THE $6 QUADRILLION COST OF THE CLIMATE SCAM

The capture of the once-pure environmental movement by the hard left is far from cheap for the rest of us. I have just told the annual planetary-emergencies conference of the World Federation of Scientists that on the basis of the lunatic anti-CO2 policies now fashionable among scientifically illiterate governments, it would cost $6 quadrillion to prevent the 6 degrees Fahrenheit of predicted “global warming” that will not happen anyway.

Professor Antonino Zichichi, one of the world’s top six particle physicists (he discovered a form of anti-matter 40 years before the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider did), is the most famous Italian scientist since his hero Galileo. He founded the Federation half a century ago and, at the age of 83, is its president to this day.

Nino looks like a proper scientist. Imagine giving his friend Albert Einstein an electric shock, and that is what his hair looks like. He is fitter than me and attributes his good health to walking an hour every day, not drinking alcohol and not eating lunch (that’s for wimps). He lives in a medieval stone house in the unspoiled, monastic village of Erice, Sicily, perched high on a 2,500-foot crag overlooking the blue Mediterranean.

He is an angry man. Angry because he, like me, was brought up in the Classical tradition, which insists that the duty of every “seeker after truth” (Al-Haytham’s beautiful phrase for the scientist) is to be logical and rational. He founded the Federation at the height of the Cold War to remind scientists of their moral responsibility to use their craft for good, not for ill, and of their intellectual obligation to adhere rigorously to the scientific method.

Nino is furious at the politicization of climate science. Science these days is a monopsony. There is only one paying customer: the State. Scientists increasingly produce the results their political paymasters want rather than seeking after truth.

Nowhere is the buying of desired results by governments clearer than in Nick Stern’s now-discredited report of 2006 on climate economics. The U.N.’s absurd climate panel had already at least tripled the true (and harmless) rate of warming to be expected from our adding CO2 to the air. Stern, to please his socialist paymasters, tripled it again without the slightest justification. Then he divided by 10 the true cost of making global warming go away and multiplied by 10 the true cost of not acting to Save The Planet (memo to Old Nick: The planet was triumphantly saved 2,000 years ago and doesn’t need saving again).

Read more here.

Scientists Indoctrinate Young Minds To Believe In Climate Change Lie

Climate change subscribers say the fight against global warming will require younger soldiers.

On Monday, the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit group that denounces intelligent design and supports an evolution-only curriculum in the classroom, will expand its mission. The organization of scientists, anthropologists and others is turning its attention to climate change, and it will mount an aggressive effort to teach the nation’s schoolchildren that climate change is real and is being driven by human activity.

“For 20 years, we’ve helped teachers cope with what we can only describe as societal or political problems in teaching evolution. They’re running into the same opposition in teaching climate change,” NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott said. “We worry, because of our experience with evolution, that basic science is going to be compromised as a result of this political and ideological opposition. Good science needs to be taught.”

Critics point out important distinctions between the defense of evolution and the promotion of climate change, since the latter carries more obvious and immediate policy implications. Alarmists call for broad federal policies to combat climate change, such as President Obama’s proposed “cap-and-trade” legislation, which is designed to limit carbon emissions. Although that measure is on hold, a law imposed by the European Union requires all airline companies to pay for their carbon emissions during flights in and out of Europe. Officials at the United Nations have even called for a global tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

Ms. Scott maintains that the NCSE won’t advocate for teachers to push liberal policy solutions to climate change, but others fear that students will be targets of political indoctrination.

“If you say it’s man-made, you must be implying some solutions. [Climate change] is taught to promote a particular political point of view, and that’s the problem,” said Kathleen Porter-Magee, senior director of the High Quality Standards Program at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington-based conservative education think tank.

Read more here.

Bill Maher Continues his Stupid Remarks

Last week, former Vice President Al Gore took to the pages of Rolling Stone magazine to criticize various elements in our political culture for not championing the cause of stopping anthropogenic climate change. Gore went right for the top – President Barack Obama.

On his Friday night program on HBO, “Real Time” host Bill Maher doubled down on Gore’s claim, offering anecdotal evidence that climate change (not global warming) is real.

“I mean, Al Gore wrote this week in Rolling Stone, which was mostly critical of the media but also critical of Obama for not leading on climate change,” Maher said. “I don’t call it global warming anymore because that’s bad – because it is climate change. And I’m looking at what’s going on with the weather in this country. You see droughts. You see floods. You see these giant fires. I mean, cattle are dying in Texas. This is what i used to see in Ethiopia.”

Despite climate change being known as a global phenomenon and not isolated to one country, Maher had a grim warning for the commander-in-chief: Do something or the country will face the perils of a third-world nation.

“You know, I understand we’re on our way to being a third-world country, could we just stop at second-world before we get there?” Maher said. “Why doesn’t he point to this and say this is all because of climate change. He doesn’t seem to use what he has to make a case. I don’t hear the Democratic case being made. That’s my point.”

There was one problem with Obama using climate change as a campaign issue, New York Times columnist David Carr added. “It’s tough to run on the weather,” Carr said.

Rush Limbaugh on Mitt Romney

Radio talk show host Rush Linbaugh has a message for presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney: Say goodbye to the 2012 Republican nomination. Last Friday, Romney spoke at a town hall event in New Hampshire, telling the audience that he believes human beings have an impact on global warming:

I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that.

Limbaugh isn’t happy with the presidential hopeful. The popular host also said, “…the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax. And we still have presidential candidates who want to buy into it.”

Noted climatologist Bill Maher on Alabama tornados: ‘This is global warming’

Despite being someone who opposes blind faith and living a life in accordance to religious texts, HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher has put his faith into a scientific theory that has had its share of doubt cast on it over the past two years.

On his Friday evening show, in a discussion with Harry Shearer, the voice behind many of the characters on “The Simpsons,” Maher commented on the disastrous tornado that hit Alabama last month, claiming a death toll of 238 to date.

“What do you think about this tornado situation that ran through, I guess it was mostly Alabama,” Maher said. “But I mean it was, we used to hear about tornados that were a few hundred yards wide. This ran 300 miles. They used to just touch down.”

According to Maher, the cause of the killer tornado is obvious: Global warming.
Ads by Google

“This is global warming,” Maher declared. “This is global warming – there’s more moisture – it’s what scientist always said. There’s more moisture in the atmosphere. It’s going to cause these giant disasters.”

Read more here.

Obama promised higher energy costs. He wasn’t kidding

President Obama held a town hall meeting Wednesday at a wind turbine manufacturing plant in Fairless Hills, Pa., to promote his Big Green energy agenda. Not everyone in the audience was receptive to his message.

When one man failed to clap as Obama talked about government forcing higher fuel efficiency standards (which, contrary to the president, did not reduce U.S. oil imports a single drop), Obama teased him: “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — (laughter) — you may have a big family, … How many you have? Ten kids, you say? (Laughter.) Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then.”

In fact, there are no family-sized hybrid minivans on sale now, and any that come online in the near future will likely cost somewhere north of $30,000. We doubt that a family of 12, or even an average family of four, has that much money just lying around to invest in Obama’s Big Green dreams. But we’ve seen this Obama many times before. Instead of understanding the challenges facing his fellow Americans, and working to lower their energy costs, Obama lectures them about the alleged errors of their ways and tells them how they should spend their hard-earned money. The Fairless Hills exchange was an illustration of the professional politician who thinks he’s the boss, when in fact he is supposed to be the elected servant.

“There is no magic formula to driving gas prices down,” the president also said Wednesday. Maybe so, but Obama has figured out a pretty good formula for driving gas prices up. Immediately after taking office in 2009, his interior secretary, Ken Salazar, canceled 77 previously approved leases for oil and gas development in Utah. In February 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency mandated that consumers buy 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels (like ethanol) by 2020. By July 2010, the White House banned drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The ban has since been lifted, but only half a dozen permits have been issued despite hundreds of pending applications. Now the Energy Information Administration projects a 13 percent decline in off-shore oil production this year.

Read more here.

More on Climate Change

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don’t know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets’ gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Read more here.

Going “Green” Is Bunk

By: John Stossel

I ride my bike to work. It seems so pure.

We’re constantly urged to “go green” — use less energy, shrink our carbon footprint, save the Earth. How? We should drive less, use ethanol, recycle plastic and buy things with the government’s Energy Star label.

But what if much of going green is just bunk? Al Gore’s group, Repower America, claims we can replace all our dirty energy with clean, carbon-free renewables. Gore says we can do it within 10 years.

“It’s simply not possible,” says Robert Bryce, author of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy.” “Nine out of 10 units of power that we consume are produced by hydrocarbons — coal, oil and natural gas. Any transition away from those sources is going to be a decades-long, maybe even a century-long process. … The world consumes 200 billion barrels of hydrocarbons per day. We would have to find the energy equivalent of 23 Saudi Arabias.”

Bryce used to be a left-liberal, but then: “I educated myself about math and physics. I’m a liberal who was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics.”

Bryce mocked the “green” value of my riding my bike to work:

“Let’s assume you saved a gallon of oil in your commute (a generous assumption!). Global daily energy consumption is 9.5 billion gallons. … So by biking to work, you save the equivalent of one drop in 10 gasoline tanker trucks. Put another way, it’s one pinch of salt in a 100-pound bag of potato chips.”

How about wind power?

“Wind does not replace oil. This is one of the great fallacies, and it’s one that the wind energy business continues to promote,” Bryce said.

The problem is that windmills cannot provide a constant source of electricity. Wind turbines only achieve 10 percent to 20 percent of their maximum capacity because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.

“That means you have to keep conventional power plants up and running. You have to ramp them up to replace the power that disappears from wind turbines and ramp them down when power reappears.”

Yet the media rave about Denmark, which gets some power from wind. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, “If only we could be as energy smart as Denmark.”

“Friedman doesn’t fundamentally understand what he’s talking about,” Bryce said.

Bryce’s book shows that Denmark uses eight times more coal and 25 times more oil than wind.

If wind and solar power were practical, entrepreneurs would invest in it. There would be no need for government to take money from taxpayers and give it to people pushing green products.

Even with subsidies, “renewable” energy today barely makes a dent on our energy needs.

Bryce points out that energy production from every solar panel and windmill in America is less than the production from one coal mine and much less than natural gas production from Oklahoma alone.

But what if we build more windmills?

“One nuclear power plant in Texas covers about 19 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Manhattan. To produce the same amount of power from wind turbines would require an area the size of Rhode Island. This is energy sprawl.” To produce the same amount of energy with ethanol, another “green” fuel, it would take 24 Rhode Islands to grow enough corn.

Maybe the electric car is the next big thing?

“Electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be.”

There have been impressive headlines about electric cars from my brilliant colleagues in the media. The Washington Post said, “Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they’re within reach of the average family.”

That was in 1915.

In 1959, The New York Times said, “Electric is the car of the tomorrow.”

In 1979, The Washington Post said, “GM has an electric car breakthrough in batteries, now makes them commercially practical.”

I’m still waiting.

“The problem is very simple,” Bryce said. “It’s not political will. It’s simple physics. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best lithium ion batteries. There’s no conspiracy here of big oil or big auto. It’s a conspiracy of physics.”

Examiner Columnist John Stossel is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

%d bloggers like this: