ARE YOU TRYING TO CONTROL THE EARTH'S CLIMATE?

Sea level rise – or land subsidence?

Alarmist claims about rising seas inundating coastal areas blame the wrong culprit

Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

In his 2006 Inconvenient Truth mockumentary, Al Gore infamously predicted melting ice caps would cause oceans to rise “up to 20 feet” (6.1 meters) “in the near future.” Kevin Costner’s 1995 “action thriller” Water World presumed totally melting planetary ice would almost submerge the continents.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2007 that seas might rise up to only 2 feet by 2107. By comparison, oceans have risen nearly 400 feet since the last ice age ended, reflecting how much water was trapped in mile-thick glaciers that buried much of North America, Europe and Asia. In recent decades, though, global sea level rise has averaged just 7 inches per century – which may explain why Mr. Gore bought an $8.5-million mansion on the California coast in 2010.

And yet “rising seas due to dangerous manmade climate change” remains a contentious issue, with profound land use, wildlife, economic, insurance and policy implications – especially for certain regions, like the Atlantic Coast’s Chesapeake Bay region. Some say “seas could rise” 2.5 to 7 feet (2.1 meters) or more by the end of the century around Norfolk, Virginia, a huge population and agricultural center and home to America’s largest Navy base. Even if that happens, the prediction combines multiple causes.

Saltwater intrusion clearly has been an increasing problem across much of this region for several decades, and storms have sent tides and waves further inland than in the past, flooding and battering homes, croplands and wildlife habitats. Climate alarmists attribute this danger to human fossil fuel use.

As a new report by Dr. Bezdek explains, reality is much different. (His report awaits publication in a scientific journal.) At least for the Chesapeake region, Houston-Galveston, Texas area, Santa Clara Valley, California and other places around the globe, the primary cause of seawater intrusions is not rising oceans – but land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal from subsurface shale and sandstone formations, and to “glacial isostatic adjustments” that have been ongoing since the last glaciers melted.

The solution therefore is not to continue trying to control Earth’s climate – an impossible, economy-busting task that would further impede fossil fuel use, economic development, job creation, and human health and welfare. The solution requires reducing groundwater removal in these coastal areas.

Ice age glaciers buried continental land masses under trillions of tons of ice. Land under the ice was pushed downward, while areas somewhat beyond the glaciers were forced up. Once the ice was gone, the compressed areas began to rise, while lands that had bulged upward began to sink. Isostatic subsidence is still occurring, at about 1 millimeter a year (4.4 inches per century) in the Chesapeake region.

While Chesapeake farms and cities have been utilizing groundwater for centuries, withdrawal rates from Virginia Coastal Plain aquifers skyrocketed between 1950 and 1970, as modern pumps took over. The rates have remained high ever since, causing significant land subsidence. 

The aquifer systems involve layers of porous sandstone with water in the interstices between sand grains. These layers are sandwiched between layers (lenses) of impermeable but wet shale and clay. As water is pumped from the sandy layers, the shale-clay layers are squeezed like a sponge by hundreds of feet of overlying rock and sediment, forcing their water into less compressible sands, and then into pumps.

The amount of water in a system, its recharge rates (from rain, snowmelt and other sources), and the degree of compaction depend on how much water is being withdrawn, the thickness of sand and clay layers, and how compressible the layers are. Most of the pumped water ultimately comes from the clays, as they are squeezed dry. Analysts have estimated that 95% of water removed from Virginia Coastal Plain aquifers between 1891 and 1980 came from their clay layers, which have steadily compressed as a result.

Compression means subsidence, at 1.1-4.8 mm/yr – for an average rate of 11 inches per century, on top of the 4.4 in. per century in isostatic subsidence, and compared to the average sea level rise of 7 in. a century.

The net effect in Virginia’s Coastal Plain can thus be nearly 2 feet of subsidence per century. The impacts on land, habitat and property loss, saltwater intrusions, inland storm surges, farming, homes and other buildings, regional economics, wharves, piers and naval bases, and insurance rates is easy to discern.

Confusion arises because discussions often involve “relative sea level rise” – which combines glacial isostatic and groundwater subsidence, along with actual sea level rise – just as we just did with our 2 feet per century total. However, the term obscures what is really going on and lends itself to climate alarmism, by leaving the false impression that the entire problem is melting icecaps and rising seas.

It clearly is not. Focusing attention on alleged “manmade climate cataclysms,” supposedly driven by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, will result in our spending hundreds of billions of dollars to replace oil, gas and coal with expensive, subsidized, land-intensive renewable energy systems – while foregoing hundreds of billions of dollars in jobs and economic growth. Meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia and other developing nations will continue doing what they must to lift billions out of abject poverty and disease: burn more fossil fuels, thereby emitting more CO2.

Those nations are not about to succumb to the Obama EPA “social cost of carbon” con game. This is the fraudulent scheme under which bureaucrats blame US oil, gas and coal for every climate and weather event, habitat and species loss, and other problem that they can possibly conjure up anywhere in the world – while completely ignoring the phenomenal and undeniable benefits of using those fuels, and the equally important benefits of having more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

President-Elect Trump’s nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA underscores his intent to end climate-obsessed government by junk science and Executive Branch decree.

What can be done about the real-world problems of “relative sea level rise”? Sea levels will continue to rise (or fall) in response to ice growth and melting, caused by powerful natural forces over which humans have no control. Glacial isostatic subsidence will continue – albeit at a glacial or geologic pace – unless another ice age buries continents under more miles of ice, again lowering sea levels hundreds of feet, and wiping out arable land, growing seasons and agricultural productivity.

Moreover, once water has been squeezed out of the clay and shale, it cannot easily be replenished. That means the subsidence process cannot be reversed. However, we can nevertheless reduce or even halt subsidence due to groundwater extraction.

Rates and locations of land subsidence and relative sea level rise change over time. Accurate predictive tools and measurements are thus needed to improve our understanding of subsidence in particular areas. Although subsidence rates are not as high on the Atlantic Coast as they have been in the Houston-Galveston area or Santa Clara Valley, the problem is nonetheless serious because of the southern Chesapeake Bay region’s low-lying topography and consequent susceptibility to ocean water intrusion.

In the Houston-Galveston area and Santa Clara Valley, resource managers have moved groundwater pumping away from the coast, reduced groundwater withdrawal rates, increased aquifer recharge and substitut­ed surface water for groundwater supplies. These actions have successfully stopped subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley and slowed the process in the Houston-Galveston area.

Similar steps could be taken in Virginia’s Tidewater or Coastal Plain region. In addition, pipelines could bring fresh water from nearby lakes and rivers, replacing at least some of what is now provided by wells. Yet another option might be to construct one or more desalination plants (in California and Texas, as well), utilizing nuclear or natural gas power to operate facilities that utilize new[(In%20the%20Houston-Galveston%20area,%20glacial%20factors%20play%20no%20role,%20but%20groundwater%20removal%20effects%20are%20compounded%20by%20the%20additional%20removal%20of%20liquid%20hydrocarbons%20from%20subsurface%20formations.)%20DROP?]Israeli technologies that employ a chemical-free reverse osmosis process that converts seawater into freshwater for pennies per gallon.

The new Congress and Executive Branch need to focus our limited money and resources on real problems and viable solutions – not on their false, politically correct, anti-development alter egos.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc. (www.MISI-net.com).

POOR COUNTRIES HAVE A RIGHT TO USE FOSSIL FUELS...

The world needs more energy!

Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us

by Steven Lyazi

Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?

Of all these resources, energy is the most important. Nothing happens without energy.

For most of mankind’s history, human or animal muscle, wood and animal dung, water power, and plant or animal oil provided our energy. But the amount and quality of that energy was limited, and therefore what people could do was also limited.

Then, almost suddenly, people began using coal, and then oil, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear power. Our abilities, and our dreams, began to reach for the heavens – at least in many countries. Sadly, many other countries lagged far behind, and many still do.

They are held back, condemned to continued energy poverty – and thus to real poverty and the diseases, malnutrition and desperation that go with that absence of modern energy. This is partly because many nations are governed by incompetent, corrupt leaders, who care only about enriching themselves, their families, and their close friends, allies and supporters.

But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.

They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.

And when they talk about renewable energy, they mean the very limited energy – and economic growth – that come from wind and solar power, or from growing crops for energy instead of to feed our hungry people. They even oppose hydroelectric power for poor nations.

They are rich and well fed, enjoying amazing homes and jobs and technologies in their modern countries. But they tell us poor Africans (and other people) that we must limit our energy and dreams to whatever can come from expensive, insufficient kinds of energies to serve our large and growing populations. This is greedy and selfish, the kind of attitude of people who only think of themselves.

Yes, they use renewable energy, but only a little. Almost all their energy still comes from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and hydro power. Only a tiny amount comes from wind, solar or biofuels – that they say should be our only sources of energy.

They have money and power, and they can influence what happens to us. But they are causing massive poverty, disease, starvation and death in third world countries.

I support clean energy and don’t want to see dangerous global warming. I agree that everyone should help ensure that we live in a clean environment. Everyone wants that, and to see their children and grandchildren living in a clean environment.

But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.

It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.

Maybe they are right, and humans are warming the earth or changing the climate – a little. But our weather and climate have always changed, and the world was even warmer during the dinosaur era than it is today, and much colder during the ice ages, with no human activities. Climate change has been going on for millions of years ago, but that doesn’t mean today’s changes are because of humans or will be disasters.  

Environmental agencies and groups say the world is changing and try to tell us what to do to prevent these changes, which they say will all be bad. But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.

We’ve all been scared to death by horror movies, especially films that are just plausible enough to make us think it could happen. But when these movies (or computer models) are used to scare us away from fossil fuels, that is wrong and we should not be frightened.

What these rich country movie actors, politicians, regulators, scientists and activists forget is that our planet and environment have existed for millions of years, have changed over and over, and will continue to exist either with or without human interference. But we humans have to live here too.

Denying people their right to use fossil fuels is the worst thing someone can do to a fellow human. Western powers developed massively due to cheap fossil fuels and today live like kings. They have no right to deny their living standards to people in developing countries.

Who invented the terms “developing countries” or “third world countries” anyway”? All countries have been developing at some point. In fact, they are always still developing, all the time.

The only wrong interpretation is to say “third world countries” do not have a God-given right to use all their energy, minerals and other resources to develop themselves, and get rich, create good jobs for their people, end poverty and disease, and grow enough food to make everyone well fed and healthy.

In fact, here is a thought for all African leaders: A collective mindset supporting development will make Africa as great as any other region on earth. We all just need to unite around this idea.

The recent United States elections disappointed many people, but made many others happy. To me, they may be a very good thing. They might mean the new President Trump will be a good leader for the entire world. He might make more people question these claims that fossil fuels cause dangerous global warming – and encourage everyone to use more oil, gas and coal to improve our lives, until smart people someday discover different energy sources that really do work.

We all desire to be healthy and live better lives, just like people in developed countries. Yes, we have had greedy, selfish leaders in the past who might have contributed to our status today. But we can and must learn from our mistakes, and Mr. Trump wants to correct his and Mr. Obama’s mistakes.

African and other countries need abundant energy for economic growth. They need all kinds of energy, especially fossil fuels, to become modern and make people’s lives better.

Anyone who tries to prevent us from using these energy resources is denying us our right to improve our lives, and even our right to live, which is the most fundamental right of any human. That is wrong and immoral, and we will no longer tolerate it.

____________

Steven Lyazi is a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda. He served as special assistant to Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda director Cyril Boynes, until Mr. Boynes’ death in January 2015.

GROWL

Forgotten (or Expunged?) History - Wolves

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Sanatyana

Churchill worried not so much that those who forget the past are condemned to relive it, but that the loss of the past would mean “the most thoughtless of ages.”

 As rural Americans, urban Americans, federal bureaucrats, radical organizers, federal politicians, professors, media mavens and the Washington “establishment” continue their 45-year hokey pokey wolf dance on the national stage; reasonable Americans are saying, “Enough!”  Millions of lost tax dollars, extensive rural ruination, diminished big game herds, widespread disease infecting the American landscape and state governments becoming little more than enablers to radical causes and federal bureaucrats: all this with nothing more to anticipate than more and more and more.  Watching all the “returning wolf management to states”; “studies” that are little more than propaganda pieces; and “documents”, “hearings”, “input”, and “decisions” that are no more than Soviet rules issued to vassal “republics” in the 1950’s is like listening to vile rap music words 24/7 in some tyrants prison cell.

We have become inured to the lies and unjust nature of the last 45 years under the Endangered Species Act, especially concerning wolves and grizzly bears.  Opposition to wolves, grizzly bears and federal decrees about wildlife and “the environment” is equated in schools to smoking, racism and questioning government sex and race preferences.  No one seems to believe anymore that wolves, like grizzly bears, do not belong in settled landscapes.

Just how far into imaginary unrealism about wolves we have sunk came home to me today as I read a Book Review in the Sunday Wall Street Journal.  It was a history book that brought to mind Santayana’s aphorism and the unattributed observation about Churchill that appear above.

The reviewer was Stephen A. Schuker, a professor of history at the University of Virginia.  The book is The Pursuit of Power: Europe, 1815-1914 by Richard J. Evans, published by Viking, 819 pages.  It is the “seventh in a nine-volume set by distinguished practitioners spanning European history from the classical world onward.”

A few quotes from the review can give the flavor of the book:

“Liberalism, romanticism, nationalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, positivism and other ‘isms’ all find a place in these pages.”

“He writes with admirable narrative power and possesses a wonderful eye for local color; few readers will complain.”

“The author does equally well in showing how Europeans gained mastery over the natural world.  They constructed roads and canals, and they channeled today’s navigable rivers, draining the malarial swamps around them, even before railroads and telegraphs linked distant cities beginning in the 1830’s.”

 Note that this is a history book with no particular axe to grind about nature other than to place in perspective human events in a constantly changing environment of nature and human society.  It is with this perspective in mind that I quote the following observation in the review and ask you to consider the words I have highlighted.

-       “Although village communities remained in the grip of atavistic superstition and enchantment, the inhabitants gradually tamed the ubiquitous forests and subdued the wild animals that made them dangerous. (Wolves, all the same, continued to eat 200 Russians annually for decades.)  Mr. Evans traces the origins of zoos and elucidates the mania of aristocrats for displaying status by hunting big game, which they could do conveniently with new breech-loading rifles.

Consider these two facts together: “wolves continued to eat 200 Russians annually” and the advent of “breech-loading rifles”.  Not even the “convenience” of “breech-loading rifles” (the equivalent of today’s drones, satellites and missiles in those years) could repress the human carnage from wolves in the pre-Soviet Russian Empire.  Setting aside the losses of sheep, cattle, desirable game animals and what we know today about wolves as vectors of disease – wolves kill people.  Depending on available food, weather, wolf density and other factors wolf attacks can increase or decrease but never disappear.

Despite a written history going back to Pliny the Elder (a Roman naturalist and military commander that died during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD) about the death and destruction caused by wolves; as Churchill and Santayana observed we prove ourselves to be “the most thoughtless of ages”, “doomed to repeat” what history warns us about in no uncertain terms.

We sit back and tolerate wolves being forcibly reinserted into the settled landscapes not only of the United States but of Europe as well.  We accept the silliest lies and disinformation (that they are an endangered “Species” and thus must be accommodated no matter the costs) as justification for this. 

-       We now are supposed to believe that wolves are “unique”; as distinct from other animals as hippopotamuses from giraffes. In fact they are as biologically “unique” as an Irish setter is from a basset hound. 

-       Wolves breed with and have viable puppies with coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and ALL domestic dogs; yet we are told that the death and destruction wolves bring to settled landscapes must be endured because they are as “important and unique” as a rhinoceros is from an elephant or a crocodile is to riverbanks. 

-       Wolves are currently crossbreeding with coyotes and dogs wherever the two cohabit in the Lower 48 United States.

-       All the falderal about “red” wolves, “timber” wolves”, “Mexican” wolves, “gray” wolves, etc. is silly justification for the sort of broad political agendas behind other environmental bogeymen like the climate change circus.  Such wolf distinctions as bigger, smaller, darker, lighter, and behaviorally different based largely on the circumstances of their upbringing are characteristics shared by all those animals with which they breed and produce viable offspring.  Imagine two Doberman pinscher breeders arguing about which kennel has the “best” Doberman: the muscular ones or the thin ones; the aggressive ones or the family-pet ones; the tall ones or the shorter ones; the dark ones or the red or lighter colored ones; etc., etc.

-       While wolves are the largest and most dangerous manifestation of the animals they breed with; we need go farther than the simple observations of dog owners worldwide when we remove the anthropomorphism and understandable affection so common among dog owners for their dog or dogs.  Any dog can be mean and dangerous.  Whether from mistreatment or simple behavioral differences due to a lack of any discipline, St. Bernards have suddenly killed children in the home as well as have Staffordshire Terriers killed children and elderly members in the home.  Even mellow dogs like Golden retrievers have been known to snap and bite kids that get too near them while feeding.  Yet most St. Bernards are wonderful and patient family pets and many Staffordshire Terriers have been known to be fierce defenders of “their” family and residences.  Domestic dogs that run away have been known to quickly form a “pack” and prove remarkably dangerous and destructive to domestic and wild animals and even children that catch their interest while at the same time urban parents supporting wolves will rightly call the police or dog wardens to quickly catch or dispatch such “packs” immediately.  Does anyone seriously wish to argue that 100+ lb. wild wolves are not infinitely more dangerous when hungry, or in packs, or when someone runs or shows themselves to be young or elderly or disabled, or is between them and a dog they want to kill or livestock or a downed game animal they want to kill and/or eat?

In the light of repeated historical records of wolf violence on humans, what are we to make of those persons forcibly imposing the wolves in our settled landscapes?  Are they simply fools?  Are they ignorant?  Are they (like climate change believers with other far-reaching agendas) fooling us purposely?  Are they pagan believers in the worship of animals in an imaginary ecosystem?  Are they eugenicists, bent on “controlling” rural populations?  Are they radicals intent on returning rural America for unfathomable reasons into those no-humans, wild and dangerous forests that our ancestors made into productive and fruitful human societies?

What would drive anyone to return something into their neighbor’s midst that killed “200 Russians a year for decades”?  What could justify something that is like returning malaria or a dictatorship to communities where they would only kill a few hundred people a year?  How did such a thing ever arise in a Constitutional Republic like the United States of America or in the European Union?  Are there no good men left?

How sick is all this?  How anti-human! 

The incoming US Administration nailed it right on the head, “Washington is a swamp and it is time to drain it!”  Federal excess in the US has gone way beyond the Pale and must be restrained significantly.

To quote Shakespeare’s Puck in A Midsummers Night’s Dream, “What fools these mortals be.”

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CLIMATE ALARMISTS

President Trump could help – and force climate alarmists to answer questions they’ve ignored -

By Paul Driessen

Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have presented stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zeeland or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.

Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.

The Left has long been intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Refusing to engage or debate, banning or forcibly removing books and posters, threatening and silencing contrarians, disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers, denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, even criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers” – have all become trademark tactics. Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced lib-prog ideologies and policies.

Liberals view government as their domain, their reason for being, far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements. Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.

They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump. They’re incensed that President Trump and Republicans in Congress, 33 governor’s offices and 69 of 99 state legislatures nationwide will likely review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues.

Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.

That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” 2º C (3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels, when the Little Ice Age ended (and the modern industrial era began). It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to keep fossil fuels in the ground, roll back their economies and reduce their living standards – while giving $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation.

That, in turn, is why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. They would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. And they – or at least their governing classes – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, GHG-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event.

But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech. Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development. But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference.

Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement. President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”

Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling.

1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can alarmists ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?

2) Your “manmade climate chaos” thesis – and computer models that support it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions and feedbacks they generate have replaced numerous powerful natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over?

Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?

3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms?

4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces?

5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances?

6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?

7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?

8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?

9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?

Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

TIME TO TRUMP THE CLIMATE HYSTERIA

Time to Trump the Climate Hysteria 

By Viv Forbes

Secretary

The Clexit Coalition

To download a print-ready pdf of the whole article plus image click:
http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/de-fang-paris.pdf

The Clexit Coalition has pledged to assist any government or politician seeking to exit the Paris Agreement and to curb the wasteful and destructive UN/IPCC.

The Secretary of Clexit (Climate Exit Coalition), Mr Viv Forbes of Australia, said that Clexit could call on over 190 well-qualified climate realists from 26 countries to provide scientific, business, legal and political support and advice.See: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit-members.pdf

Clexit sees four main priorities:

Firstly, de-fang the Paris Climate Treaty by refusing to sign it, by ignoring any deals signed by others without a supporting referendum, or by giving notice of formal withdrawal.

The Paris Treaty is now a Toothless Tiger

Permission is given to reproduce this cartoon providing the source (www.clexit.net) and creator (Steve Hunter) are credited.
To download a tif file of the cartoon (2Mb) click:http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/de-fang-paris.tif

Secondly, de-fund the global warming industry – no tax payer funding for the UN/IPCC, no government money for climate tourism or conferences, no government grants for climate propaganda posing as “research”, no tax exemptions for green “charities” and no government subsidies for green energy.

We can start with Australia’s CSIRO: http://carbon-sense.com/2016/11/12/defund-csiro-climate/

Thirdly, de-staff all government climate bureaucracies.

And fourthly, re-educate – ensure that the climate curriculum in schools and universities is based on good science and real evidence, and not political agendas.

These four actions - de-fang, de-fund, de-staff and re-educate will cool the climate hysteria, with huge and immediate benefits for tax payers, jobs, industries and energy cost and security. It will also end the doomsday horror stories terrifying our young people. And if there is additional carbon dioxide in the air, our Earth will be greener and produce more food.

Trump is likely to Slash and Burn the Obama Climate policy:http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=0b5620ebdc&e=816c21f57a

Brexit and the Trump revolution are just the start. Have a listen to what happened in Australian Parliamentary offices recently:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQ6BiqeBcg&feature=youtu.be
(Both Senator Roberts of Australia and Tim Ball of Canada are Founding Members of Clexit).

The same sceptical questions are being asked in France, Poland, Hungary, UK, Canada, Russia and Germany; even at the Climate Carnival in Marrakech, Morocco: http://clexit.net/2016/11/17/marrakech-papers-by-clexit-members/

Clexit Vice President, Mark Morano, presented a “State of the Climate Report” in Marrakech:https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf

He also commenced shredding the Paris Agreement but this was frowned on by armed guards. See:
http://www.therebel.media/marc_morano_censored_for_shredding_paris_agreement_at_un_climate_change_conference_in_marrakech

Viv Forbes

19^th November 2016
Secretary
The Clexit Coalition
vforbes@clexit.net
www.clexit.net

Rosevale   Qld Australia

PIPELINE ANARCHY V FACTS

 Trump win fuels more rampant theft and destruction – 

and North Dakota citizens pay the price

by Paul Driessen

What is really driving the fanatical anarchists? 

Trump win fuels more rampant theft and destruction – and North Dakota citizens pay the price

Is this to be our future? Last week’s elections will soon end autocratic rule via executive fiat, the war on coal and hydrocarbons, IRS agents targeting conservative groups, government SWAT teams invading businesses and homes, and numerous other Abuses and Usurpations.

But now we’re getting leftist anarchy and riots – with mindless, incoherent radicals smashing Portland storefronts, beating a Chicago motorist, and pummeling a ninth grade Woodside, CA Trump supporter.

Amid it all, the epitome of nihilist, watermelon environmentalist, criminal, sore-loser fury is raging south of Bismarck, North Dakota, where thousands of “peaceful protesters” are camping illegally on federal and private lands, “venting their anger” over the Dakota Access Pipe Line.

This $3.8-billion, 1,172-mile, state-of-the-art, 30-inch conduit will carry 470,000 barrels of oil daily from the state’s Bakken oil fields to Illinois. It’s about 85% complete, and the only segment left to be finished in North Dakota is a 1,000-foot passage under Lake Oahe, a manmade reservoir on the Missouri River. DAPL runs parallel to the existing Northern Border natural gas pipeline, through the same area and under the lake. 

The pipeline would replace 700 railroad tanker cars or 2,000 semi-trailer highway tanker trucks per day. It has created thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs. Bakken’s light, sweet crude oil replaces imports, fuels our vehicles, powers our economy, and provides raw materials for many essential products.

Since it is underground, once it is installed and grasses are planted, the pipeline will be invisible except for occasional pumping stations, valves and other facilities. Modern metals, warning systems, automatic shutoff valves, 24/7/365 monitoring and other safeguards minimize the risk of spills – and nearly 140 revisions rerouted the DAPL around populated areas and sensitive ecological, archaeological, sacred and historic sites. The pipeline is 99.98% on private land and is covered by easements and other agreements.

All these and other issues were addressed repeatedly and thoughtfully during a three-year, 389-meeting review and approval process. Landowners, communities, environmentalists and citizens provided input, and 55 Native American groups were consulted. Prominent in their refusal to participate were the Standing Rock Sioux, whose reservation is a half-mile from Lake Oahe, where the pipeline is set to cross.

Only now are Standing Rock tribal leaders and members voicing opposition. Not surprisingly, they have been joined by Indians from across America, and by a motley assortment of activists, agitators and anarchists whom friendly media and politicians insist on praising as “peaceful resisters” against an industrial intrusion that “threatens” the climate, tribal culture, drinking water, historic artifacts and sacred sites. A United Nations “special rappoteur” on human rights claims law enforcement officials are using “violent” tactics against arrested protesters and subjecting them to “inhuman and degrading” conditions! 

These claims are “tonka chesli” – Lakota for BS.

These thousands of militants are trespassing. They’ve wiped out forage that ranchers were depending on to feed their cattle and bison during fall and winter months. They blockade roads and rail lines, set fires to make passage impossible, and harass reporters who question their actions. One tried to shoot a deputy. They have burned bridges, destroyed millions of dollars of construction equipment, chased livestock until they lose their calves or die of exhaustion – and killed, maimed or eaten cattle, horses and domesticated buffalo. They’ve promised far more destructive actions, and even issued death threats against their critics.

A favorite tactic employs “peaceful dissidents” and “prayer groups” to block and distract ranchers and sheriff’s deputies from an area, while others destroy nearby fence wire and posts. One rancher told me repairing just the fence on the ranch where they graze buffalo will cost at least $300,000 and weeks of hard work. The anarchists obviously don’t care about innocent people who are caught in the middle. 

The anarchists obviously don’t care about innocent people who are caught in the middle. 

Other ranchers’ lost forage and animals, time and fuel spent on repairs, and other expenses will cost well over $500,000. No one has offered any compensation, even though the militants have millions of dollars.

Washington Times journalist Valerie Richardson reports that, as of November 1, the militants’ Sacred Stone camp alone raised $1.3 million for supplies on GoFundMe and $1.2 million on FundRazr for legal defense. The Red Warrior Camp quickly collected $142,000 via GoFundMe and $105,000 in legal defense cash on IndieGogo, even though the Standing Rock council is frustrated and wants them gone.

Rumors run rampant that the “protesters” are also raking in bundles of welfare checks, plus “charitable and educational contributions” from “progressive” billionaires like Tom Steyer (coal), George Soros (currency speculation), Warren Buffett (railroads and tanker cars); outfits they fund, such as the Tides Foundation, 350.org, EarthJustice and Indigenous Environmental Network; and various Russian, Saudi and other foreign sources that would like to keep US oil and gas locked up.

Perhaps the abundant cash will attract corporate and pro bono lawyers, legal foundations and attorneys general who can freeze the assets and pursue individual or joint and several liability claims, plus punitive damages, to compensate ranchers, other locals and companies – and dissuade future lawlessness.

Last January, 26 peaceful ranchers who encamped on federal wildlife refuge property in Oregon were arrested, one was shot and killed, and the survivors were charged with, tried for (and found not guilty of) theft, conspiracy and weapons violations. Many wonder why these North Dakota militants and criminals are getting a free pass, glowing press coverage, and millions of dollars from crime-financing enablers.

The nearly completed DAPL has to cross the river somewhere and will pose the same low pollution risks wherever it goes. But it will be built with the utmost care, with the best technologies and materials.

So what is actually driving these destructive, vindictive, violent protests against this convenient “poster child” pipeline?

* True-believers are obsessed with “dangerous manmade climate change” – to justify and obscure their real agenda: a new world economic order to replace capitalism, global wealth redistribution, and UN control of development, livelihoods and living standards, for rich, poor and emerging nations alike.

* The “keep it in the ground” anti-hydrocarbon movement prefers blanketing the USA and planet with billions of solar panels, wind turbines and biofuel fields, to produce expensive, subsidized, unreliable energy – while killing birds, bats and other wildlife by the millions – rather than producing affordable energy-dense fossil fuels from holes in the ground, and transporting them by pipeline. (Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II supports much greater emphasis on renewable energy.)

* Radical elements among Native Americans (and Canadian Indigenous Peoples) want to control the land, water, energy and lives of white people whose predecessors took their ancestral lands. Their feelings are understandable. But imagine the chaos this would cause and the precedent their success would set for Europe, Latin America, China, Hawaii, the Middle East and beyond, as PC politics rewrite history. 

* The anarchists think they have a right to vilify and void laws, processes, approvals and property rights – even threaten lives. 90% of those arrested have been out-of-state agitators, and many get paid to raise hell.

* And of course, they are outraged, inconsolable and defiant over Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump.

They have no grasp of basic facts. Pipelines are safer than trucks or rail cars. This low-pressure line is state-of-the-art and will be monitored constantly and inspected regularly. High-cost renewable energy impacts small businesses, hospitals, blue-collar workers, and poor and minority families the hardest. And President Obama’s refusal to accept a court order or speak out against the crime is fueling the insanity.

Hopefully, President Trump, governors, AGs, other elected officials, and publicly spirited lawyers and judges will do the right thing: shut these anarchists down, compensate ranchers and other victims – and award punitive damages against the Big Green operatives who have caused so much damage, under the guise of freedom of speech (for them only) and phony concern for Native culture and the environment. 

Then finish the pipeline, renew our focus on energy we can count on, and put America back to work.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.