Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Democrats’ Real Global Warming Fraud Revealed

Dennis T. Avery

Democrats are devastted by their recent lost elections.  They will be even more devastated as we learn the details of their massive global warming fraud.  Dr. John Bates, a former high level NOAA scientist, set off a furor by revealing that a recent NOAA paper, which claimed global warming hadn’t “paused” during the past 20 years, was fraudulent. The paper was timed to undergird Obama’s signing of the hugely expensive Paris climate agreement.

This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.......@ American Thinker

Zeihan on Geopolitics: Shale Gets Ready to Run

Zeihan on Geopolitics: Shale Gets Ready to Run




A data dump by the International Energy Agency this weekend indicates that OPEC is enjoying its best compliance showing at least since the 1970s, if not ever. Over 90% of pledged oil production reductions have already materialized, with a few countries – most notably Saudi Arabia – overcutting. All together over the course of the past few months, total OPEC output is down just over 1 million bpd. The past two years of low-ish prices have hit non-OPEC producers as well, forcing reductions in their collective output of another 400kbpd. Stores of both crude and refined products have thus dropped across the world. No wonder oil prices have managed to hold strongly over $50 a barrel of late.

The question now is how positive will the impact upon the American shale industry be? In this there are no good guides. The nature of shale has evolved radically not simply since the industry’s modern inception in 2007 (ish), but even more so since the plunge in the price of crude began in mid-2014.
  • Since then the most productive wells have become multilateral, with multiple horizontal spurs going off every vertical well shaft. Since each of these multilaterals is crafted by a single drill, the rig count watch is utterly irrelevant.
  • Micro-seismic techs are enabling operators to take much -- if not all -- of the guesswork out of drilling and fracking. Such precision drilling means not only looking at the volume of steel used per well or per barrel of output is immaterial, but also that mass layoffs of rig workers can occur with no reduction in oil production.
  • Water intensity per barrel of output continues to shrink as liquids pits are replaced wholesale by mobile water tanks. Less water usage means less cash flowing through the oil sector, gutting one of the last few “reliable” means of indirectly gauging end-output levels.
 

All these tech changes (and more) push down the full-cycle break-even cost of oil production, and most certainly steepens the production accelerations for future output. But it isn’t “only” technological innovation that is overhauling the industry. There are other factors in play that will have a much more immediate effect.
  • When prices were low, many operators only fracked minimal bits of their wells to start them up -- preferring to wait for a price recovery before fracking them up to full capacity. That time is now, but there is no unified data whatsoever on the size of this “fracklog.” 
  • Improved seismic techs enable operators to go back to previous wells and drill additional fairways. Such “indrilling” enables new production into old infrastructure, eliminating the need for new pipes, new leases or new negotiations, while generating new and sustained flows with the newest techs available. 
Whereas technological changes impact national output figures over months to years in a sustainable way, these more mechanical characteristics give big one-off increases in weeks to months.

The only potential short-term ointment-fly I see is financing. Nearly all the shale operators who survived the price plunge of the past two years did so at least in part by borrowing. Even with prospects now brightening, many of them will find it difficult to take on yet more debt to expand operations. Yet even here things look surprisingly good. Capital flight out of Japan, China and the Eurozone continues to set new records. Shale bonds grant foreign investors a place to park their cash that is backed both by hard assets and revenue streams.

In my opinion shale’s next surge is going to not just hit much harder, but much sooner, than most expect. And it is likely about to get a lot better.

What do Donald Trump, Brexit, the Iranian Ayatollah, EU dysfunction, Japanese constitutional revisions and Chinese President Hu’s efforts to establish himself as emperor-of-all-he-sees-for-life all have in common? They are all great for the shale sector. Global instability of all stripes means more capital flight. More risk means higher oil prices means more stable American operators. More international recrimination means more interest in commodities both as an asset class and a security blanket.

This doesn’t “merely” mean that the output curve for the shale industry will be steeper now than in 2007-2013, but that adding a fresh million bpd to U.S. oil output in calendar year 2017 is a lazily conservative forecast. Shale isn’t just likely to overwhelm the entirety of OPEC’s cut, but the entirety of the global reduction in output all by itself.

And that’s just the start. By end-2017 all those new techs should have percolated throughout the shale patch. Full-cycle break-even prices for shale are already below $40. Give it a couple more years and $25 will be within reach.

And then the real shale revolution gets started.

As to what that looks like, sorry, but you’ll have to read the book. Check it out at this link
 
 

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

2008, Science and Environmental Policy Project / S. Fred Singer

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed thetwentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence......To Read More....

Science Journalism is Going Full Leftist

By Robert Arvay February 20, 2017

Many of our future scientists are being trained in universities which have become leftist indoctrination centers. We on the right have grown to expect bias in political journalism -- but most of us probably thought that science literature would always be objective, and exempt from radical leftist opinion. If so, then our thoughts were mistaken.

Every once in a while, I receive emailed articles from science journals, for example, Scientific American. Most of these are of interest to science junkies like myself -- but a disturbing and growing number of them have less to do with science than with left-wing political propaganda. Much of it is unashamedly anti-Trump. It seems (sarcasm here) that by questioning the (questionable) evidence of global warming, President Trump is seeking to inundate the entire world with rising oceans.

In reality, thousands of government grants are at risk, billions of dollars of them, unless the scientists receiving the money can prove that global warming is manmade, and that human effort can reverse it. Of course, the scientists can prove no such thing, which is why their journal articles increasingly give the impression of “hair-on-fire” panic............ More

Trump's likely science adviser calls climate scientists 'glassy-eyed cult'



The man tipped as frontrunner for the role of science adviser to Donald Trump has described climate scientists as “a glassy-eyed cult” in the throes of a form of collective madness.  William Happer, an eminent physicist at Princeton University, met Trump last month to discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of concerted international action on climate change.  “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”.....To Read More....

Could the EPA be gone by this time next year?

5 Comments @ Conservative Republican News

Liberals are losing their minds over a new bill in Congress, and it’s only one sentence long. It reads:
“The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”  Introduced by freshman Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), it comes after a series of potentially deadly cases in which people and the environment were poisoned by the EPA. Not only did EPA officials spill three million gallons of toxic waste into a Colorado river, they were caught conducting banned human medical experiments in which people were forced to inhale poisonous car exhaust, using the same methods used in suicides.  Gaetz’s legislation has three co-sponsors: Reps. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) See the entire bill for yourself below.

BeeGate

How Green Campaigners Subverted Science
 
Brought to you by Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Forum

Image result for Bee Apocalypse

This is the story of BeeGate – how activist scientists and seasoned campaigners used Age of Stupid tactics to trick policymakers, seduce the media and terrify the public – litigious liars and lamentable fear-mongers have caused incomprehensible damage to the public trust in dialogue, science and policy. --David Zaruk, The Risk-Monger, 18 February 2017

Almost ten years ago, when there were indications of stresses on honeybee populations (known as colony collapse disorder – CCD), different activists were jockeying for the right to claim this crisis for their campaigns. Climate activists wanted to show bees were suffering because of warmer weather; biodiversity campaigners saw land-use issues as the source for the crisis; anti-GMO stalwarts wanted us to know there was something unknown in the pollen; anti-EMF  fear-mongers wanted to highlight the confusion bees suffered due to our love of mobile technology. Nobody mentioned the main causes (cold winters and Varroa mite) … seriously, who would donate to that? --David Zaruk, The Risk-Monger, 18 February 2017

Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress. Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In his letter to NOAA, Congressman Smith expresses frustration that previous demands for documents about the Pausebuster were not met, although his committee took the unusual step of issuing a legal subpoena. NOAA’s decision to withhold the documents was, he wrote, ‘without any justification in law’. --David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 19 February 2017

[The new head of the EPA], Scott Pruitt says he expects to quickly withdraw both the Clean Power Plan (President Obama’s premier climate regulation) and the 2015 Waters of the United States rule (which asserts EPA power over every creek, pond or prairie pothole with a “significant nexus” to a “navigable waterway”). Will the EPA regulate carbon dioxide? Mr. Pruitt says he won’t prejudge the question. “There will be a rule-making process to withdraw those rules, and that will kick off a process,” he says. “And part of that process is a very careful review of a fundamental question: Does EPA even possess the tools, under the Clean Air Act, to address this? It’s a fair question to ask if we do, or whether there in fact needs to be a congressional response to the climate issue.” --Kimberley A. Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, 17 February 2017

Companies vying to build nuclear power stations in the UK have been told they must offer a price for their electricity sharply lower than that approved for the Hinkley Point plant last year, raising further questions about the viability of Britain’s plans for a new generation of reactors. However, the prospect of less lucrative contracts will add to the financing difficulties facing reactor developers and intensify their demands for government help to meet multibillion-pound construction costs. --Andrew Ward, Financial Times, 17 February 2017

A financially viable nuclear power station looks increasingly like a mirage. Even the eye-watering guarantee from the UK taxpayer for Hinkley Point C is not enough to cover the risk that building it will bankrupt EDF. It’s telling that after 60 years of mostly successful operation, commercial viability still eludes the nuclear power industry. The cheapest and quickest fix is to build gas-fired power stations, to tap into worldwide abundance and increasingly diverse supply, even before domestic fracking gets going in the UK.  Abandoning nuclear means facing reality on the likely path of future carbon dioxide emissions. It means repealing the Climate Change Act with its arbitrary targets for dramatic cuts, passed near-unanimously by parliament in 2007 in an orgy of self-indulgence. Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. --Neil Collins, Financial Times, 17 February 2017

Yesterday I was among those who spoke at a splendid lunch in Somerset to celebrate the life of my good friend Sir Antony Jay, best-known as one of the co-authors of Yes Minister. I first met him more than 50 years ago as one of the so-called “Young Turks” then leading the way in changing the formerly staid values of the BBC out of recognition; not least through the satire show TW3, of which I was, with David Frost, the chief political scriptwriter. But, unlike the others, Jay never fell for what was to become the BBC’s all‑pervasive tendency to self-congratulatory groupthink. Almost his last publication was a foreword to a long report I published in 2012 itemising how the BBC has so shamelessly betrayed its statutory obligation to impartiality in its coverage of global warming. He described how appalled he had become by much of what has become of the institution where he began his working life. --Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 19 February 2017  

Environmentalism Has Nothing To Do With The Environment!



Traffic light tendency. They call themselves green because they're too yellow to call themselves Red

Republican bills to kill federal agencies face uphill battle

By (@danielchaitin7) 2/20/17

Republicans want to do a bit of house cleaning in government this year by trashing a number of federal agencies, but success is far from assured and may come in the form of more limited restrictions.  So far in the 115th session of Congress, which began Jan. 3, Republican lawmakers in the House and the Senate have offered bills to do away with at least three agencies: the Education Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The highest profile lawmaker to introduce department-killing legislation is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who last week unveiled the "Repeal CFPB Act," which would get rid of the independent agency that he said, "grew in power and magnitude without any accountability to Congress and the people." CFPB was created by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, signed by President Barack Obama in 2010 in response to the 2008 financial crisis........To Read More.....

My Take - The fact of the matter is this going to take a big fight and unfortunately most politicians don't have the stomach - or back bone - for it.  But.....we'll see, maybe they'll remember it's not all about them and they're supposed to be fighting for what's good for the nation, not getting re-elected term after term like John McCain, who has been there too long .... and it turns out ....too often....when never would have been better.  Having once been a hero can give someone the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't give them a pass on the rest of life. 

 

What Congress must do to rein in regulators

Federal agencies are 'fiefdoms that reign over private industries'

Last summer, at the first meeting of the Trump Leadership Council – an advisory group consisting of top CEOs from major companies – Donald Trump asked business leaders what their biggest problems were.   I expected the answer to be America’s anti-growth tax system.

Almost all the CEOs did list the federal tax code as an albatross, but not the heaviest one. Instead, I was surprised to learn, most found the biggest restraint on growth to be federal red tape and regulation. Across all industries – manufacturers, energy firms, financial services, agriculture interests – federal rules were seen as mindless, inefficient, costly and incomprehensible.........The excuse from Congress is that there are so many rules and regulations that the House and Senate can’t possibly approve every one of them. Well, it’s true that there are tens of thousand of these edicts. But isn’t that the crux of the problem?

A bigger problem is that agencies have become arrogant with power and desensitized to the impact of their litany of “thou shalls” and “thou shall nots.” Martha Kent of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration once put the attitude of these bureaucrats succinctly: “As long as I’m regulating, I’m happy.” She said she “absolutely loves” putting out “a reg” and that she was “born to regulate.” This sounds like someone who is clueless about private industry. .......Read more

G20: Merkel Sets A Climate Ambush For Trump

Scott Pruitt Signals Dramatic Shift in EPA Priorities
 
Brought to you by Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Forum

German chancellor Angela Merkel is preparing to spring an ambush on President Trump at this year’s G-20 summit in July. And Trump’s response will determine whether his presidency plays out like George W. Bush’s second term or puts America’s energy exceptionalism at the service of reviving American greatness. --Rupert Darwall, National Review Online, 22 February 2017
 
Some commentators expressed hope that Donald Trump would become more "presidential" when he entered office. They might have also hoped former Oklahoma attorney general and climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt would adopt green gloves when he became the Environmental Protection Agency director. During his first speech at the helm of the EPA, Mr Pruitt did not mention climate change or any recent negative impact on the environment. Instead, he talked about the founding fathers who discussed moving the capital city away from New York to the shores of the Potomac despite differing views, and applied this metaphor to how he would address "our environment and natural resources". His only reference of the "toxic environment" was related to politics, and how it damaged compromise. --Rachael Revesz, The Independent, 22 February 2017

In his first speech as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt stressed a dramatic change of priorities at the agency, stating the importance of the agency’s communication and relationship with businesses but giving few details about policy changes. --Amy Harder, The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2017

Don’t look now, but the United States is ready to once again pass a major oil supply milestone. After seeing output dip from a June 2015 high of more than 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd) down below 8.5 million bpd in October 2016, American oil production is now knocking at the door of the 9 million bpd range, as the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports we produced 8.977 million bpd this past week. According to the latest data, it only has to rise 23,000 bpd before the U.S. is once again pumping more than 9 million bpd. If OPEC and the rest of the world’s petrostates continue to constrain their own supplies in order to inflate prices, we can expect our own output to rise well past that 9 million mark. Welcome to the shale revolution, 2.0. --The American Interest, 22 February 2017

The U.S. Senate passed legislation recently cutting funding for NASA’s global warming research. The House is expected to pass the bill, and President Trump will likely sign it. Supporters say it “re-balances” NASA’s budget back toward space exploration and away from global warming and earth science research. Republicans plan to end the more than $2 billion NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate. --Andrew Follett, The Daily Caller, 20 February 2017

Theresa May must not use Donald Trump’s climate change denial as an excuse to “backslide” on environmental commitments, the Liberal Democrats have said. In a speech today to the think-tank Policy Exchange Tim Farron accused the Government of being  “blinkered by right-wing climate change-sceptics who put warped ideology before common sense.” Mr Farron said: “The consensus is unravelling. We have a climate change denier in the White House; which provides a reason or an excuse for other countries to backslide a little too. “We have a Tory Government that went from hugging huskies to dismissing intelligent environmental policies as ‘green crap’, and a Labour Party that has no coherent vision for the environment, industry or the economy. “The Prime Minister choosing to pander to President Trump hardly makes us any more optimistic that her next choices on climate change will be wisdom over transparent political short-termism.” --Jon Stone, The Independent, 22 February 2017
  

All Natural

O-ganic-NRD-600

The great diesel disaster shows how badly wrong-headed environmentalism can harm the planet

No one has claimed responsibility for the Great Diesel Car Scandal and almost certainly no heads will roll

@ The Spectator

Who do you think was responsible for Europe’s biggest environmental disaster of the past three decades; one that caused more widespread damage and killed more people than even the nuclear accident at Chernobyl?

Was it a) greedy and selfish capitalists, probably linked to Big Oil, riding roughshod over the stringent health and safety regulations our wise, caring politicians have designed to protect us and our natural environment?

Or b) an alliance of fluffy green activists, campaigning journalists and virtue-signalling politicians, united on a noble mission to save the planet from the greatest environmental threat it has ever known?

If you guessed b) then you may appreciate why we climate sceptics are experiencing such schadenfreude right now. For years we’ve been vilified by the powerful green lobby as nature–loathing, anti-science ‘deniers’ in the pay of sinister interests. Now it turns out that the real bad guys (as some of us have been saying all along) are those worthy greenies.

I’m talking about the Great Diesel Car Scandal, which has exacerbated all manner of illnesses from asthma, autism and dementia to respiratory problems, heart disease and cancer, driven city air pollution to levels sometimes higher than Beijing’s, and caused tens of thousands of premature deaths across the EU.

No one has claimed responsibility for it and almost certainly no heads will roll. But this was an avoidable, completely man-made disaster: the consequence of a state-orchestrated, tax-incentivised, EU-wide drive from the early 1990s onwards to replace petrol car engines with diesel ones, organised in the belief that it would reduce CO2 levels and thus help spare the planet from the horrors of man-made global warming.

And so it has. One expert calculation says Europe’s mass switch to diesel means that in the next half century, global warming may be as much as four thousandths of a degree Celsius less. Unfortunately, it also dramatically increased the production of more evidently harmful substances such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (soot particles), with consequences we are all now ruing.

How did our politicians ever fall prey to such lunacy? Why did no scientists warn them? And why did our fearless media not hold them to account? You know why already: because such was the clamour of the times, as it has been for at least three decades. Once a culture has made up its mind that a harmless trace gas is public enemy number one, the potential for suicidal regulatory idiocy is limitless. As one of the few who has been right pretty much all along about this, I’m not asking much. In fact the only thing I want (apart from my bronze equestrian statue, somewhere discreet, like maybe on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square) is for the people responsible to acknowledge their mistakes and begin undoing them as quickly as possible.

This, after all, was the thing that first got me interested in the whole environment/-energy field. As a keen wild swimmer, hill-walker and naturalist, I couldn’t understand why we were allowing our matchlessly beautiful countryside to be blighted — effectively turned into industrial zones — by ugly, environmentally destructive wind turbines. Well, one awkward question led to another, and soon, quite contrary to any life plans I’d made, I found myself being traduced by every-one from BBC Radio 4 comics to the president of the Royal Society as the very emblem of anti-environmental ignorance and wickedness.

My grovelling apology from these people can wait: I’m really not holding my breath. What I do feel very strongly, however, is that none of those involved in the green disasters of our time — not the BBC’s pop-science presenters, not all those politicians who signed the Climate Change Act, many of whom (that’s you, Greg Clark) still defend its nonsensical principles, not the toffs doing nicely out of the wind subsidies on their estates — should be allowed to save face. Their errors must be confronted now and dealt with now; not in five or ten years or 20 years, when everyone has moved on.

The other day I emailed two of the environmentalists I most respect — Matt Ridley and the Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore — for suggestions as to what great green causes Donald Trump could get behind to counter the inevitable eco-propaganda that he doesn’t care about the planet. We came swiftly to the conclusion that almost all the major environmental problems in the world right now are the result of environmental policy.

Beside the Great Diesel Car Disaster you have: forests cut down to create ‘biomass’ for power stations such as Drax; primary rainforest replaced by palm-oil plantations for biofuels; upland landscapes ravaged and millions of birds and bats killed by wind turbines; birds frazzled by solar arrays; forests in America’s Pacific north-west rendered sterile by legislation designed to protect the spotted owl.

Then, of course, there’s the human cost: the malnutrition and high mortality caused by the greens’ war on GM produce such as golden rice; food shortages and poverty caused by the diversion of agricultural land to biofuels; lower living standards created by the enforced rejection of cheap fossil fuel in favour of ‘renewable’ energy; fuel poverty deaths caused by artificially inflated ‘clean’ energy prices.

A few years ago I wrote a book called Watermelons with the subtitle ‘How Environmentalists Are Killing The Planet, Destroying The Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future’. It wasn’t a provocation. It was no more than the truth. The greens and their useful idiots in politics, business and the media have got away with doing far too much damage for far too long. They are not the good guys. What they have done is evil. It is time the guilty parties made amends.

Green Lunacy: £450 Million Lost Over Failed 'Green' Power That Is Worse Than Coal

Household Solar Storage Increases CO2 Emissions, Study Concludes

Brought to you by Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Forum

Britain is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds subsidising power stations to burn American wood pellets that do more harm to the climate than the coal they replaced, a study has found. Chopping down trees and transporting wood across the Atlantic Ocean to feed power stations produces more greenhouse gases than much cheaper coal, according to the report. It blames the rush to meet EU renewable energy targets, which resulted in ministers making the false assumption that burning trees was carbon-neutral. --Ben Webster, The Times, 23 February 2017

Image result for biomass wood pellets CO2
 
 
Contrary to popular belief, household storage for solar power doesn’t reduce cost or CO2 emissions, an American study suggests. As charging and discharging a home battery itself consumes energy, feeding surplus solar power into the storage device instead of into the grid results in higher overall electricity consumption for the household, as well as higher emissions because the increased consumption needs to be covered by fossil fuel-based energy. This increase is quite substantial – up to 591KWh annually. --Tereza Pultarova, Energy & Technology, 31 January 2017

Protected forests are being indiscriminately felled across Europe to meet the EU’s renewable energy targets, according to an investigation by the conservation group Birdlife. Up to 65% of Europe’s renewable output currently comes from bioenergy, involving fuels such as wood pellets and chips, rather than wind and solar power. --Adam Neslen, The Guardian 24 November 2016

“Everybody hates me,” says the New York-based analyst in jest, acknowledging his reputation as solar’s notorious bear, a soundbite-ready contrarian among a group of analysts generally bullish on the industry’s long-term prospects. “Companies don’t like me because I have sell ratings on their stocks.” Johnson’s contrarian view derives from a simple thesis: solar, he says, can’t compete with, or replace, natural gas because it can’t provide around-the-clock power and because it has needed subsidies to be competitive. --Brian Eckhouse, Bloomberg, 16 February 2017

Climate models show twice as much warming during the 21st Century than what’s actually been observed, according to a new report highlighting the limitations of global climate models, or GCMs. “So far in the 21st century, the GCMs are warming, on average, about a factor of 2 faster than the observed temperature increase,” Dr. Judith Curry, a former Georgia Tech climate scientist who now runs her own climate forecasting company, wrote in a report for the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation. Curry has been one of the foremost critics of climate models, arguing that while they can be useful, there are too many uncertainties and issues to rely on models for public policy decisions. --Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 22 February 2017

Book Review: The Absent Superpower, The Shale Revolution and the World Without America.

By Rich Kozlovich

The Absent Superpower, The Shale Revolution and the World Without America, by Peter Zeihan is the second book by him I've read. The first was The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence which I reviewed here.  Both of these books are impressive.  Since then I've read, and published his articles, with permission, and seen some videos of his presentations.  All very impressive.  The man's clearly brilliant, well versed, well researched, and very good at presenting the information in a way that makes you want to read what he's saying. 

I've not seen analysis like this except in two places.  Stratfor news and the information put out by Dr. Jack Wheeler.  I've found he worked for Stratfor as the Vice President of Analysis and left to form his own company in 2012 called Zeihan on Geopolitics, which explains the similarities.

That was the appetizer, now for the main course. 

He proposes, and very well I might add, fracking has changed the geopolitical dynamics dramatically, and will continue to do so even more in the future.  His book starts out explaining fracking, how it's done, how it has improved technologically, and how the costs related to fracking have dropped to the point where prices being charged by Saudi Arabia will no longer matter.  Recently he publish an article showing how the figure he states in the book is now ever dramatically lower.  Fracking is changing the world, and he breaks this down into three sections.

In Part I, Shale New World, he describes how fracking works, and I've asked around, and for a layman he's spot on, except I don't think you can get a pipe to turn 90 degrees.  Otherwise - I now know more about fracking than I ever expected to.  For those of us who aren't all that interested in the techie stuff is a bit boring, but it's essential as foundation for the rest of the book.

Part II is called "The Disorder", which includes what he terms The Twilight War, the (Next) Gulf War, The Tanker War, The Sweet Sixteen and It's a Supermajor World. 

Part III is The American Play with chapters on "Tools of the Trade", "Dollar Diplomacy in Southeast Asia", "Dollar Diplomacy in Latin America" and "Shale New World". 

I'm totally impressed with the background research he's done on all the problems the world is facing.  For years I've understood the importance of geography and demography in the world geopolitics, but I never fully appreciated both until reading his books.  However, there are some caveats to my enthusiastic review.

First, he goes on to explain what a mess Putin is facing in Russia and then goes on to claim, without foundation, Putin has stashed billions of dollars no one knows about in order to attack Eastern Europe at some unknown time for some unknown reason. 

His analysis of what would happen if America walks away, leaving Europe to defend itself alone, is I think spot on, but in both books it's clear Russia is breeding itself out of existence, the economy is on the verge of collapse and their military is a mess with the exception of their special forces.  I see no earthly reason why Russia would want to attack anyone that would require a full out effort.  Furthermore, dictators don't stash money away to attack someone.  They do it to run away and live in luxury.  So why is the brilliant man saying this?  I will deal with that further.

His analysis of South America and Latin America is so well done it gives you an entirely different view of why these countries are where they are economically.   Because of South America's geography there is nowhere near the amount of trade you would expect among them, but neither have there been many wars.  His analysis as to future American diplomatic and economic policy to Latin and South America is eye opening. 

He's made it clear there's no other nation on the Earth that has the geographical advantages like the United States, assuring economic success, except Argentina, which in the 1920's was one of the richest nations on the Earth, until the socialists took over.   His work clearly demonstrates why countries who adopt socialist policies turn poor countries into cesspools and rich countries like Argentina into a mess.  It will be interesting to watch our Southern neighbors make major changes with regard to the United States, or face economic problems that will become insurmountable. 

All of Asia's problems will center around energy, transporting it safely, and where it's going to come from.  His analysis of China's military capability is impressive in demonstrating they're really good at putting on a big show, but the reality of their geography, demography, economics and a true evaluation of their military capability to impose their will outside their own nation is limited, including use of their naval forces.  Japan will become a much bigger player militarily in that arena when the U.S. becomes more - well, let's say judiciously isolationist.  In short - if there's no benefit there will be no involvement.  You may find Australia's role in all of this interesting, especially since he clearly believes American, Australian and New Zealand involvement won't deminish nearly as much as it will with the rest of the world.

I don't agree with is his views on Global Warming.  He states in the book some criticize him for being a liberal and some for being a conservative.  In explaining his views on Global Warming it demonstrates he's a liberal - he says so - which I find interesting since there are two things liberals hate more than anything.  History and facts, and he excels at both.

However, it explains his hard take on more Russian aggression, Global Warming and failing  to deal with the two most important movements in world events, the Muslim invasion into the west, and the efforts by the United Nations to create a one world government, and promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming fruad is essential for them to attain that end.  All of which are tenets of current leftist theology.  He's too well researched and too intelligent to not be aware of all of this and the facts surrounding it all.  And I ask why would a man that brilliant be a liberal?

So do I recommend reading his book?  Absolutely! 

I would give it five stars on history, five stars on current events, five stars on analysis and four on conclusions.  When reading his books you will gain insights needed to understand why the world works the way it does, and allow you to become even more aware of how worthless the media really is.  After gaining those insights you can draw your own conclusions, and you may or may not choose to accept his.  However, there is one thing that really bugs me, there's no index in this book

Observations From the Back Row: Media Outrage and Hypocrisy

By Rich Kozlovich 

Today I've linked a number of articles dealing with the "fake news" and "The media is the enemy of Americans" issue surrounding President Trump. 

Of course the media is outraged - they're finally being called to task by someone everyone has to listen to  - the owner of the Bully Pulpit - The President of the United States, Donald Trump. 

He's called the media scum.  So have I and many others over the years.  He's called the media America's enemy.  So have I and many others over the years.  He's called the media liars.  So have I and many others over the years.  And the list goes on. 

But when newsies like me - and all these others - exposed their craven mendacity it may had some effect, but how much can only be guessed at.  While we may have gotten others to see what we've been seeing for decades we couldn't change a thing as long as the leadership play the game by the media's rules, i.e., they decide what's important, who's important, what's news and what's not news.  In short - someone is finally saying to them - you don't have the power to control the message by lying and get away with it any longer.  And that someone is the President of the United States who doesn't care one whit whether the media likes him or not.  Mostly because he's smart enough to know no matter what he does they're going to hate and villify them.  And he understands appeasers are like the prey eaten by crocodiles. 

He doesn't want money - he has more than he or his family can spend.  He doesn't want more power because he's got all he can handle.  He doesn't want prestige or he would have stayed out of this.  He doesn't want position because he is the "position".    And it's clear by his actions none of these things are of concern to him after he's out of office. 

I never liked Trump.  From the beginning of this election cycle I dismissed both he and Bernie Sanders as "perpetual" candidates looking to get some publicity.  And that's what they were.  Both of the were as shocked as I when it looked like they actually had a following and could take their party's nomination. We now know that couldn't happen with the Democrats because it was rigged.

But it was possible in the Republican Party, and it did happen in the Republican party, the party the media hates.  Not the party of rigged elections, but the party that allowed someone the leadership despised to become it's nominee because the "people" of the Republican party decided who was to be the nominee, not the party leaders.  And they picked a nominee prominent Republicans repudiated, and a number of them - including George Will - even wanted Hillary to win.

I said back then: Tell me how a man treats his wife, and in this case wives, and I will tell you who he is.  Well, I really hate being wrong, but I also hate not admitting to being wrong.  As I'm fond of saying.....that was a logical fallacy.  First, his life was an open book so he didn't have anything to hide and his reputation couldn't have been worse.  Secondly, I didn't take into consideration a man who was unstable in his married life can still be successful in business. 

If a man can be successful in business, he can be successful in politics, because both require good acting skills.  He never expected to be where he is and when it became obvious to him he might actually win the Presidency, I saw a change.  He's now come to believe he can save America from the socialists who've been working to destroy the Constitution, American capitalism and the nation.  An ongoing effort since Stalin sent his agents here to do so in the 1920's, and the Democrat party with FDR was instrumental in that infiltration. 

That infiltration included the newspapers, radio, Hollywood, the unions, academia and every department of the federal government, including what became the CIA.   Are you ready for this?  McCarthy was right.  His numbers may have been off, but based on what we know from the VENONA intercepts, perhaps not by much.  One more thing.  McCarthy's Senate committee only looked into communist infiltration of government.  It was the House on UnAmerica Activities Committee (HUAC) in the House run by the Democrats who went after Hollywood. 

Do you see the pattern?  McCarthy has been vilified for decades by the Democrats and their propaganda machine - the main stream media in the fifties, but actually the corruption goes back to before WWII.  During the war they even promoted Stalin and Russia as allies against Hitler, easily forgetting they were collaborators of Hitler invading Poland, the Baltic states and Finland. 

Donald Trump has taken them to task and they're outraged at being exposed as "alcoholics" of news.  Addicted to the power, prestige and privilege that's been bestowed upon them by themselves.  That's over with.  With the exception of  Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff, the Trump team won't play their game.

Trump's team is going to lay down the rules and the media will play by them or be out.  The main stream media is toast and the so-called alternative media is going to become transcendent because the alternative media doesn't need Trump and will say what they believe to be true without concern about pride, prejudice or privilege. 

Trump reminds me of me - "It's not about me, it's about the mission."  And part of his mission in saving America means destroying the traitors, liars, and charlatans of the media.  And the idea of a man who's played the clown saving America must he heady stuff for him, and that's how he sees his place in history.  The President who saved America.  With that as a goal: who cares what the media thinks? 

One more thing.  For those of us who remember when Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers we remember the media's, and the Democrats, outrage.  Reagan won, even against advisers in his own party and administration - and the net result?  The postal workers, who threatened to strike, didn't, and world leaders realized they were facing  a real man who was not to be taken lightly, and the Soviet Union collapsed. 

Don't kid yourself.  The world's leaders were aware Obama - and his administration - on their best day had a backbone of spaghetti and the mental and intellectual discipline of a child.  The world's leaders understand Trump and his administration is made up of adults who are smart, knowledgeable, tough and fearless. 

America's greatest threat durning the Reagan years was the Soviet Union.  Reagan's goal was to defeat the Soviet Union and he made compromises with the left in order to do so.  The world is going to change, and the left, which has been a threat to the nation for over a hundred years, is now the number one threat to the nation's continued existence.

Just as Reagan bested the air traffic controllers and brought down the Soviet Union, Trump is going to have to face down the media because his goal must be to defeat the left.   Trump must stay the course and expose the media for whom and what they are in order to accomplish that mission.

GIGO-based energy and climate policies

It’s like formulating public safety policies using models based on dinosaur DNA from amber
 
Paul Driessen  (Editor's Note:  Emphasis added by me.  RK)
 
Things are never quiet on the climate front.
 
After calling dangerous manmade climate change a hoax and vowing to withdraw the USA from the Paris agreement, President Trump has apparently removed language criticizing the Paris deal from a pending executive order initiating a rollback of anti-fossil-fuel regulations, to help jumpstart job creation.
 
Meanwhile, EPA Administration Scott Pruitt says he expects quick action to rescind the Clean Power Plan, a central component of the Obama Era’s war on coal and hydrocarbons. The US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is reopening its investigation into NOAA’s mishandling or tampering with global temperature data, for a report designed to promote action in Paris in 2015.
 
Hundreds of scientists signed a letter urging President Trump to withdraw from the UN climate agency. They warn that efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions are not scientifically justified and will kill jobs and exacerbate US and international poverty without improving the environment or stabilizing climate.
 
Hundreds of other scientists told Mr. Trump he must not waver on climate stabilization efforts or make any moves to defund government or university climate research. Hundreds of businessmen and investors told the President failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.
 
Over in Britain, Members of Parliament say efforts to build a low-carbon economy have led to a 58% rise in electricity prices since 2006, sending manufacturing and jobs overseas, to countries that are under no obligation to reduce fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions. MPs are also angry that carefully hidden “green subsidies” will account for nearly one-fourth of sky-high residential electricity bills by 2020.
 
All of this is a valuable reminder that the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry is now a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! And that’s just for its private sector components, the corporate rent-seekers.
 
This monstrous price tag does not include the Big Green environmentalism industry, the salaries and pensions of armies of federal, state, local, foreign country and UN bureaucrats who create and coordinate climate and renewable energy programs, or the far higher electricity and motor fuel costs that businesses and families must pay, to cover the costs of “saving people and planet from climate ravages.”
 
Earth’s climate is likely changing somewhere, as it has throughout planetary and human history. Our fuel use and countless other human activities may play a role, at least locally – but their role is dwarfed to near irrelevance by powerful solar, oceanic, cosmic ray and other natural forces.
 
Moreover, real-world ice, sea level, temperature, hurricane, drought and other observations show nothing outside historic fluctuations. Unprecedented disasters exist only in the realm of hypotheses, press releases and computer models.
 
So there is no reason to cede control over our livelihoods and living standards to politicians, activists and bureaucrats; replace reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy with expensive, unreliable renewables; destroy millions of jobs in the process; and tell billions of impoverished people they must be content with solar ovens, solar panels, wind turbines, and health, nutrition and living standards little better than today’s.
 
There is no reason to honor the document that President Obama unilaterally signed in Paris. As Dr. Steve Allen observed in a masterful analysis: “The decisive action promised in the treaty that is not a treaty consists of governments, most of them run by dictators and thieves, promising, on an honor system, to take steps of their own choosing, to change future weather patterns, and then coming up with ways by which they can measure their own progress and hold themselves accountable by their own standards for the promises they have made, on penalty of no punishment if they break their word.”
 
Mainly, Allen continues, the Paris con is about “taking money from taxpayers and consumers and businesspeople and electricity ratepayers, and giving it to crony capitalists; and taking money from people in relatively successful countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries, to benefit governing elites.”
 
India alone wants hundreds of billions of dollars in climate “adaptation and reparation” money from industrialized nations that are supposed to slash their fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions and economic growth, while pouring trillions into the Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, India, China and other rapidly developing nations are firing up hundreds of coal-fueled power plants, burning more oil and gas, and emitting more CO2, to industrialize their countries and lift their people out of abject poverty – as well they should.
 
So just follow the money – and power-grabbing. That is the real source of the religious fervor, the Catechism of Climate Cataclysm, behind the vehement denunciations of President Trump for having the gall to threaten the global high priests who drive and profit from climate change fear mongering.
 
Those forces are desperate and determined to keep their power and money train on track. They’re ramping up indignation and cranking out “research” to justify their demands. For example:
Expert Market (whose core expertise is helping companies compare prices for postage meters, coffee machines and other B2B products) has just released a study purporting to show which US states will suffer most “from Trump’s climate change denial” and America’s “climate change inaction.”
 
The total cost will be $506 billion by 2050, just for hurricane and other real estate damages, extra energy costs, and more frequent and severe droughts. “Vermont emerged as the state worst equipped to handle the cost,” the study contends, while Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas are also “severely at risk.” California and New York are among those best able to endure the imminent chaos.
 
It sounds horrific – and it’s intended to be, the better to pressure the White House and Congress to codify and enforce the nonbinding provisions of the Paris non-treaty, and retain Obama-era anti-hydrocarbon energy policies. But the entire exercise is a classic example of Garbage In/Garbage Out (GIGO) black box computer modeling, carefully crafted to ensure the justifications required for a predetermined political outcome, especially the monumental “nationwide green initiatives” that Expert Market supports.
 
Thus, carbon dioxide will drive rapidly rising global temperatures that will warm the planet enough to increase sea surface temperatures dramatically – spawning more frequent, more damaging hurricanes, and melting polar ice caps enough to raise sea levels 23 inches by 2050, the Expert Market experts assert.
 
Global warming measured in hundredths of a degree over the past 19 years will suddenly be replaced by runaway heat waves. Seas now rising at 7 inches per century will suddenly climb at ten times that rate over the next three decades, sending storm surges far inland. Major US land-falling hurricanes that have been absent now for eleven years will suddenly proliferate to unprecedented levels.
How Vermont and the other top-five “worst equipped” states – all of them inland – will be affected by any of this is anyone’s guess. But the model says they’re at risk, so we must take drastic action now.
 
Soaring temperatures will increase demand for air conditioning, and thus raise household energy costs, says Expert Market. CA, NY and other “green” state electricity costs are already twice as high as those in coal and gas-reliant states. Imposing wind and solar initiatives on fossil fuel states would likely double their family and business energy costs, but that factor is not included in its calculations.
Droughts “will become more frequent and severe” in states already afflicted by arid conditions – assuming all the dire CO2 depredations, and ignoring both those states’ long experience with drought cycles and how California’s years-long drought has once again given way to abundant rainfall.
The Expert Market study is symptomatic of the politicized assumptions and data manipulation that have driven climate models and disaster scenarios since the IPCC began studying manmade climate chaos.
 
Indeed, the entire climate chaos exercise is akin to basing public safety policies on computer models that assume dinosaur DNA extracted from fossilized amber will soon result in hordes of T rexes running rampant across our land. We deserve a more honest, rational basis for policies that govern our lives.
 
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.
 

Were ‘activist scientists’ behind European Union neonicotinoids ban?

|

Editor’s note: Henry Miller is a physician and molecular biologist who was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.] 

[A] case of undisclosed activist conflict of interest was unearthed at the end of January [2017] by investigator David Zaruk in Brussels. The case involves Gérard Arnold–a member of the scientific panel at the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA)–who helped draw up EFSA’s

“Bee Guidance Document,” while concealing his ongoing leadership role in Apimondia, an anti-pesticide global federation of beekeepers’ organizations.

According to Zaruk’s investigation, Arnold was found to be serving as the “coordinator” of the anti-pesticide Apimondia working group on “Adverse Effects of Agrochemicals and Bee Medicines on Bees” (designated “AWG 9,” which Arnold apparently founded in 2010) during the 2011-2013 period while he was working with EFSA on the Bee Guidance Document. In spite of being required by EFSA’s rules to disclose such a relationship, Arnold failed to do so.

[The Bee Guidance Document] provided a foundation for the European Commission’s 2013 decision to impose a supposedly “temporary” ban on neonic pesticides…...To Read More...

What might be the fate of EPA’s corrupt science advisory panels?

This was posted on Steve Milloy's JunkScience.com

From E&E News:


Additional reading on the corruption of EPA’s science panels.

Pesticides just one tool in the modern farmer’s pest management toolbox

|

Whether a farmer is growing in an organic or conventional system, his or her crop needs to be protected from damage from plant pests (insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, weeds…). To fail to minimize pest damage leads to inefficient use of scarce resources like prime farm land, water, or inputs. The quality and safety of the final products can also be compromised.

The approaches used to implement IPM programs generally fall into six categories:
  1. Avoiding the pest
  2. Employing the plant’s own genetic defenses
  3. Modifying the climate
  4. Disrupting the pest’s life cycle
  5. Fostering beneficial organisms
  6. Using targeted pesticide applications.....To Read More....
My Take - For those in the pest control industry, and my regular readers, you're aware of my views on IPM.....in structural pest control.   However, IPM is an agricultural concept based on threshold limits - a valid, well defined concept.    I would like for anyone to tell me how this in any way could be construed as a structural pest control concept that can be properly, consistently, and logically defined. 

More Proof That Natural Isn't Always Safe

By Ruth Kava — January 31, 2017

It seems every other package in the supermarket touts the "naturalness" of the product inside "implying that that makes the contents either more nutritious or safer, or both. But a recent case in India of children dying after eating lychee nuts underscores the truth" that natural isn't always either safer or better......... Read More...

GWPF PRESS RELEASE 27/02/17

As Polar Bear Numbers Continue To Increase, GWPF
Calls For Re-assessment Of Endangered Species Status

On the occasion of International Polar Bear Day, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is calling on the U.S. Administration to re-assess the ‘endangered species’ status of polar bears.

On May 15, 2008, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is based on the assumption that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.

In a GWPF video released today, Dr Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, documents the latest findings about rising polar bear numbers.

In 2005, the official global polar bear estimate was about 22,500.

Since 2005, however, the estimated global polar bear population has risen by more than 30% to about 30,000 bears, far and away the highest estimate in more than 50 years.

A growing number of observational studies have documented that polar bears are thriving, despite shrinking summer sea ice.

By September 2007 sea ice extent was about 43% less than it had been in 1979 – a decline not expected until mid-century, and every year after was almost as low, or lower.

Yet no more drowned polar bears were documented, no more bears than normal starved to death, no unusual spikes in cannibalism occurred, and not a single polar bear population was wiped out.

New scientific evidence suggests that loss of summer sea ice, regardless of the cause, is not a major risk for polar bear survival.

“A thorough external review of the polar bear status issue is now required -  not only because it’s the right thing to do but because it may help restore public support for science and conservation,” Dr Crockford said.

GWPF TV: Polar Bear Scare Unmasked: The Saga of a Toppled Global Warming Icon

Contact
Dr Susan Crockford
e: sjcrock@shaw.ca

Friday, February 3, 2017

Green Notes



De Omnibus Dubitandum

Cartoon of the Week
Editor's Note: This appeared in a Twitter post from someone from the
pest control industry.  The only thing I didn't like about it was I didn't do it first.

Observations From the Back Row
  


The Alar Story - The Alar story is a most enlightening account of how abuse of bureaucratic power, scare mongering by the media, and self enrichment by the green activists can create a real mess. If you ask most people who are somewhat familiar with this story how it all got started they will tell you that it was the 60 Minutes broadcast that did it. That is inaccurate; although the 60 Minutes segment set the story on fire, if you dig deeply into the whole Alar story you find that it takes so many twists and turns that it is hard to believe; but this is how the whole thing started. .....


Editor's note:  I published this in 2010, and I also bought Anne Gorsuch Burford's 1986 book, "Are You Tough Enough", demonstrating what a rat's nest government really is as she tried to reduce regulations and the EPA itself, and the consequences she suffered.  The reason I posted this is because Ann Gorsuch Burford is the mother of the current Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, and I doubt he has any love for the EPA.  What's not to like about that?  The left is now attacking Gorsuch's mother, (To Read More....) who has been dead for many years.

Anti-Vaxxers

Like Cuffed Jeans, Mumps Are Back With No Good Reason - I recently returned from spending two weeks on a college campus in upstate New York. While there, I was surprised to see, in every building that I entered, signs posted with health information about mumps. Mumps... the same viral infection that was predicted to be eliminated from the United States by 2010. Before the mumps vaccine was available in 1967, there were an estimated 150,000 - 200,000 cases reported each year. Since then, the number of cases of mumps has decreased by 99% in the United States. That being said, there remains a lot of fluctuation from year to year, easily seen in the graph below. To this point, there is an outbreak of mumps currently in Washington state, with nearly 300 cases reported - a large number compared to the normal ebb and flow of mumps from year to year.....

My Take - The Anti-Vaxxers are part and parcel of the "all natural" movement, which would include the greenies.  Just as millions have suffered and died as a result of "green" anti-pesticide initiatives all over the world, so too will we see an increase of preventable diseases in children whose parents chose to believe MMR vaccinations would cause autism in their children.

I've often wondered how heart broken those parents must be when their children die from a vaccine preventable disease knowing that outcome wasn't necessary. But they chose to believe Hollywood hacks and junk scientists instead or medical professionals whose views are totally substantiated by history....most importantly.....by history.

History is the foundation of truth. Those who promoted this movement have blood on their hands, including now unfrocked Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield, who published the discredited work that started this scare, along with Jenny McCarthy and her Hollywood friends, and Oprah Winfrey for promoting McCarthy on her show.  But the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, must bear a lion's share of the blame for publishing his work, and taking so long to refute it. All Natural and Going Green are sects of a pagan secular All Natural pseudo-religious movement, and in spite of their almost having a monopoly on being wrong - they to continue to embrace it and demand all others "believe. To be green  is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. History shows dystopia follows green like Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote - a madman.

Energy
 
Perry’s testimony undercut by reported budget outline  - Energy Secretary Nominee Rick Perry tried to soften his Climate Change and renewable energy stances during his confirmation hearing. However, a leaked budget outline from the Trump transition team belied that conciliatory tone. The confirmation hearing for Rick Perry, president-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Energy, might best be summed up with an exchange he had with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin........Under questioning from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Perry said he now believes Climate Change is equal parts natural and human-made........[however]......  At the DOE, it would roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels, eliminate the Office of Electricity, eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and scrap the Office of Fossil Energy, which focuses on technologies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.Surprisingly, no one appeared to have told Perry of the proposed cuts.........under Perry’s leadership, Texas became one of the country’s leading wind-producing states............

EPA

GOP changes rules to push EPA nomination over Democratic boycott - Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee suspended the rules on Thursday in order to approve President Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency after Democrats boycotted the meeting. Committee rules required a quorum to be present in order to do any committee business, which required at least one Democrat to be present. But in light of an ongoing Democratic boycott of several committees, Republicans changed the rules, and unanimously confirmed the nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, in an 11-0 vote........

Comment by John Ray - Once again, Democrats are undone by their living in an eternal present, with no thought of yesterday or tomorrow.  (Editor's note: Isn't that what children do?)

What the GOP did here was follow a precedent set by Harry Reid, when he showed that you could bypass important checks and balances through a simple rewriting of the Senate rules.

Reid had no respect for precedent and now the GOP have followed suit.  Reid quite amazingly abolished the filibuster for all but approval of SCOTUS judges.  That insouciance has now come back hard to bite the Donks on the butt.  They set a dangerous precedent for temporary gain and now are virtually disarmed in resisting Trump appointees

This is of course not the end of Senate scrutiny for the appointees but it clears away a roadblock.  And final approval should now follow easily


Elections have consequences… even with EPA’s illegal human experiments -The election of Donald Trump seems to have sent some sort of shock wave through EPA’s Office of Inspector General in the saga over EPA’s illegal human experiments.  More than four-and-one-half years ago I wrote to the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) requesting an investigation into EPA’s illegal human experiments.  Despite Congressional inquiry leading to an OIG investigation and report; a federal lawsuit; much media and an (ongoing) National Academy of Sciences investigation, the OIG never contacted me for more or supporting information.

Then Donald Trump was elected President.......

Global Warming
 
Columbia University's Climate: A Visit to an Alternate Universe - The subway stop at 116th Street in Manhattan is for Columbia University.  Is this subway stop a wormhole to an alternate universe, where people look like everyone else but are possessed by strange ideas and incomprehensible ways of thinking? My journey to 116th Street was to attend a lecture titled "What Would it Mean to Understand Climate Change?" It is hard to understand the title of this lecture, and the official description of the lecture increases the confusion:....... Naomi Oreskes is a bizarre conspiracy theorist.  According to Oreskes, the oil companies are running a scam to confuse everyone about global warming by spreading misinformation.  If they are doing this, their methods are strange.  If you look at oil company websites, most oil companies show themselves to be believers in global warming and assert that they are trying hard to reduce CO2 emissions.........
 
My Take - Everything about "climate change" claims are bizarre.  The Hockey stick graph - proven wrong and seemingly fraudulent.  The East Anglia e-mails showing the corruption and collusion between these "scientists".  The failure of all the computer models they're using, and the subsequent failures in their predictions.  If we listened to them ten years ago we would have already passed the "tipping point" to doom....just ask England's loony Prince Charlie.  The refusal to turn over their entire research for peer review, including Mann's "dirty laundry" - his term.  The failure to recognize the Roman and Medieval Warming periods, both of which were warmer than we are today, and that's just the tip of the ice berg.  The evidence that humans have nothing to do with climate change is overwhelming, and yet they cling to this scare like drowing passengers from a sinking ship cling to life savers.
 
But clarity will soon emerge - Trump is going to end the government grant money gravy train.  A gravy train that's made scientific integrity an oxymoron.  What I would really like to see is government grant money that's intended to prove mankind isn't responsible for climate change, and then watch these academic grant chasers do an about face so fast they would look like the color guard in a military parade.
 
Parasites
 
Scabies Outbreak and Things That Go Itch in the Night  - Let’s be honest. It is the rare few of us who don’t start empathetic itching when we even read stories about skin mite infestations or head lice, for example, let alone experience them first hand.  According to the Dayton Daily News, things got all too real for 86 hospital employees at Kettering Hospital when spokesperson, Elizabeth Long, confirmed an outbreak of scabies among the staff. The hospital representative maintains the spread can be traced to a patient and the proper precautions are in place to prevent further issues—maintaining no other patients have been affected.

What better time to clarify some misperceptions about scabies and a few other causes of more acute intense itching than the present?! Especially ones that are readily treatable. To read about causes of chronic itching that could signify more substantial underlying disease, read When Itching is a Bigger Deal........

Logical Fallacy of the Week
 
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
  1. true
  2. false
  3. unknown between true or false
  4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Science Under Attack

How to win without science: argumentum ad hominem - The “argumentum ad hominem” is a method to address an argument by attacking one’s adversary’s character. It used to be a fallacy – now it seems to be how anti-industry environmental activists score points when their science, evidence and data is worth very little, or as is often the case, when the activists do not understand the science (but understand the consequences).
58741092Over the last few days, environmental NGOs and anti-industry anarchists on both sides of the Atlantic have been busily refuting scientific findings by showing how some researchers involved have, or many years ago, had ties to industry. Somehow these intellectual neophytes feel that when the evil wand of industry touches a scientist, he or she becomes incapable of a clear scientific observation. The antis surround themselves with others who think the same, retweet them, join in their character assassinations, but as far as I can see, have never actually met any industry scientists.
 
We don’t want your facts or evidence!.........Where is the science in any of this? That is the point – there is none. Argumentum ad hominem is the tool you use when you have no science on your side.......Burn them at the stake......I learned a lot about how these malcontents attack the person with their pitchforks, taunts and bile.........If we all run and hide, where will the science be?.........

TRUTH IS THE SUBLIME CONVERGENCE OF HISTORY AND REALITY