manufacturing everything a society requires.  It is also produced by seven billion humans who exhale CO2 with every breath.

 

Still not convinced that global warming is a fraud?  Read this article by Robert Moon which lists the top 10 signs that point to the fraud of global warming. http://www.examiner.com/article/update-top-ten-signs-global-warming-is-a-fraud

 

We continue to receive hysterical warnings about record CO2 levels, even as it becomes clear that there has been no statistically-significant warming in nearly two decades.  How many times have you heard that the ice sheets are shrinking when they are actually growing?

 

A NASA report in May of this year debunked global warming.  Hasn’t any one informed President Obama of this NASA report verifying that carbon dioxide actually cools the atmosphere?  The NSSA finding was revealed by Ethan A. Huff of Natural News, in an article dated Wednesday, May 22, 2013:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warmng_debunked.html

 

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA’s Langley Research Center.  As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling, based on the latest evidence.

 

German climate scientist Hans von Storch in a June 20 interview withSpiegel Online remarked that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) or “very close to zero.” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/global-warming-temperature-very-clos...

 

Part 2 will explore Obama’s “war on coal” and the chilling effects of Obama’s climate change plan on this nation’s economy.

 

Monday, July 01, 2013 at 03:52 PM | Permalink

 

Technorati Tags: , , ,

According to an online biography, Bill Kurtis (born William Horton Kuretich; September 21, 1940) is an American television journalist, producer, narrator, and news anchor. He is also the current host of A&E crime and news documentary shows, including Investigative Reports, American Justice, and Cold Case Files. Previously, he anchored CBS Morning News, and was the longtime anchor at WBBM-TV, the CBS owned-and-operated TV station in Chicago (a role to which he has recently returned).

Given Bill Kurtis’ long TV career in and around the Chicago area, and his far reaching public role as a narrator and producer of documentaries, the name of Bill Kurtis has a aura of familiarity about it, especially here in Chicagoland.

Has Bill Kurtis gone too far afield in attempting to be an expert on subject matter of which he has no background to report or to comment about? This is not an uncommon happening among “celebrities” who feel that what they have to say is all important and worth listening to. Also at fault is a gullible, believing and trusting public audience who likewise lacks the knowledge to decipher truth from just a bunch of hooey.

As coincidence would have it, on Wednesday, December 5th, the day after I heard a presentation titled “Climate Change and Renewable Energy — the Rest of the Story” by Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition, to the Barrington Kiwanis Club at The Garlands Performing Arts Center in Barrington, a commentary appeared in the Lake County News-Sun by Bill Kurtis on global warming. http://www.suntimes.com/llifestyles/splash/16784676-418/bill-kurtis-on-global-warming.html

It was evident that Bill Kurtis didn’t attempt to do any research to write his article that rates an F in scientific accuracy, but instead used information that he had been spoon fed under the guise of consensus by politicians over the years and ardent believers of man-made global warming, most famous among them Al Gore.

Kurtis had the audacity to say that “a small number of skeptics have managed to take the adrenaline out of the global warming movement; and by creating the impression that there are actually two sides to the issue, they have stalled efforts to do something about it.”

There are thousands of skeptics world-wide whose viewpoints do not reach the general public, trampled down by a news media that chooses to promote global warming alarmism through selective reporting. 900,000 years of ice core records show continuous 1,500-year warming cycles, while carbon dioxide is to plants what oxygen is to man; it is not a pollutant.

Veterans of American’s space program are among the 49 retired NASA employees who in May of this year asked NASA to halt what they consider its unscientific advocacy of climate alarmism. Among them are Apollo astronauts Phillip K. Chapman, Walter Cunningham, Charles Duke, Richard Gordon (also a Gemini veteran), Harrison Schmitt and Al Worden.

Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, told London’s Daily Telegraph: “if it’s warming now, it may cool off later. I’m not in favor of just taking short-term isolated situations and depleting our resources to keep our climate just the way it is today.” Aldrin believes the climate has been changing for billions of years. http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/NASA-astronauts-global-warming/2012/05/16/id/439252

I was struck at how Bill Kurtis latched on to the idea from James Hansen that a CO2 level above 350 parts per million isn’t safe. According to Kurtis we are now all living in an “unsafe” world when last month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a 2012 level of 391.01 parts per million at their Hawaiian observatory. It is demonstrably not true that we live in an unsafe world, but it doesn’t shake Kurtis’ faith in ATG (man-made global warming).

Assumptions made by Bill Kurtis in his pseudo article on global warming cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected. Clarifications are found in Steve Goreham’s new book — The Mad, Mad, Mad, World of Climatism; Mankind and Climate Change Mania — which will make you laugh at the absurdity of man-made global warming — that is, until it makes you cry. The foreword is by Harrison Schmitt, Senator and Apollo Astronaut: http://www.climatism.net

1. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and only a very small part of Earth’s climate. (Chapter 5)

2. Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. While the CO2 increase appears alarming, mankind contribute only about 1% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. (Chapter 5)

3. Hurricanes and storms are not more extreme. (Chapter 7)

4. Earth has been warmer in the recent past (2000 years ago in the Medieval Warm Period) with no effects from man-made emissions. (Chapter 4)

It is time to reject journalists like Bill Kurtis who lack scientific training, and other who propagate their failed eco-predictions, false green hypocrisies, and outright fraud that is currently masquerading under the guise of modern environmentalism and ‘climate science.’

This nation has many problems, but global warming is not one of them. If the present administration insists on following through on what is a hoax, the results will bring far reaching catastrophic financial consequences for this nation and its people. It is folly to think that this nation’s industries can be run on bio-fuels, wind and sunbeams.

Perhaps nobody has ever offered a more succinct indictment of the global warming hoax than H. L. Mencken, who said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_global_warming_hoax_how_soon_we_forget.html#ixzz2EcbR9gbM