Unintended Consequences, Again. Surprised?

This article has its share of good reporting and stupidity, but the fact remains that actions have consequences. Duh.

"As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact."

What happens when you allow a policy belief to override science? You kill eagles and marine life chasing Global Warming alarmism. You destroy the environment to enact your policies which are more designed to control your population and the economy than to save the Earth.

"Fundamental Transformation" has a price, after all.....

Go Ahead, Tax Carbon, But Nothing Will Change

Thanks to Junk Science, I saw this today:

The Carbon Tax: Washington's Latest Bad Idea, Oddly Shepherded By Republicans

I love this:

"One can use the EPA’s own model (curiously, acronymed MAGICC) to assess the effects on global temperature of emissions reductions that would be caused by a carbon tax. Assuming outrageously high taxes that would reduce them by 83% (giving Americans the per-capita emissions of 1867), the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on the 50-year time scale. Anything less does even less."

In other words, the effects are essentially the same as doing nothing. Why then, should we do it??

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy Belated Earth Day, George Carlin Style.

I can't believe how many things he says here that I say as well. Maybe I've seen this before and forgot?

Unreliable

Not me!

The US temperature data. Thanks to Joe Bastardi's twitter stream for this one, and feel free to go to his site for all kids of weather data.

From the report:

"During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable."

This is Science

"...as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances."

That, my friends, is the best, most accurate statement you will ever read about Climate Change.

more:

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”


 
Hubris is not a fault of his, unlike the rest of the Global Warming mob.

So, What You're Saying Is That The Sun IS Important

More for my "denier" attitude:

"The insolation — the solar energy received by the Earth from the sun — varies in cycles, which can impact monsoons," Giosan said. "In the last 10,000 years, the Northern Hemisphere had the highest insolation from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, and since then insolation there decreased. All climate on Earth is driven by the sun, and so the monsoons were affected by the lower insolation, decreasing in force. This meant less rain got into continental regions affected by monsoons over time."

The article begins:

Huge Ancient Civilization’s Collapse Explained

"The mysterious fall of the largest of the world's earliest urban civilizations nearly 4,000 years ago in what is now India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh now appears to have a key culprit — ancient climate change, researchers say."


I don't really need to comment, do I?


Next, a study was recently published that shows a negative association between science and mathematical knowledge and belief in climate change risks... the more you know, the less you are concerned. The best part is that this is in direct opposition to what the study designers expected.

It's a little dense, so if you want some other commentary, try here, here, or here!

Lastly, someone took the time to examine all kinds of historical weather data, and you know what? It's no wackier or extreme than it has ever been. Duh.

More on the fallacy that is "Man-Caused Global Warming"

See, friends, this is how science works: you observe,you hypothesize, you experiment, you observe, you draw conclusions. As new data is uncovered, you adjust your conclusions based on the data, not the other way around.

From the Daily Mail:

Global warming: Earth heated up in medieval times without human C02 emission.

‘We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,’ Lu says. ‘More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.’ (my emphasis)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html#ixzz1qLSzf7a2

I repeat my assertions: if you don't know the correct temperature of the Earth, you can't get me upset over fluctuations in temperature; you cannot prove humans have anything to do with the fluctuations in global temperature.

More Green Promises Wither

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for these articles:

Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study   

Here's my takeaway: 

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

 

and then there's this about how much methane "biodegradable" products release in landfills:

 

If we want to maximize the environmental benefit of biodegradable products in landfills,” Barlaz said, “we need to both expand methane collection at landfills and design these products to degrade more slowly — in contrast to FTC guidance.

 

Surely we don't really need a lesson in The Law of Unintended Consequences, so we?

 

Wind Turbines are Killers! Panic! wait....Where's the Panic?

Well, it's well documented that wind turbines are actual wildlife killers, so why bother reporting it, if you are a journalist in the US? Wouldn't want to get people all riled up when there are Green stories to write, after all.

Thankfully, the UK press is all over this one:

"California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state’s golden eagles at risk.
Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines.
Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities."

so, with the perceived Bogeyman of Environmental Disaster, we slaughter wildlife to save what, exactly?

Greenland Was Called That For a Reason

Okay, folks, here's one from Yahoo (new link, old one expired) today, and as noted in the comments, it's an old story, and the writer desperately tries to come to a conclusion that isn't supported by the story, which is funny to me.

"Scientists fear that the 21st century warming is caused by climate change, stoked by a build-up of greenhouse gases from human activities. An acceleration of warming could cause a meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, raising world sea levels."

Dunce. After recounting all the changes to the climate of Greenland (and therefore the planet) over the centuries, to add that sentence is, well, stupid.

Another Hysterical Man Caused Global Warming Statement timed out

Here's the link to this wonderful post that I like so much, I'm pasting all the content here, so you can read it here. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Please go to the original site via the link, though, they deserve the traffic.

Flashback 2005: UN Predicts 50 Million Global Warming Refugees By 2010

By Noel Sheppard | April 12, 2011 | 10:31

To give you an idea of the kind of hysterical predictions the global warming crowd have made in recent years, the United Nations in 2005 actually forecast that by the end of the previous decade, there would be 50 million environmental refugees around the world as a result of climate change.
Britain's Guardian reported October 12, 2005:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." [...]

Hans van Ginkel, UN under-secretary-general and rector of the university, said: "This is a highly complex issue, with global organisations already overwhelmed by the demands of conventionally recognised refugees. However, we should prepare now to define, accept and accommodate this new breed of refugee."

As Gavin Atkins of the Asian Correspondent noted Monday, the U.N. back in 2005 provided a handy map to identify "places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean."
Atkins chose to look at census figures for some of these "at risk" locales to see whether the U.N.'s predictions - pun intended - hold water. What he discovered was that far from seeing a population exodus, many of these areas are growing in their number of homo sapiens.
These included the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and the Solomon Islands. Atkins continued:

Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

Kind of like predicting a team to come in last place at the beginning of the season that ends up winning the Super Bowl, wouldn't you say?
Climate realists are also ticking down Nobel Laureate Al Gore's prediction that "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Although this is from his pathetic schockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" released in August 2006, he apparently made this claim at the Sundance Film Festival in January of that year.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been counting down the days since January 27, 2006:

In four years, nine months, and roughly fifteen days, when we're all still standing here and the world hasn't come to an end, Gore's going to have some serious splainin' to do.
(H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

Gore makes money, too!

Wow, I must admit I never thought the New York Times would run a piece like this: Al Gore is making money off green investments. And he was soooooooooooooo indignant when questioned about this on Capitol Hill earlier this year (which, I see, the article took the time to mention). Now, it's okay to make money on it?

It is, it's just the conflict of interest that bothers some of us: working as a lobbyist to make legislative changes that will make him lots and lots of money.