If Tampa is hit with a hurricane it will be the first in 90 years. The state of Florida hasn't had one for 7 years. The entire US is without a hurricane for the longest stretch of time since record-keeping began. National Journal's Coral Davenport ignores these scientific facts and proceeds full steam ahead to sell GOP climate terror in Tampa, even getting API's Jack Gerard to admit he's guilty of excess CO2 in the US which doesn't exist.
8/24/12, "Storm Threatening Tampa Puts GOP Climate Position in Spotlight," National Journal, Coral Davenport
A commenter to Davenport's article notes he was interviewed by Davenport but her article only used material that matched her "pre-conceived notions." The commenter's view is substantiated by the 2012 UN report on climate extremes. Ms. Davenport's is not though she claims it is.
Commenter, "Stanley Goldenberg"
The US is presently without a hurricane for the longest stretch of time since record-keeping began. But Davenport has climate terror to sell so accuses Republicans in Tampa and elsewhere of "denying scientific findings" while it's she who "denies scientific findings" and "questions science." Putting aside her hurricane terror gaffe and even assuming man's CO2 is warming the environment, the lynchpin of the global climate terror industry is the ability to blame the US and extract money. But US CO2 is no longer a factor, has been dropping since at least 2006, is going lower, and is doing all this without cap and trade and extra taxes, though billions of US taxpayer dollars have been diverted to 'climate' issues for over 2 decades. (More links below). Further, Davenport cites two reports to back up her claims of US climate terror but neither report does so (links below). The headline to Davenport's story presents US CO2 terror as fact and ties it to Republicans in Tampa. A large picture of a scary looking sky is placed atop the article for added terror.
8/24/12, "Storm Threatening Tampa Puts GOP Climate Position in Spotlight," National Journal, Coral Davenport
(parag. 6), "Now, denying the scientific findings linking oil and coal pollution to climate change has become mainstream in the GOP, and nominee Mitt Romney has publicly walked back his formerly expressed views that humans contribute to global warming. Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan has also questioned the science of climate change, and environmentalists have criticized the party for embracing an energy platform aimed at aggressively expanding oil production while slashing programs for renewable energy."
- Ms. Davenport fails to inform API' s Jack Gerard of the latest climate science thereby allowing him to fumble around like a man guilty of crime. It's ambush time, I guess. Johann Hari says both political parties are tied to fossil fuel interests but Davenport only "points a finger" at Republicans:
-----------------------------------------------------
Davenport cites 2 sources as proof for blaming Republicans in Tampa for climate terror but neither source provides such substantiation. First the 2012 UN report, then a 2009 USGCRP report:
The 2012 UN IPCC Report on Climate Extremes doesn't back up her thesis that it's logical to engage in "finger pointing" at Republicans in Tampa about climate extremes. First, it's been 90 years since Tampa was directly hit by a hurricane. It's been 7 years since Florida was hit. Second, the UN report doesn't cite the US CO2 drop. Third, the 2012 UN Report is cautious in predicting climate disasters, says they can't "confidently answer" (FAQ. 3.1 below) the general question of climate extremes. Following reference the UN report:
"The full IPCC Special Report on Extremes is out today, and I have just gone through the sections in Chapter 4 that deal with disasters and climate change. Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where “right” means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic. Over time good science will win out over the rest — sometimes it just takes a little while. –Roger Pielke Jr, 28 March 2012"
"FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? [...]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models."–IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornadoes… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses." –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4
Above from 3/29/12, "Newsbytes – the SREx feeding frenzy," Watts Up With That," Anthony Watts
"From the GWPF, news about the current media feeding frenzy on the IPCC SREx report. Even Revkin in a Tweet (via Tom Nelson) thinks the coverage is “overheated”.
Amid overheated coverage of IPCC climate extremes…
[Revkin] Amid overheated coverage of IPCC climate extremes report, vital to note fine print (via @rogerpielkejr)For example, this over the top article in the Detroit Free Press:
Get ready for more weather disasters, climate panel says"" ...
--------------------------------------------------------
Further on the 2012 UN report cited by Davenport (parag. 9), the US Senate was given false information about it as detailed below. Perhaps Ms. Davenport was victimized by the same misinformation:
.
8/1/12, "IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress," RogerPielkeJr blog
"The politicization of climate science is so complete that the lead author of the IPCC's Working Group II on climate impacts feels comfortable presenting testimony to the US Congress that fundamentally misrepresents what the IPCC has concluded. I am referring to testimony given today by Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford, to the US Senate.
This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. Field's testimony is here in PDF.
1. On the economic costs of disasters:
Field: "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear," which he supported with reference to US "billion dollar" economic losses, is in reality scientifically unsupported by the IPCC. Period. (More on the NOAA billion-dollar disasters below.) There is good reason for this -- it is what the science says. Why fail to report to Congress the IPCC's most fundamental finding and indicate something quite the opposite?
What the IPCC actually said: "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
2. On US droughts:
Field: "The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter."
What the IPCC actually said: "... in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America ..." Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States. Why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa?
3. On NOAA's billion dollar disasters:
Field: "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011, a record that far surpasses the previous maximum of 9."Field says nothing about the serious issues with NOAA's tabulation. The billion dollar disaster meme is a PR train wreck, not peer reviewed and is counter to the actual science summarized in the IPCC. So why mention it?
What NOAA actually says about its series of "billion dollar" disasters: "Caution should be used in interpreting any trends based on this [data] for a variety of reasons"
4. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of hurricanes and tornadoes:
Field: "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known. Specifically, the IPCC (IPCC 2012) did not identify a trend or express confidence in projections concerning tornadoes and other small-area events. The evidence on hurricanes is mixed."
What the IPCC actually said (p. 269 PDF): "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornadoes" Hurricanes are, of course, tropical cyclones. Far from evidence being "mixed" the IPCC was unable to attribute any trend in tropical cyclone disasters to climate change (anywhere in the world and globally overall). In fact, there has been no trend in US hurricane frequency or intensity over a century or more, and the US is currently experiencing the longest period with no intense hurricane landfalls ever seen. Field fails to report any this and invents something different. Why present testimony so easily refuted? (He did get tornadoes right!)
5. On attributing billion dollar disasters to climate change, case of floods and droughts:Field: "For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC (IPCC 2012) concludes that climate change increases the risk of heat waves (90% or greater probability), heavy precipitation (66% or greater probability), and droughts (medium confidence) for most land areas."
What the IPCC actually says (p. 269 PDF): "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"
and (from above): "in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America"
Field fails to explain that no linkage between flood disasters and climate change has been established. Increasing precipitation is not the same thing as increasing streamflow, floods or disasters. In fact, floods may be decreasing worldwide
- and are not increasing the US.
- such obvious misrepresentations when they are so easily refuted?
- the science says what the science says.
------------------------------------------
Chapter 4 of 2012 UN report cites lack of certainty in predicting climate disasters:
From page 274 of the 2012 UN report: "4.5.6. Uncertainty in Assessing the
Economic Costs of Extremes and Disasters-
Upon reviewing the estimates to date, the costing of weather-and
climate-related disasters and estimating adaptation costs is still
preliminary, incomplete, and subject to a number of assumptions with
the result that there is considerable uncertainty (Agrawala and
Fankhauser, 2008; Parry et al., 2009). This is largely due to modeling
uncertainties in climate change and damage estimates, limited data
availability, and methodological shortcomings in analyzing disaster
damage statistics. Such costing is further limited by the interaction
between numerous adaptation options and assumptions about future
exposure and vulnerabilities, social preferences, and technology, as well
as levels of resilience in specific societies. Additionally the following
challenges can be identified.
Risk assessment methods: Technical challenges remain in developing
robust risk assessment and damage costing methods. Study results can
vary significantly between top-down and bottom-up approaches. ...
All climatic phenomena are subject to the
limitation that historically based relationships between damages and
disasters cannot be used with confidence to deduce future risk of
extreme events under changing characteristics of frequency and intensity
(UNDP, 2004)."...
------------------------------------------
The second document Davenport cites as proof of climate terror in Tampa is a 2009 report, US Global Change Research Program. The report describes many catastrophes but unless they can be tied to excessively high US CO2 they're meaningless. US CO2 data is the single statistic on which the entire climate terror industry is perched. Without the US as demon the industry is all but dead. I found no mention in the report that US CO2 had dropped since at least 2006, is going lower, and that US CO2 is now a moot issue. Nor that countries that have spent hundreds of billions on cap and trade and extra taxes have seen their CO2 emissions continue to rise. It did mention that Communist China now exceeds the US "current total annual emissions" but doesn't give statistics on this such as US CO2 emissions 2006-2009, that they'd been steadily decreasing in the US, and that further decreases were anticipated. No proof is given for the trillion dollar thesis at hand which is blaming the US for world climate disasters thereby proving the US needs to sign an international 'climate treaty' and transfer trillions more US taxpayer dollars out of the US.
2009 Report, "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US," Following page came up when I typed CO2 emissions in the search tab):
(scroll down to subhead near end of page): "U.S. Emission and Absorption of Heat-Trapping Gases"
"Since the industrial revolution, the United States has been the world’s largest emitter of heat-trapping gases. ...Although China has recently surpassed the United States in current total annual emissions, per capita emissions remain much higher in the United States. Carbon dioxide, the most important of the heat-trapping gases produced directly by human activities, is a cumulative problem because it has a long atmospheric lifetime....U.S. carbon dioxide emissions grew dramatically over the past century. These emissions come almost entirely from burning fossil fuels."...
------------------------------------------------------
If Davenport likes "pointing fingers" so much, she might try this:
3/29/12, "A Handy Bullshit Button on Disasters and Climate Change," RogerPielkeJrblog
---------------------------------------
Citations of US CO2 drop:
6/4/12, "Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006," Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
"Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord."...
----------------------------------------------------
1/15/11, “Recession Special: Cleaner Air,“ NY Times, Matthew Wald
.
"“What the government has not mandated, the economy is doing on its own: emissions of global warming gases in the United States are down.
According to the Energy Department, carbon dioxide emissions peaked in this country in 2005 and will not reach that level again until the early 2020s.”…
-----------------------------------------------------------
- US CO2 has dropped and is going lower:
- The NRDC author notes lack of media coverage about US ongoing CO2 emissions drop.
6/29/12, "US Carbon Output Forecasts Shrink Again," American Interest, Walter Russell Mead
-------------------------------------------------------
8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos
“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming."...
-----------------------------------------------------
6/22/12, "U.S. cuts greenhouse gases despite do-nothing Congress," CNN, Steve Hargreaves
.
"Even factoring in a stronger economy, forecasters see greenhouse gas emissions continuing to fall....Others take the U.S. success in reducing its energy sector emissions as a sign that its fragmented, state-based, regulatory approach has worked better than Europe's market-based cap-and-trade approach."
------------------------------------
4/21/12, "Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, newgeography.com
.
"As we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade."
------------------------------------------------------
4/20/10, "Buying Carbon offsets may ease eco-guilt but not global warming," by Doug Struck, CS Monitor
-------------------------------------------------
11/23/11, "Europe's $287 billion carbon 'waste': UBS report," The Australian, by Sid Maher
.
"SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions."...EU CO2 trading provided "windfall profits" to participants paid for by "electricity customers.""
==========================
A 2011 report noted EIA results through 2009, US CO2 emissions dropped steadily since 1999. If, hypothetically, US temperatures have been on the increase, such couldn't possibly be due to US carbon dioxide emissions:
4/14/11, "Biggest Drop in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions," World Climate Report
"In 2009, greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. experienced their biggest drop since the U.S. Energy Information Administration began tracking them during the 1990-2009 time frame."
--------------------------------------------
1/25/2009, "Global warming industry becomes too big to fail," Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner
--------------------------------------------
8/23/11, "The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria," Forbes, Larry Bell
The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included."...
----------------------------------------------
A few examples of climate cash sought in 2011:
1/11/11, "Big Money in Climate Change: Who Gives, Who Gets," Al Fin
--------------------------------------------------------------
8/10/11, "U.S. Army Creates Renewables Office: Billions to Be Spent," GreenTechMedia.com
--------------------------------------------------------
- 1/21/11, "Analysis: U.S. government a tenuous beachhead for biofuel firms," Reuters
----------------------------------------------------
3/26/12, "Obama Requests $770 Million to Fight Global Warming Overseas," CNS News, Matt Cover
.
"The Obama administration has requested $770 million in federal funds to combat the effects of global warming in developing countries, a new congressional report details, continuing its policy of using foreign aid to combat the effects of global warming in the developing world.
The figure, from a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), shows that despite another year of $1 trillion deficits, the Obama administration continues to pursue its policy of using foreign aid funds for anti-global warming measures – known as the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI).
According to CRS, the government has spent a total of $2.5 billion on GCCI since 2010 on overseas anti-global warming efforts in Latin America, Asia, and Africa."...
----------------------------------------------------------------
1/30/11, "U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter," Wall St. Journal, by L. Pleven, R. Gold
"U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011
for the first time in 62 years.
- upending the historical norm.
----------------------------------------------------
7/28/10, "The secrets 10 states and Wall Street don't want you to know," by Mark Lagerkvist, NJ Watchdog
- "Secrecy and greed are polluting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation’s first
- mandatory cap-and-trade system.
- $729 million in carbon dioxide permits since 2008.
Global Warming "action" was institutionalized in US government in 1990 by George Bush the 1st. 13 federal agencies are tasked with climate "action," $68 billion has been spent on 'climate' just in the past 4 yrs.
--------------------------------------------
CO2 alarmist 'glory days' are over in the US. Congratulations to the greens, you won, best of luck in your future endeavors:
- 7/28/12, "The Energy Revolution 4: Hot Planet?," Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest
1/30/2012, "Americans on pace to have driven 40 billion fewer miles in 2011 vs. 2010," GasBuddy (Fed. Hwy. Admin. data)
--------------------------------------
7/5/2008, "30 billion fewer miles driven, and counting," McClatchy via Seattle Times
---------------------------------
7/02/09, "The Great American Bubble Machine: How Goldman Sachs has Engineered Every Major Market Manipulation Since the Great Depression," Rolling Stone, by Matt Taibbi
"A groundbreaking new commodities bubble,
- called cap-and-trade."...
1/3/12, "U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel," CNS News, E. Harrington
---------------------------------------
8/21/12, "Hurricane warning: Is USA becoming complacent?," USA Today, Leger
.
"Six years, nine months and 30 days have passed since Hurricane Wilma came ashore with 125-mph winds near Naples, Fla. —the longest period the nation has gone without a hit from a major hurricane since the government began keeping records in 1851."..
.
---------------------------------------
8/24/12, "Overview: 20 years of Florida hurricanes," globaltoronto.com, Nick Logan
.
"Tampa hasn't endured a direct hit by a full-fledged hurricane in 90 years and even the state of Florida hasn't had a direct hit since Wilma in 2005."...
P.S. Persons who make a living via US CO2 terror such as Ms. Davenport may wish to explore alternate career choices. The CO2 terror industry is bankrupt.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment