The above is the title of an OP-ED in the WSJ, 2/15/17 by Homan Jenkins, Jr.

In the late 90’s Europe decided to convert passenger cars to diesel, after Kyoto. The result, as estimated .004 reduction in temperature, (how can you estimate to that specificity boggles my mind-my comment) and noticeably dirty air due to soot and nitrogen oxide. How did that happen?

Scientists all agreed that this was the right thing to do. I guess they all got in a hot tub and bought into group think.  But wait, scientists rely on data correct?  They invite opposing opinions and do their best to remain objective, correct? They encourage multiple tests measuring results and comparing to their assumptions, correct?

Well a funny thing happened on the way to consensus. Opinions got in the way and objectivity was lost. Big government got involved throwing money around and those who objected were called names, careers ruined and the news media heaped more on the pile.

So, what has VW done in the aftermath of dieselgate? First it will cost them $25 billion. So, they have, “..adopted a set of faddish promises to invest in electric cars, ride-sharing and the new’mobility economy.’ All this was cover for the real agenda–a big pay hike and fresh promises for job security for union workers. It currently takes VW twice the man hours to build a car than Toyota.”

How many more examples do we need to recognize, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” R Reagan. Bill Clinton disagreed, but the evidence and data tells a different story. Oh wait, evidence and data matter not, group think does!

 

As was widely reported, climate scientists have lied, again. Or maybe, it was just a different way of interpreting data?  Holman Jenkins wrote an op-ed in the WSJ on February 3rd, titled, “Change Would Be Healthy at U.S. Climate Agencies”.

He restates that 2016 was the warmest on record according  to NASA, except it wasn’t. The readings were within the margin of error for such measurements, that fact should have been stated versus a black and white declaration. But that isn’t the whole story, or page two as Paul Harvey used to say.

We should be concerned about climate change, the question is how much of our GDP should be dedicated to reducing gaseous output?  The difference between 2015 and 2016 is one tenth the margin of error, 1/10, 0.1. Does that warrant the headline, yes if you want to further your dreams of a carbon less future and load up the economy with very expensive energy; or no if you want to reduce emissions over time and continue to increase employment.

George Schultz and James Baker later that same week wrote an op-ed titled “A Conservative Answer to Climate Change”, again the WSJ. They propose a four step plan that in my opinion goes a long way towards the U.S. leading the world without huge government control, and also returning money to taxpayers.

Just recently a British article caused many people to cast doubt on whether temperatures are rising, Politifact ran this down and feels that is not the case.

We should reduce our emissions. All of us around the world. We also need to do it in as much of a free market method as possible since almost nothing any government does (excluding the totalitarian ones) actually produces the result needed efficiently.

From the Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/17/the-facts-about-the-dakota-access-pipeline-that-protesters-dont-want-you-to-know/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkdWaE1EWTFabVl5TlRGbSIsInQiOiJqVmlaQ011OUV1MzdvcUZHVnN1S1lyRDBoQjRjSjRqXC9Pb212aG9UT2hYREVYdk94Q1BCQ1JoRTlMV1JVT1I5ekI4UVVuTGJERlNZK2hhZUlYMHQ2QUx5ZkRTMkhuMWdcL2o1MEhrRXJpWFZnPSJ9

For more than three months, thousands of protesters, most of them from out of state, have illegally camped on federal land in Morton County, North Dakota, to oppose the construction of a legally permitted oil pipeline project that is 85 percent complete.

The celebrities, political activists, and anti-oil extremists who are blocking the pipeline’s progress are doing so based on highly charged emotions rather than actual facts on the ground.

This 1,172-mile Dakota Access pipeline will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of oil a day from northwestern North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa to connect to existing pipelines in Illinois. It will do this job far more safely than the current method of transporting it by 750 rail cars a day.

The protesters say they object to the pipeline’s being close to the water intake of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. However, this should be of no concern as it will sit approximately 92 feet below the riverbed, with increased pipe thickness and control valves at both ends of the crossing to reduce the risk of an incident, which is already low.

Just like the companies that run the 10 other fossil-fuel pipelines crossing the Missouri River upstream of Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners—the primary funder of this pipeline—is taking all necessary precautions to ensure that the pipeline does not leak.

But even if there were a risk, Standing Rock will soon have a new water intake that is nearing completion much further downstream near Mobridge, South Dakota.

From the outset of this process, Standing Rock Sioux leaders have refused to sit down and meet with either the Army Corps of Engineers or the pipeline company.

The Army Corps consulted with 55 Native American tribes at least 389 times, after which they proposed 140 variations of the route to avoid culturally sensitive areas in North Dakota. The logical time for Standing Rock tribal leaders to share their concerns would have been at these meetings, not now when construction is already near completion.

The original pipeline was always planned for south of Bismarck, despite false claims that it was originally planned for north of Bismarck and later moved, thus creating a greater environmental danger to the Standing Rock Sioux.

The real reasons for not pursuing the northern route were that the pipeline would have affected an additional 165 acres of land, 48 extra miles of previously undisturbed field areas, and an additional 33 waterbodies.

It would also have crossed zones marked by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as “high consequence” areas, and would have been 11 miles longer than the preferred and current route.

North Dakotans have respected the rights of these individuals to protest the pipeline, but they have gone beyond civil protesting.

Though these protesters claim to be gathered for peaceful prayer and meditation, law enforcement has been forced to arrest more than 400 in response to several unlawful incidents, including trespassing on and damaging private land, chaining themselves to equipment, burning tires and fields, damaging cars and a bridge, harassing residents of nearby farms and ranches, and killing and butchering livestock. There was even at least one reported incident where gun shots were fired at police.

The recent vandalization of graves in a Bismarck cemetery and the unconscionable graffiti marking on the North Dakota column at the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., are examples of how the protesters’ actions do not match their claims of peaceful demonstration.

Equally disturbing is the meddling by the Obama administration in trying to block this legally permitted project through executive policymaking. This has encouraged more civil disobedience, threatened the safety of local residents, and placed an onerous financial burden on local law enforcement—with no offer of federal reimbursement for these increasing costs.

All that remains for the pipeline project to be completed is for the Army Corps of Engineers to issue a final easement to cross the Missouri River at Lake Oahe. With no legal reason remaining to not issue it, I am confident the Trump administration will do what’s right if it’s not settled before President Donald Trump takes office.

The simple fact is that our nation will continue to produce and consume oil, and pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to transport it. Legally permitted infrastructure projects must be allowed to proceed without threat of improper governmental meddling.

The rule of law matters. We cannot allow lawless mobs to obstruct projects that have met all legal requirements to proceed.

WSJ 7/28/16, Karen Alderman Harbert.

The title says it all. HRC quotes, “I’m going to pledge to stop fossil fuels.” “I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”

The platform positions of the recent convention should be a warning, energy costs are going up. No alternative to fossil fuels, except nuclear and hydro, come in competitively.

I guess we need to go collect Bison paddies to burn in our wood stoves, and think of all the jobs we will create taking care of horses and cleaning up after them.

Can we not get real, please! The Germans are dealing with energy costs 40% higher due to no nuclear, and the high cost of solar, wind, burning animal gas, etc.  Let’s transition towards lower emission energy so not to throw people out of jobs and honor honestly deployed capital based on the rules of the day.

Or let’s dam up every river we can.

At the world economic forum in 2016 DeCaprio got an award for his environmental work, good for him.  In 2018 his development called “Blackadore Key” in Belize will open.

The Key is billed as a “Restorative Island”, totally powered by renewable energy, increases the biological health  of species, sustainable practices, etc.  Great, for those .1% of people who can afford $5-10 million prices tags. The rest of us can eat cake.

Sustainable practices and reducing emissions should be part of our path going forward.  How about  balancing costs so that entire swaths of the economy are not eliminated without a plan to assist those affected. This sounds like Stalin and the Cossack’s to me.  http://assumptionarticles.homestead.com/files/LIENTZhtml.htm.

Robert Bryce reports in the 16 May, 2016 WSJ that 1.8 million birds are being killed each year.  Three oil companies were just criminally indicted for killing six ducks and one phoebe, INADVERTENTLY by the way, CRIMINALLY INDICTED. As well they should be, by the way a Phoebe is, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebe_(bird).

So who is going to Guantanamo for killing 1.8 million, uhhhh, NO ONE. Huh?  What gives?

Windmills kill this many each year, and by 2030 that number will triple, that is 5,400,000 birds.  Golden Eagles to the 3 ounce Phoebes.  The Wildlife Society Bulletin has given us the data.

Who will stand up for the 5.4 million, who?  My goodness, a moral and ethical dilemma for the progressives, what shall they do?

That’s right! Bernie Sanders, who says Global Warming (Oops, I mean climate change, since warming isn’t) is the largest global threat (he agrees with President Obama) is proposing to INCREASE the United States CO2 emissions!

Our emissions of CO2 have been falling as a percent of GNP for a couple of decades, and in actual tons for the last ten years, https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. China and India continue to rise and the former is the largest emitter now. The recent Paris accords allows them to continue to increase a couple of decades into our globe’s future.

Yet, Bernie wants to reverse the trend of reducing U.S. emissions! No you say! Tell me it isn’t true! How can that be! Bernie is my buddy! Well, Bernie is a science non believer, wait, science is the basis for progressive thinking I thought! Only when convenient.

Bernie wants to ban fracking. Fracking produces natural gas, a much cleaner source of electricity and industrial heating. Fracking has NEVER been associated with water table pollution, after many studies. Fracking does however involve roads where there are none today, and does involve drilling mud that has to be taken care of. But again, no long term affects.

Bernie also wants to eliminate nuclear.  He has proposed as president he will not renew any licenses. Nuclear has ZERO emissions to produce electricity.  Roughly a third of our emissions come from electricity. Think of that, no emissions for all our electricity.  We can send our coal to China and India since they are allowed to use it. Maybe in twenty years we will figure out a way to burn coal cleanly, since we have the worlds’ second largest reserves of the stuff (http://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/resource/coal/). France produces most of their electricity from nuclear, even they think it is a good idea.  A new technology, molten salt reactors (fuelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor), is now being put into a test reactor that will use the fuel currently stored at our nuclear facilities as its’ fuel. Instead only using 5% of the fuel and storing the other 95% for 10,000 years as we currently do, this new technology will use almost all of that stored fuel requiring a “short” 100 years or so of storage.  Maybe Harry Reid will have passed on by then and the many billion dollar site we have paid for can be utilized for that short period.

Well, science loses again to fuzzy headed populist politicians.

The article referenced below is amazing.  Climate change (changed from global warming since warming hasn’t happened for twenty years), it has been decided, is a “proven fact.” Or so say a number of state AG’s.  All democrats. Thus, if you as a scientist decide to present data that contradicts the group think, we will try and charge you with a crime.

A large majority of scientists agree warming is occurring, and man is the primary cause.  Some scientists disagree, shouldn’t we listen to both sides of the question?

16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

The Investors Business Daily had a recent editorial titled, “Dark Side of the Climate Scare” that quoted many of the leaders of the movement saying the real reason they are fomenting such lather is to enact wealth transfer from rich to less rich countries, and from the wealthy individuals to less wealthy, because of a lack of fairness.  If it is a real threat, then all countries need to participate, not just wealthy countries.

 

These two articles, both siting data, disagree about the results, or causes. It would seem that before we spend billions of dollars, put thousands out of work, we should come to some sort of agreement  that data will support two sides of an argument.  We humans like to be right, scientists stake reputations and their future on what they say and an opposing view is always put in the “denier” category, as though other scientists haven’t looked at the data.  The same data actually in many cases!  Politicians have different motives, power and money.   The two most powerful levers to pollute a decision.

So, read these two articles.  Make up your own mind but group think causes most wars, most human suffering, wrongheaded policies, and huge costs to fix once the data is overwhelming to those who forced a solution for whatever reason.

Reason, we are blessed to have it as humans. Too bad we allow our self-centered selves to overwhelm it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/2014-hottest-year-on-record_n_6479896.html

2014 Was The Hottest Year Since At Least 1880, Government Finds

01/16/2015 11:06 am ET | Updated Jan 16, 2015

James GerkenGreen Editor, The Huffington Post

ASSOCIATED PRESS

2014 was the hottest year in 135 years of record-keeping, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA announced on Friday. The year’s average combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NOAA. This is 1.24 F above the 20th-century average. Global average land temperatures were 1.80 F above average, while ocean surface temperatures were 1.03 F above average, the agency said. Land temperatures alone were only the fourth-warmest on record, but ocean temperatures were the warmest, which helped to make 2014 the warmest year overall. NOAA and NASA record temperature observations independently, but both agencies confirmed 2014 to be a record-breaking year. NASA reported 2014’s average temperature to be 58.42 F, which the agency reported was 1.22 F above a 1951-1980 average. Previously, 2010 and 2005 held the record, but the 2014 temperature edged out both years by 0.07 F. The 10 warmest years on record have all been after 1998, and 2014 marked the 38th straight year with global average temperatures above the 20th-century average. Six months in 2014 also set monthly global heat records: May, June, August, September, October and December of last year were all the warmest such months on record. “Viewed in context, the record 2014 temperatures underscore the undeniable fact that we are witnessing, before our eyes, the effects of human-caused climate change,” climate scientist Michael Mann told The Huffington Post. “It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record-warm decade, during a multidecadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium, if it were not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning.” For the U.S. alone, as opposed to the planet overall, 2014 was only the 34th warmest year on record. But temperatures in the U.S. that year still exceeded the country’s 20th-century average, for the 18th consecutive year. Seventeen major U.S. metropolitan areas, representing 9 percent of the country’s population, were on track to have their warmest years on record, as of a December 2014 analysis from Climate Central. Ten of these 17 are located in California, one of five states that were projected to have one of their top five warmest years in 2014. “Perhaps more important than the global temperature story are the impacts of record regional heat,” Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the University of Arizona’s Institute of the Environment, told HuffPost. “In places like California, the Southwest U.S. more generally, Australia and parts of Brazil, record heat is exacerbating drought and leading to more stress on our water supplies and forests.” “With continued global warming, we’re going to see more and more of these unprecedented regional conditions, and with them will come more and more costs to humans and the things they value,” he added. “2014 shows that humans are indeed cooking their planet as they continue to combust fossil fuels.” 1985 was the last year that any urban area in the U.S. saw a record-cold year. February 1985 was the last time the planet saw a colder-than-average month. “If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven’t lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th-century average,” said Marshall Shepherd, a professor at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society. “You will hear some skeptics say that the satellite-based temperature records don’t support these findings, but we also used ground-based instruments like thermometers and rain gauges to validate these measurements.” The new global record is also notable because 2014 was not an El Niño year. Theweather phenomenon is marked by warmer-than-average surface ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific and leads to above average near-surface air temperatures and other impacts across the globe. El Niño has been observed during previous record-warm years like 1998, 2005 and 2010. “A record or near-record warm year, especially absent a strong El Niño, is mostly a reminder that the long-term trend for Earth’s temperature is up, up, up,” Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer told HuffPost. Along with rising temperatures, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million in May 2013, for the first time in at least 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations rise and fall slightly in an annual cycle, but remained above 400 parts per million for several months in 2014 and have already surpassed 400 again in January 2015. The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high, temperatures were up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, and sea levels were dozens of feet higher. The 400 parts per million milestone is somewhat symbolic, but it serves as a reminder that the massive consumption of fossil fuels continues to remake the chemistry of our atmosphere and trap more and more heat from the sun. “The record temperatures should put to rest the absurd notion of a “pause” (what I refer to as the “Faux Pause”) in global warming,” Mann added.

http://www.investors.com/2014-not-the-hottest-year-on-record/

1/16/2015 6:27 PM EST

Climate Change: The news is ablaze with a report that 2014 was the “hottest year.” But there’s no reason to be excited. The story the global warming alarmists are trying to tell isn’t the only one out there. ‘For the third time in a decade,” shouted the AP, “the globe sizzled to the hottest year on record, federal scientists announced Friday.” The Washington Post reported that “the year 2014 was the hottest ever measured, based on records going back to the year 1880.” Bloomberg News challenged readers to “deny this” and directed them to “animation below” that documents “2014: The Hottest Year.” Hysteria also reigned at the BBC in Britain, the New Era in Africa, Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald and all points in between. In one sense, the breathless stories are correct: 2014 was the hottest year on record — by no more than four-hundredths of a degree. But that’s based on surface thermometer records, which are not reliable. Better measurement is done by satellites, and they indicate 2014 was the third-warmest in the 36 years that satellites have been used to document temperatures. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the satellite data show that temperature changes since 2001 are “statistically insignificant.” As expected, though, some scientists — a few of whom are considered “distinguished” — take the hottest-ever report as confirmation that man is dangerously warming his planet due to fossil-fuel use. But a few have kept their heads. Roger Pielke, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, told the Post that “there remain significant uncertainties in the accuracy of the land portion of the surface temperature data, where we have found a significant warm bias.” Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Tech’s school of earth and atmospheric sciences, said that “with 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year,” the implication is “that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.” “This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” she added. There’s simply nothing to see here. But that’s the way it’s always been with the global-warming swindle.