Category Archives: radical environmentalists

The Endangerment Finding Needs To Be Repealed Quickly


Probably the most important environmental action the Trump administration can take is to eliminate the Endangerment Finding (EF). The EF was used to have CO2 and several other so-called greenhouse gases (GHGs) inserted in the Clean Air Act.   That action has allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact regulations without any input from Congress.  Giving the EPA free reign has given the radicals in that Department the leverage to try to regulate fossil fuels out of existence.

 

As recently as 30 January this year, just a little over a month ago, EPA Director Pruitt said in a Congressional hearing that he was reviewing a challenge to the EF.   Red teams, blue teams and all that but not one to my knowledge has been formed. Nothing seems to be getting done. It is over a year ago that the Pruitt was named Director.

Posting of that hearing by USA Today, reported:

“Pruitt spent much of the hearing touting some of the priorities he sees as important: aggressively cleaning up Superfund sites, modernizing water systems tainted by lead and cleanup of abandon mines.”

Good objectives but minor league compared to the EF.  And that list of his priorities will eventually be done as both parties want them done.  He needs to concentrate on getting things done that the Democrats will not do if they get back in power.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Most Revealing Chart Part 2–Failed Warmer Predictions


 

The previous posting shows that the warmer’s forecast “average global temperature” is way off from the actual measurements.  These alarmists use that erroneous forecast as the basis for their pronouncement of future global catastrophes that will come about if we don’t join their quest to remove CO2 emissions and switch to renewable energy.   

The alarmist’s forecasts of catastrophes get maximum coverage in the media.  It is obvious that the media never checks to see if the previous forecast have proven correct. And the following will demonstrate that the media never ever question an alarmist prediction and never ever goes back to check out the previous predictions.

There all kinds of alarmist’s forecasts, some of which I covered in an earlier posting titled” CAGW PREDICTIONS—ZOMBIE AND OTHER”. Almost all of them are embarrassingly wrong.   I encourage you to click on the link and have some good laughs.

The awful forecasts that follow are from scientists, science organizations and many from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)— a UN organization. This assembly of failure was posted by Javier on The Blog WattsUpWithThat with an intro by Andy May.  Andy takes a little liberty with Javier’s posting by adding on a section that highlights obvious predictions that the alarmists should have made.

An outline of the failed predictions are as follows:

·        Warming rate predictions

·        Temperature predictions

·        Winter predictions

·        Snow predictions

·        Precipitation predictions

·        Extreme weather predictions

·        Wildfire predictions

·        Rotation of the Earth predictions

·        Arctic sea predictions

·        Polar bear predictions

·        Glacier predictions

·        Sea level predictions

·        Sinking nation predictions

·        Climate refugee predictions

·        Climate change predictions

–and Andy May’s failure to predict list—

·        Greener planet

·        Increase in forest biomass

·        Carbon sinks increase

·        Slowdown in warming

 

All the above list can be read by clicking on the WattsUpWithThat posting

“Some Failed Climate Prediction”.

 

cbdakota

Most Revealing Chart Part 1 Computer Forecasts versus Actual Temperature Measurements.


The graph below is probably the most revealing of all the graphs used when discussing man-made global warming.  John Christy presented it to a US Congressional hearing in 2017.  The graph’s X axis shows years and the Y axis is global atmospheric temperature  anomalys in  degrees Centigrade.   (“Anomaly” degrees, is the measurement of the change in temperature rather that the actual temperature.  The actual temperature is somewhere  around 15C.  The exact temperature can be contentious.  So the anomaly is usually charted.)

The red line is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate model runs.  The man-made global warming theory doesn’t have one model.   They had 102 models all churning out forecasts of the future global temperature. All with different assumptions of what will the future look like.  All of them show rising temperature based  primarily the  amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The forecast spread is all over the place based upon a number of other assumed forces.  Christy averaged the forecasts and that is  source of the red line.

Then Christy added the atmospheric  temperatures that were  MEASURED,  by satellites and weather balloons.

So, stating the obvious, we have actual measured temperatures versus forecast temperatures. One can note that over the time, the separation between actual and forecast has gotten greater and appears that trend will continue

 

 

These forecast high temperatures are what propels the catastrophic man-made global forecasts of sky high sea levels, melting glaciers, mass migrations,  mass extinction of species, terrifying  severe weather, and deadly heat.  The media revels in these forecast disasters and gives them top billing.  But why would you believe this will be the Earth’s future?   Surely if everyone knew this or have just learned it, why would they be persuaded to foist these irrational conclusions upon us?

You may be thinking that only one model would be necessary if they really could forecast average global temperatures.

cbdakota


 

Major Hurricane Landfalls In Florida—1900 To 2017


This posting is a reblog of Dr Roy Spencer’s posting “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming“.   It is part a pitch for his new book that is a “putdown”  to those the would-be prophets of global doom. 

cbdakota

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

September 18th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.

 

 

 

In it I review the many fascinating examples of major hurricane landfalls in the United States, even going back to colonial times.

For example, two major hurricane strikes endured by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1635 and in 1675, have yet to be rivaled in more modern times. Major hurricane Maria, now approaching a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:Dominica and Guadeloupe, is probably no match for the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean, which had estimated winds of 200 mph and killed 20,000 people.

I also address the reasons why Hurricane Harvey and its flooding cannot be blamed on climate change. Regarding Hurricane Irma which recently terrorized Florida, you might be surprised to learn that it is consistent with a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:

Continue reading

The EPA HURTS The Environment And Impedes Law Enforcement


Guest posting by Richard F. Cronin

Sept. 15, 2017

As a Chem. Engr. with 40+ years’ experience, I can tell you that the current embodiment of the U.S. EPA HURTS the environment and impedes law enforcement.

The EPA only responds to the constituency which advances the reach and power of the EPA. That would be radicalized, out-of-control environmental groups. A good read on this topic is “Environmentalism Gone Mad” by Alan Carlin — former Sierra Club activist and EPA analyst.

http://environmentalismgonemad.com/

The minority leader on the U.S. Senate Committee for Public Works & the Environment is Tom Carper (D-DE). He is grossly complicit in the near-criminal activities of the EPA under the Obama administration. I have written to my Senator several times on this topic as well as the chimera of “renewable energy” and have been stiff-armed every time. Senator Carper is up for re-election in 2018 and is rumored to be mulling retirement. It can’t happen fast enough by my lights.

The EPA was established in 1973, by Richard Nixon, another advocate for growing the reach and power of the federal government. The major legislation for Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed in the 1960s and after a few revisions became pretty sound, state-of-the-art, readily interpreted, and enforceable body of regulations. All private interests, such as chemical companies, were on a level playing field. Regulations for solid wastes (RCRA) followed in 1976. Again, with a few tweaks RCRA became a pretty good body of regs.

Then in the ensuing years, the layer upon layer of over-regulation accumulated, which degraded the regs into a set of mandates that not even EPA regulators could interpret because of inconsistencies and contradictory guidance.

Continue reading

Can Tesla Survive The Loss Of Subsidies?


Three years ago, The Los Angeles Times posted “Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies”. I have not seen a summary of the current total of Musk’s subsidies but it is certainly more than $4.9 billion now. When The LA Times speaks about an “empire” it included Tesla, Space X and Solar City—all Musk controlled businesses.

This discussion will focus on the Tesla electric vehicle (EV) business.

Subsidies start with the Federal Tax Credit of $7,500 given to each buyer of a Tesla EV.  (Every EV maker gets the same treatment.).  California also provides a $2500 subsidy per car.

The following is from the LA Times posting:

“Tesla has also collected more than $517 million from competing automakers by selling environmental credits.  The regulation was developed in California and has been adopted by nine other states.”

These regulations require that companies selling automobiles must also sell a certain percentage of EVs.  Sales of an EV gives the seller environmental credits.   Manufacturers are penalized for not selling enough EVs and must buy credits to offset their failure. Because Tesla sells only EVs it gets a lot of credits which they sell to the other car makers.

The following 2016 video discusses what the Wall Street Journal thinks subsidies mean to the Tesla’s bottom line: (Please excuse the 15 second commercial.  When video ends click back to this page.)

https://video-api.wsj.com/api-video/player/v3/iframe.html?guid=00E58A9F-9315-47FE-BFED-7C79B2C3A98B&shareDomain=null

Continue reading

If you are trying to decide if you should go to Al Gore’s new documentary,  read this first.


Al Gore’s new documentary titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opened on July 28 with a limited engagement. Beginning in August, the documentary will be opening in many theaters.  I don’t know how many, as it has not been getting great reviews, but it will be in many more than the initial 4 theaters.

The critics being mostly being quite liberal tend to give this kind of movie a big “thumbs up”. Science has little to do with their ratings of a movie like this, because they are sure if Al Gore produced it, it must all be true. However, the liberal website, VOX said, “Even An Inconvenient Sequel seems a little light on facts at times.” Many of the movie reviewers said it was, in effect, boring.  Maybe that was reflected in the boxofficemojo data published on Sunday, 30 July.  That they said ticket sales for the first day were $61,000, the second day were $43,000 and today (the third day) were $26,000 might reflect the boring viewpoint. 

But Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his first film, didn’t he?  Yes, he did. However, it was the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that presented the award to the newly elected Barrack Obama before he got into office. They awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat of the PLO, too.  That Committee has a very transparent political agenda. It has very little to do with peace.

But never fear gentle reader, Al Gore will not let you down.

Bjorn Lomborg’s comments on just a few of Al Gore’s many prediction misses in his posting “Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses A Few Inconvenient Facts”:

Continue reading