Monthly Archives: September 2011

The Obama Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels Is Taken To a New Level (of absurdity)

If you were writing a fiction novel and used the latest example of the Obama Administration’s war on fossil fuels, your editor would tell you to take the example out because it was not believable.  But it seems that for the Obama Administration nothing is too absurd:  The Wall Street Journal in an editorial published on 29 September says:  “The U.S. Attorney for North

Image by

Dakota hauled seven oil and natural gas companies into federal court for killing 28 migratory birds that were found dead near oil waste lagoons. The fine can be up to $15000 and up to six months in jail for each bird killed.    The WSJ adds:”Absurdity aside, this prosecution is all the more remarkable because the wind industry each year kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. Guess how many legal actions the Obama Administration has brought against wind turbine operators under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? As far as we can tell, it’s zero.”

I guess the Attorney General is too busy covering up the Solyndra affair to go after the wind industry.

h/t Junk Science  See here


The Federal Government Should Not Be Financing “Renewable Fuels” Projects

Much has been revealed in the recent weeks about Solyndra and the developing scandal that followed the bankruptcy of the company after having received a $523 billion dollar, low interest loan from the Obama Administration.  Much is yet to be learned, and it did not get advanced by the Top Officials of Solyndra pleading the 5th Amendment at the House of Representatives hearing on Friday 23 September.

The Institute for Energy Research condensed a report by ABC on the Solyndra fiasco in to 5 Reasons why the federal government should exit the finance business.  Those reasons are as follows:

First, the government loaned Solyndra money at a really, really low interest rate—a mere 1.025 percent quarterly. In fact, this was the lowest rate provided for any green energy project.

Second, this low rate was in spite of “red flags” about the risk of investing in Solyndra. One outside rating agency rated Solyndra only a B+ and another rated Solyndra only as “Fair” for credit worthiness.

Third, Obama’s Department of Energy announced the loans before the due diligence was complete and even after auditors raised concerns. But this was not for lack of attention because even the President visited the plant and praised Solyndra as an example of the future of energy.

Fourth, according to ABC News, “Solyndra’s most prolific financial backer is George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who was a bundler of campaign donations for Obama’s 2008 race. Kaiser’s Argonaut Ventures and its affiliates have been the single largest shareholder of Solyndra, according to SEC filings and other records.” This connection alone should have caused pause for the federal government when considering an expedited loan arrangement.

And last, and in my mind, by far the worst, Kaiser and his Argonaut Ventures are first in line to recoup their investment in Solynda in bankruptcy proceedings. As ABC News explains, “Energy officials confirmed this arrangement, saying that private investors including Kaiser would first recoup their $75 million, then the U.S. government would have a chance to recover $150 million of its investment. If any money is left, the private investors and the U.S. government would divvy up the remainder in equal shares.”

In sum, the Obama administration rammed through a half billion loan on very favorable terms to a shaky company, run by a George Kaiser, one of President Obama’s largest fundraisers. If Kaiser and his company made money with Solyndra, they would keep the profits and if Solyndra failed, as in this case, they still get their money back while the taxpayer is left holding the bag.”

Any Questions?


If They Could REALLY Model Global Climate Only One Model Would Be Needed

The chart below is from Dr Roy Spencer’s blog “Global Warming”.  It shows the output from 14 different climate models versus the CERES Global satellite measurement of heat loss into space.  This chart was assembled in response to criticism by Warmers that he had cherry picked the climate models he used to contrast their performance versus his work in a recently published paper in Remote Sensing. Following the post publication criticism, Dr Spencer has done a little tweaking but nothing that changes his conclusions.   See here  and here for discussion of this issue.

But this posting is not to review the bidding on Dr Spencer’s paper.   It is to talk about the Warmer’ Global Climate Models.  Whenever I see this assembly of Warmer Global Climate Models output, I wonder why anyone believes the predictions they make.  If they could REALLY model our global climate they would only need one model.   Instead, all 14 give different results!!!   Does that really instill you with a lot of confidence in their ability to do skillful prediction?    What the 14 models do is allow them to make predictions based upon the most extreme model output.  It also allows them to match just about any condition at any time with at least one of the models.  Think—-A stopped watch tells the right time two times a day.


Dr Evans:”Climate Models Are Violently At Odds With Reality”

Dr. David Evans has posted “Four Fatal Pieces of Evidence” demonstrating that using computer climate models as the basis for man-made global warming (AGW)  theory is,  in Dr. Evans’ view,  “violently at odds with reality”. He maintains there is “no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made.  If there was, we would have heard about it.  Tens of billions of dollars have been spent looking for it.”Dr Evans uses four pieces of evidence to illustrate his position.

First: Evans examines the Climate Model predictions made by James Hansen (the so-called godfather of AGW) during his testimony to the US Congress in 1988.(click on chart to enlarge)

Evans says:”… the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted. Remember, they have been saying the “science is settled” since the early 80’s, and the models now are essentially the same as they were then.

Furthermore, Hansen’s models predicted the temperature rise if human carbon dioxide emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was not rising at all. But in reality, the temperature did not even rise that much. Which proves that the climate models don’t have a clue about the effect of carbon dioxide on world temperature.”

Second: Evans looks at ocean warming.  This is a better gauge of global warming than is measuring atmospheric temperature fluctuations.  The Argo Buoys were put into service in 2003.  The measurements of ocean temperatures prior to the Argo program are suspect in my view.  Nothing before 2003 remotely resembles the scope of Argo measurements.(click on chart to enlarge)

Evans says: the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. In ARGO, a buoy duck dives down to 2000m, slowly ascends and reads the temperatures on the way, then radios the result back by satellite to HQ. Three thousand ARGO buoys patrol the oceans constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.

Thirdly: Evans looks at the “hotspot” which was  a climate computer prediction  which is the  Warmers’ proof of the positive feedback.  Feedback that is able to take a weak CO2 forcing signal and double or triple it.   Unfortunately for the advocates of this hypothesis, the hotspot does not exist.(click on chart to enlarge)

Evans says: “the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called “hotspot”. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloons say there was no such hotspot during the last warming from 1975 to 2001. The hotspot is integral to their theory, because it would be evidence of the extra evaporation and thickening of the water vapor blanket that produces two thirds of the warming in the climate models…”

Fourthly:  Evans hits on one of the most discussed topic in recent times—that of outgoing radiation into space.    Note in the chart below that the top row left is the actual measurements of outgoing radiation by the stat elite ERBE program (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment-click here for more information.)   The other boxes are climate model predictions. (Chart source=Lindzen and Choi 2009)

Evans says: “satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback). Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality.”

Evans sums up saying:” Those are four independent pieces of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Anyone one of them, by itself, disproves the theory of man-made global warming. There are also other, more complex, pieces of evidence. Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming, so if the climate models are wrong then so is the theory.”

Read all of Evan’s posting here.


Solar Cycle 24 August Update

Solar Cycle 24 August Sunspot and Solar Flux data continues to paint a picture of a much less active Sun when compared against the previous Cycle 23.

First, David Hathaway’s September edition of his sunspot predictions. Hathaway has a mid, high and low range chart with the actual data slightly below the mid-range forecast.  The Hathaway midrange predicts a maximum monthly high of about 70 Sunspots in early 2013.   Cycle 23 experienced a maximum monthly high of about 120 in 2001.

NOAA  sunspot prediction chart has only a single line which predicts a maximum monthly of about 90 sunspots.    It is shown below:

Solar flux through August appears to be trending below the NOAA prediction for Cycle 24.  The NOAA Cycle 24 solar flux prediction is for a peak of 140 in 2013.   This contrasts with  the Cycle 23 maximum of about 195 in 2002.    See the NOAA chart below:


Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?

Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?  That is the question asked in a Forbes Posting.  The author, Paul Roderick Gregory, cites the prevailing warmist’s narrative that says all but a tiny minority of scientist believes that global warming is man- made.  Gregory likens this to Stalin telling Trotsky (the dissident) it is what the poliburo says it is regardless if it is true or not.

Gregory  writes: The “warmist” consensus view of “climate science” is represented at a popular level by advocates like Al Gore and at the scientific and technical level by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as supported by researchers at East Anglia (Phil Jones) and Penn State (Michael Mann). This panoply of people and organizations is the equivalent of the Central Committee in my Stalin dialog above.   “Skeptics” (the equivalent of Trotsky above) are individual scientists and advocates who stake out positions at odds with the IPCC-Central Committee orthodoxy.

Gregory says that three recent events make him think of this Stalin analogy:

First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.”

Gregory adds: The Giaever story starkly disputes warmist claims of “inconvertible evidence.   Despite the press’s notable silence on such matters, there are a large number of prominent scientists with solid scholarly credentials who disagree with the IPCC-Central Committee. Those who claim “proven science” and “consensus” conveniently ignore such scientists.

Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored  by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.

The author believes that the Remote Sensing editor’s action was bizarre and unprofessional. He adds : In all fields of scientific inquiry, journal editors base their publication decisions on reports of referees, who are supposed to be experts in the area. Presumably, in the case of the Spencer paper, referees supported its publication.  Even if there had been a negative report, good editors often publish controversial papers to open a scholarly dialog. (Can anyone think of a topic that is more controversial and more in need of open scholarly dialog than global warming

Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.

Regarding the criticism of Rick Perry he says: The media is tarring  and feathering  Rick Perry, we now see,  for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists.  I guess if Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of  Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee. Such intimidation  chillingly makes politicians, public figures, and scientists fearful of deviating one inch from orthodoxy.

He summarizes this situation saying: False claims of consensus and inconvertible truth reveal a political or ideological agenda wrapped in the guise of science.  The incontrovertible bad behavior of the warmists has led skeptics to suspect base motives, and who could blame them.

And I will add that this is why the skeptics suspect the base motives  of the warmist’s allies —- the mainstream media.

Read this Gregory’s full post by clicking here


CFL Bulb Prices Going Up

A Junk Science posting says that:

China has crimped the supply of rare earth metals causing CFL light bulbs to rise in price by 37% this year.

According to the New York Times report,

By closing or nationalizing dozens of the producers of rare earth metals — which are used in energy-efficient bulbs and many other green-energy products — China is temporarily shutting down most of the industry and crimping the global supply of the vital resources…

General Electric, facing complaints in the United States about rising prices for its compact fluorescent bulbs, recently noted in a statement that if the rate of inflation over the last 12 months on the rare earth element europium oxide had been applied to a $2 cup of coffee, that coffee would now cost $24.55…

China says it has largely shut down its rare earth industry for three months to address pollution problems. By invoking environmental concerns, China could potentially try to circumvent international trade rules that are supposed to prohibit export restrictions of vital materials.

If you haven’t already said your morning curses, don’t forget to condemn the 110th Congress for passing the incandescent bulb ban, George W. Bush for signing it, and the the 111th and 112th Congresses and Barack Obama for failing to reverse the ban.

One more green initiative that has gone wrong.