It is no longer global warming because it isn't.

It is climate change because it does.

Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.
— Thomas B. Macaulay (1800-1859), Essay on Southey's Colloquies

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.


About Me

My photo
Copyright Notice © JLS and LensFocus, 2008-present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to JLS and LensFocus with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

What's Up With Keystone

I don’t understand all the fuss over the Keystone pipeline. It is not as if it is the first pipeline to ever to cross the United States. Right now there are over 2 million miles of pipeline criss-crossing the USA. Shipping oil to Texas refineries is not the problem. The US does that with Bakken oil now. Canada does it via rail.

Some people say we have an existential climate crisis on our hands and we need to reduce our emissions of CO2 so oil from the Alberta oil sands should not be burned. Some have threatened to disrupt the construction of the Keystone pipeline if it is given the go ahead.

Here’s what puzzles me. Oil from the Alberta oil sands is already being shipped via rail, a less safe method of transport when compared to pipeline, and no one is laying across the tracks to try and stop it. The Drama Greens are nowhere to be found. Does this mean that 700,000 barrels a day via pipeline from the Alberta oil sands is bad but 500,000 barrels of oil via rail is not dangerous to the climate?

Or is the hold up nothing more than the need of a POTUS to seem to be doing something about climate change to satisfy his party’s backers. Politicians not only have to cater to the public good they are also under pressure from the special interests brought to their attention by party hacks. Guess who wins?

Is US policy up for sale and Tom Steyer’s promise of $100 million to the Democrats for the November 2014 elections worth more to Obama than the jobs and oil supply that the pipeline would create for people? LIUNA loses and Steyer wins. Perhaps LIUNA should try outbidding Steyer to alter POTUS policy. Neither Obama nor Steyer will prevent the oil from the oil sands moving to market whether that market be in the US, Europe or Asia.

Recently, Canada has approved the Northern Gateway pipeline to its own west coast at Kitimat BC where it would be shipped to Asia. The extant Line 9 pipeline has been approved to deliver oil from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec refineries. Transcanada Pipeline wants to extend their eastern line to the east coast ending in St, John, N.B. Alberta oil will move.

Net CO2 reductions by killing Keystone: nil. And Tom Steyer and Obama ought to know that.

And yet the ‘existential crisis’ motivates no one to lie down on the tracks.

As blogger Instapundit has pointed out: When people who tell me there is a crisis start acting like there is a crisis I might believe there is a crisis.

The behaviour of rich elite Drama Greens announces what they really think of the seriousness of climate change. It is just weather folks. Same as we have always had. It cycles. Warm now, cool later. The climate changes continuously. And if there is going to be another ice age there is little that we can do about it except move. Tell us something we don’t know.

For most of the last 500 million years life has survived and evolved with levels of CO2 in the air that far exceed that which we currently enjoy. That fact alone ought to reassure you that a runaway global warming is someone’s scare tactic and has no basis in reality or it would have happened already and we wouldn’t be here to fret over it.

Posted by at No comments:

Wood Cast Doubt on CO2

We are told that human emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is making the world a warmer place in an unprecedented way.

However, “Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier” which indicates that the world was warmer than now during the Minoan  Warm Period raises the question as to how that happened in the absence of rising CO2. Certainly it was not due to fossil fuel powered chariots.  

We have been told by climate change gurus like Al Gore that CO2 levels remained within the 260-300ppm range for 800,000 years so if it was warmer 4000 years ago than now it was not due to the influence of CO2.

This discovery must mean that there are other factors at work that can warm the climate. Until we have an understanding of the natural factors that caused earlier warm periods we cannot discount the possibility that the warming of the late 20th century that has the alarmist tale in a knot was not due to natural factors just as before. How do we tease out the human influence if there is one? We need a valid explanation for the earlier warm periods in order to feel confident that we can identify a human influence for the current warm period. It is obvious that we do not understand climate drivers very well.

This is an important discovery that helps to advance our knowledge of previous climates and to help invalidate the theory of global warming preferred by the IPCC and its supporters. Despite the claims of the ‘Hockey Stick’  it is readily apparent that the past has been warmer and that contemporary temperatures do not stand out in an ‘unprecedented’ manner. If they are not unprecedented then we are not facing an existential climate crisis. And CO2 may be irrelevant to the whole issue.



Posted by at No comments:

I'm Not A Doctor Either

“I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, ‘OK.’ It’s not that hard,” said Obama, who drew loud applause at the League of Conservation Voters’ annual Capital Dinner.

Well, I don’t suppose that he is a meteorologist either. But if a bunch of meteorologists tell him that it is going to rain on Wed next week in Washington will he say ’OK. It’s not that hard.’ Would he stake his life on that one?

Isn’t that a fairer comparison to climate science than doctors, tobacco and lung cancer?

Meteorologists are experts in their field too. But their field deals with a far more chaotic system than the biochemistry of the human body.

This was recognized by the IPCC back in 2001:

” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.

Now how did that statement get into the ‘settled science’?

Since that was written the Global Climate Models have lent support to the IPCC assessment as they have failed to track Mother Nature and the GCMs forecast a warmer world than the one we currently inhabit.

While Obama’s confidence in his doctor friends may be justified it is unlikely that the same level of certainty should be accorded his bunch of meteorologists. It is an easy win when you don’t compare apples to apples. People with an agenda are prone to such oversight.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Skeptic Should Give It Up?



Climate changes continuously. Ice age. Warm interglacial. Ice age. Warm interglacial and all at ‘normal, stable’ levels of CO2 according to Al Gore. So how did that happen if CO2 is the primary driver?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

The state of the art USCRN shows cooling. Fact. Shall we vote on that fact or suppress that fact? Why was the USCRN constructed? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/

Has someone forgotten to turn on the heat trapping superpowers of CO2 in the world’s 2nd biggest emitter?

“It’s leading to heat waves, drought, sea-level rise, floods, superstorms, and other types of destructive, costly, and deadly extreme-weather events.”

And when hasn’t that been the case? When was the weather better? To which year should we return?

If the worst tornado in US history (Tri-state, https://suite.io/maureen-k-fleury/gtw233) were to reappear and to follow the same path today as it did in 1925 would it be more costly? Why or why not?

With all that additional ‘heat energy trapping’ CO2 in the US air since 1925 how come the equivalent hasn’t reappeared? How come the record still stands? CO2 not working? Don’t worry climate alarmists. I am sure the climate gods will answer your prayers sooner or later. Records are made to be broken although in this case I hope Mother Nature takes a pass. Up to date data:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png Can we all be thankful for the below average tornado visits of the last few years despite record levels of CO2 not seen in 400,000 years?

You can find out about the Vegas climate here: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/climate/LasVegasClimateBook/index.php . But I am sure you knew that :). I didn’t either but it is amazing what you can find out by visiting skeptic websites(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/why-would-climate-skeptics-hold-a-conference-in-hot-las-vegas/). The annual average max temps in Vegas show a slight downward trend while the record max temp shows no trend despite the record increase in CO2 our atmosphere has experienced over the last 60 years. The growth of Vegas has naturally contributed to its UHI. FYI, the year with the largest number of days with temps over 105F 1940 - 61. What does that say about the heat trapping superpowers of CO2?

Why do you guys say ‘carbon’ instead of carbon dioxide? Is it because CO2 is a trace gas essential to life on Earth and would be a harder ‘sell’? Carbon conjurs up images of dirty soot and ash(already regulated), the better to misinform you with?

Everyone wants clean air but I want mine with lots of CO2. There is a rumor that my fruits and veggies love the stuff. CO2 was exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.  






Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Obama in the Age of Stupid

Is it best to remain silent and be thought stupid rather than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt?



Does he even understand how that looks to people? Does he even understand that planes use fossil fuels which adds the dreaded CO2 to the air? Does he care? Does Lead By Example (LBE) mean nothing to him? Does he teach his children to say one thing and do another because that is what they are seeing? As blogger Instapundit has remarked: I’ll believe it’s a crisis when people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis. Hypocritical behaviour lessens the import of the warning. Do Obama and celebrity sponsors not understand that?

Obama has removed all doubt in his recent ignorant attacks on those who refuse to accept his view of man made climate change. He thinks they are an ignorant bunch who deny reality while in fact it is he who can’t recognize reality when he sees it. He also seems to think that his audience at UC, Irvine has not been exposed to history.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell





Obama is an insult to the robes he is wearing. In his commencement speech to the graduates of UC, Irvine he chose to mention climate change and rather than demonstrating scholarship befitting his audience and the institution which they attended he presented selective facts with which he is familiar. He said that “the 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born”  and he stated that fires in Western states, smaller snow packs in mountainous tourist areas, and flooding streets in cities like Miami were due to man made climate change. He is easy to convince. But Mother Nature has a history and many in his audience probably know that.


Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

The ‘18 warmest years on record’ ignores the copious scientific evidence that the Earth has been warmer in the past. Past ages such as the Medieval Warm Period, Roman warm period the Minoan warm period and the Holocene climatic optimum, all of which occurred within the last 10,000 years, were as warm or warmer than the temperatures that we currently experience. And those warm periods occurred prior to the human use of fossil fuels for energy at a time when CO2 was much lower in the atmosphere so neither it nor we can be blamed. Did Obama leave that out because he doesn’t know and should attend UC, Irvine, or because he doesn’t want you to know or because he just doesn’t know? For a POTUS none of those options is charming.

Quote by Ottmar Edenhofer, high level UN-IPCC official:  "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Obama also failed to mention that the Global Climate Models(GCMs) that are used to offer scenarios for the future upon which government climate policy is based do not reflect what Mother Nature is actually doing. The GCMs routinely forecast higher temperatures than what we currently experience. Does this not suggest that we don’t know how the climate actually works? Isn’t that a basis for skepticism?

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Obama also failed to mention that Mother Nature, who Al Gore hears loud and clear’, stopped raising the Global Mean Temperature(GMT) over 17+ years ago. That means that no child who is in grade school has been alive to experience any global warming. In fact, the GMT datasets show a slow decrease in temperature since about 2002.  Even NOAA shows US cooling since 2005. Did Obama leave that out because he doesn’t know and should attend UC, Irvine, or because he doesn’t want you to know or because he just doesn’t know? For a POTUS, none of those options is charming.

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." (emphasis mine)

Obama mentioned fires in Western states as evidence of man made climate change. I am sure that all students at UC, Irvine would be able to direct the POTUS to the US National Interagency Fire Center where he will find out that fire trends are on the decrease. Smokey Bear is proud. While the acreage burned is on the increase this can be attributed to a change in fire management practices - obviously not for the better.

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Liberal Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Obama draws the attention of the students to smaller snowpack for tourists in the mountains as evidence of man made climate change. If given the chance I am sure that the students at UC,Irvine could point the POTUS to the Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab where he could see for himself that 5 out of the 6 snowiest years in the record have occurred since 2003. Please note that this corresponds to the slight cooling noticed in the GMT since 2002.

Quote by Timothy Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Rising seas flooding the streets of Miami trouble Obama who sees this as more evidence of man made climate change due to our burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps the POTUS is unaware of the following explanation: Forget global warming: Groundwater extraction is causing cities to SINK beneath sea level. Apparently, sea level rise has also detected the temperature stasis. Shouldn’t seaside property values reflect the rising seas? Do they? Millions of dollars are being invested in hotels, resorts and airports in the Maldives. They do not seem too concerned about an imminent oceanic uprising. Besides sea level has been much higher in the past and we weren’t driving SUVs at the time. Does that suggest natural causes? The lack of any acceleration in sea level rise should be a cause for celebration.

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Does Obama believe that global sea ice extent is increasing and at record levels because the world is getting warmer? Heat makes ice? Would a science graduate believe that? Or a buffoon? You be the judge.


“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." Club of Rome (Emphasis mine.)

Liberal plot? Does anyone see a Liberal plot?

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”

How about now?

Quote by John Holdren, President Obama's science czar: “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States...De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation...Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being."

Is John a liberal? Maybe now?

And they don’t care if they lie to achieve the goal. The goal is control and they don’t need to be ethical to get there. Who will stop them?

Above quotes from here.

Crack scientists or is that scientists on crack have gotten otherwise intelligent people to believe that CO2, an invisible trace gas essential to life on Earth, is causing frightening snow in the winter, rain in the spring, heat in the summer and falling leaves in autumn. We must take a vow of poverty and pay tithes to our elite rulers to rectify this terrible state of the climate

CAGW - when scientists treat common weather phenomena as unusual. Author unknown to me.

Get a grip. Take a chill pill people. The climate is fine. It is you who are heating up over the delusion in your own mind.


Obama: Cue Donna Summer: Who do, who do you think you’re foolin’?
Posted by at No comments:

Phil Plait - BS(Bad Science)


Phil Plait didn’t like the Billboard offering from the man made climate skeptic group ‘Friends of Science’ that read:


Phil thinks this is Bad Science.

Apparently, Phil does not study the Sun. Maybe he really is The Bad Astronomer.

He quotes the Skeptical Science alarmist site for his scientific refutation of the Sun as the main driver of climate change during the recent past.

Perhaps he should broaden his reading on solar influences on our climate.

Solar Influences

The last three alone are enough to refute the lack of influence of the Sun on contemporary climate. Solar scientists seem to be in conflict with alarmist climate scientists. This does not appear like settled science to the observing public.

Phil laments that Friends of Science deny that the globe is warming with temperatures spiking upwards. Perhaps that is because Mother Nature stopped raising the Global Mean Temperature (GMT) over 15+ years ago. Surely Phil is aware of this.

Next Phil can’t believe that Friends of Science deny that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. It is difficult to believe that Phil believes a colorless, trace gas essential to life on Earth can pose a problem for humans. It is difficult to demonize a gas that fertilises the flora and in increasing quantities is greening the planet.

CO2, a trace gas essential to life on Earth, is plant food. We exhale CO2 and help to feed the flora. In return they slip us oxygen of which we are rather fond in a mutually beneficial and amicable symbiotic relationship. From this evil comes?

Bonus: plants grow better, stronger, faster because of the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In concluding, the U.S. research team declares that "from this remarkable 30-year archive of satellite imagery, we thus see evidence of a greening trend," which clearly indicates that the net result of the climatic and physiological effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on Earth's terrestrial plant life has in the mean been decidedly beneficial.

Apart from that CO2 has no redeeming features

We need to stop all activities aimed at decreasing human emissions of CO2.

CO2 is green. We need more of it not less. CO2 has been exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it. Let the plants dance.

Phil has fallen prey to the misinformation about the danger of the life giving gas CO2.
Next Phil expresses his fear of sea level rise(SLR) and ridicules Friends of Science for their lack of concern about SLR. It is the same lack of concern expressed by those who continue to pay the increasing prices of seaside property and those who continue to invest in hotels, resorts and airports in low lying islands. Are these people nuts? I got an idea. Let’s invest millions in properties that are going to be submerged by an oceanic uprising. Shouldn’t prices of coastal property be going down as people wake-up to the dangers of climate change? Maybe SLR isn’t that big a concern. Recently, the seas have been forgetting to rise alarmingly. Sea levels have been higher in the past long before humans started to burn fossil fuels for energy.

Phil then chides Friends of Science for promoting Christopher Monckton as if truth is determined by who speaks it rather than by an appeal to Mother Nature. If temps are not rising does it matter who points it out?

Next, Phil refers to a Sourcewatch entry for Friends of Science which explores the origin of funding for the non-profit organization. Does Mother Nature care who funds a video or study? Either the study uncovers something about how she operates or it doesn’t. Either the video reflects reality or it doesn’t. We must compare the content with what Mother Nature is doing in order to render a proper verdict.

Similarly, Phil tries to question the integrity and reputation of the organization by mentioning the corporate owner of the billboard on which the message was displayed. Does Mother Nature care about such things? Either the sun is the primary driver of climate change or it is not.

The studies above support the contention of the message promoted by Friends of Science. Scientists believed it in 1998.


Temperature and Solar Irradiance Correlation

The data appears to support it.

Perhaps Phil would like to educate us as to why the current set of Global Climate Models (GCMs) do not track what Mother Nature has been doing for the last 17+ years. Theory says: CO2 up, temps up. Mother Nature didn’t get the memo. CO2 up; temps in stasis for 17+ years.
We hate it when that happens but when it does science says: modify or abandon the theory because as it stands it is wrong.

A friend of science would recognize that. Is Phil a scientist or a delusional activist?
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive