Living in the beautiful Pacific NW & preserving it
When my family moved to the Pacific Northwest over 40 years ago, I was in awe of the trees, the greenery, and the ability to go either to the mountains or the ocean in an easy 2 hour drive.
Mt. St. Helens was 1,300 feet taller back then.
But I also recall going water skiing in the Willamette River with family friends. There were dead eels & fish floating in the polluted river water. I remember vacations to Southern California where the smog was so thick you couldn’t see the San Gabriel mountains or the hills of Pasadena from the beach.
We had our first ever “Earth Day” when I was in high school. I later helped SOLV, a new movement to clean up the litter from Oregon’s beaches — concerned citizens volunteering and taking action.
Fortunately, Portland got their storm water systems fixed. Our rivers and streams are cleaner than ever. Oregon instituted the “1st in the nation” Bottle Bill, that began a wave of recycling. Technology has reduced vehicle emissions so our air is much, much cleaner. No more “smog alerts” every summer. And when I visit Southern California, I can almost always see the San Gabriel mountains!
We live in one of the “cleanest” states in the nation, for air quality.
According to a 2015 report:
Washington State accounts for only 1.35 percent of U.S. MMtCO2e, according to 2011 state and nationwide data cited in a 2015 Report by the consulting firm Energy Strategies for the Washington Climate Collaborative.
We’ve come a long way. We ARE cleaner than before. Our carbon monoxide emission levels are well below nation standards for air quality!
Nationally, we’ve seen similar improvements, but note that our air quality here in the Pacific NW is better than national standards — just one reason we live here!
I also recall talks of the coming Ice Age. “Global Cooling” was the rage back in the 1970’s. Time Magazine warned of “Another ice Age” in 1972.
Thirty years later, Al Gore had successfully changed the threat to “Global Warming”. It was allegedly “caused” by humans burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide. When the “warming” failed to increase, the concern du jour became “climate change”.
Now in 2015, we’ve had over 18 years of no “warming”, even though mankind continues to put more and more “carbon emissions” into the atmosphere. No cause and effect here.
Top Physicist Freeman Dyson: Obama Has Picked The ‘Wrong Side’ On Climate Change
Dyson, himself a longstanding Democrat voter, is especially disappointed by his chosen party’s unscientific stance on the climate change issue.
It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change]. I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.
Part of the problem, he says, is the Democrats’ conflation of “pollution” (a genuine problem) with “climate change” (a natural phenomenon quite beyond mankind’s ability to control).
China and India rely on coal to keep growing, so they’ll clearly be burning coal in huge amounts. They need that to get rich. Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.
At the same time, coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate. I remember in England when we burned coal, everything was filthy. It was really bad, and that’s the way it is now in China, but you can clean that up as we did in England. It takes a certain amount of political willpower, and that takes time. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.
The short-to-medium term solution to the pollution problem, he argues, is the replacement of coal with much-maligned shale gas, whose rejection by much of Europe he finds unfathomable and counter-productive.
The short-to-medium term solution to the pollution problem, he argues, is the replacement of coal with much-maligned shale gas, whose rejection by much of Europe he finds unfathomable and counter-productive.
As far as the next 50 years are concerned, there are two main forces of energy, which are coal and shale gas. Emissions have been going down in the US while they’ve going up in Europe, and that’s because of shale gas. It’s only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal.
It seems complete madness to prohibit shale gas. You wondered if climate change is an Anglophone preoccupation. Well, France is even more dogmatic than Britain about shale gas!
Read more here.
The Paris Accord on Climate Change will do little to alter man’s influence on the climate.
This 3 minute explanation puts it all in perspective!
Then from “down under” in Australia.
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
300 Scientists Tell Chairman of the House Science Committee: ‘we want NOAA to adhere to law of the Data Quality Act’
This Jan 2016 piece:
“The issue is with bad data, as Dr. Pat Michaels Dr. Richard Lindzen, and Dr. Chip Knappenberger observed related to the switch from buckets on a rope to engine water inlets for measuring sea surface temperature:
“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”
How about this Dec. 2015 headline:
Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA
“Fossil fuel burning gives off aerosols which reflect sunlight.” reports the story.
Separately, the satellite data indicate an increase in the ice caps!
The arctic ice cap is INCREASING — a stunning 43% increase in just 2 years. All while humans have continued to burn more fossil fuels. The British press shine the light on this reality. “To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.”
And it’s not just the arctic ice cap growing. The Antarctic is at record levels too! (Sept. 2014)
“Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.
Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.”
A year later, more evidence from ice cores showing Antarctic ice growing faster over the past 30 years!
Annual snow accumulation on West Antarctica’s coastal ice sheet increased dramatically during the 20th century, according to a new study published in the American Geophysical Union journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The research gives scientists new insight into Antarctica’s blanket of ice. Understanding how the ice sheet grows and shrinks over time enhances scientists’ understanding of the processes that impact global sea levels, according to the study’s authors.
The new study used ice cores to estimate annual snow accumulation from 1712 to 2010 along West Antarctica’s coast. Until 1899, annual snow accumulation remained steady, averaging 33 and 40 centimeters (13 and 16 inches) of water, or melted snow, each year at two locations.
Annual snow accumulation increased in the early 20th century, rising 30 percent between 1900 and 2010, according to the new study. The study’s authors found that in the last 30 years of the study, the ice sheet gained nearly 5 meters (16 feet) more water than it did during the first 30 years of the studied time period.
“Since the record is 300 years long, we can see that the amount of snow that has been accumulating in this region since the 1990s is the highest we have seen in the last 300 years. The 20th century increases look unusual,” said Elizabeth Thomas, a paleoclimatologist with the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, United Kingdom, and lead author of the new study.
If human action (burning fossil fuels) “caused” the ice to melt, then what human action “caused” the significant INCREASE in the ice? Humans certainly didn’t burn less fossil fuels during the past 18 years, or 30 years.
A great resource for overall information on the thousands of scientists who do NOT agree with the concept of man-caused “climate change”, here’s a great web site at www.Wattsupwiththat.com.
Rise in CO2 has “greened planet Earth’
From an April 2016 news report:
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.
A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.
Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.
Arctic ice thickens!
The first-ever study measuring sea ice thickness in the Northwest Passage has found Arctic sea ice is still too thick for ships to safely travel through it year-round. Scientists found that “even in today’s climate, ice conditions must still be considered severe.”
“This is the first-ever such survey in the Northwest Passage, and we were surprised to find this much thick ice in the region in late winter, despite the fact that there is more and more open water in recent years during late summer,” lead researcher Christian Haas said in a statement.
Read more here and here for 2015 news reports on polar ice increasing, including this comment: “Scientists observed 33 per cent more ice than the average in 2013, and 25 per cent more the year after.”
And yet, the press continue to hype climate change. This New York Times story discussed “The end of Snow” in Feb 2014.
“climatologist Daniel Scott, a professor of global change and tourism at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, to analyze potential venues for future Winter Games. His thought was that with a rise in the average global temperature of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit possible by 2100, there might not be that many snowy regions left in which to hold the Games. He concluded that of the 19 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics, as few as 10 might be cold enough by midcentury to host them again. By 2100, that number shrinks to 6.”
Yet January 2016 had the east coast dealing with some of the largest snow storms in recent memory. “Winter Storm Jonas Rivals Biggest East Coast Snowstorms on Record” reads the headline.
Not the first time we’ve heard climate alarmism.
“It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.”
Did 2014 break that 18 year streak of no warming?
Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”
But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.
“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.” says Richard Lindzen, MIT scientist.
A picture is often worth a thousand words.
Satellites are considered by many to be the best available source of temperature data. Local measurements are subject to many sorts of errors. Temperature stations tend to be located near population centers where they are subject to the urban heat island effect. Weather balloons, temperature stations and buoys leave huge gaps in coverage. Climate researchers then fill in the their best guesses as to what temperature should be for the huge areas where no readings exist. This creates opportunity for honest error — or worse.
Satellites, on the other hand, record temperatures over the entire Earth. Their coverage is more complete and the data they yield is much more difficult to manipulate.
This report from a separate source, shows NO warming.
What is the “record” of actual satellite measured temperatures compared to the claims of the “global warming” crowd, led by the IPCC? As reported here:
the rate of global warming is less than half the mid-range rate originally predicted by IPCC in 1990, and well below even the low-end prediction:
The prediction zone in IPCC (1990) is shown in orange, with trend-lines in red. The real-world outturn is in dark blue and the trend on the real-world data is the bright blue line.“
The false 97% number
We hear repeated over and over that “97% of scientists agree on man-caused Global Warming”. That is not true. Here’s a study that shows TWO THIRDS of scientists “had no opinion” on man-caused Global Warming”.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics `global climate change’ or `global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”
How can it be “settled science” when 36 of 38 computer models are wrong, when predicting “climate change”?
Here’s what a global warming “denier” said recently in the Wall Street Journal:
“The idea that ‘climate science is settled’ runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.”
Except he isn’t a “denier.” He’s President Obama’s former undersecretary for science, Steve Koonin. He’s also a former professor of theoretical physics and a provost at Cal Tech, and holds a Ph.D. from MIT. His piece is titled “Climate Science is Not Settled,” published Sept. 19 on the Wall Street Journal’s website.
Is it really science, if it can’t be duplicated?
According to this Investors Business Daily report —
We’re often told by advocates of climate change that the “science is settled.” But in fact, “science” itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can’t back up, especially about climate.
As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, “Science is facing a ‘reproducibility crisis’ where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.” This isn’t just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia’s Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can’t be reproduced.
And this includes the field of climate change, by the way.
Being able to reproduce others’ experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science.
Princeton University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. … It will potentially harm the image of all science.”
Here in Washington state
Washington Governor Jay Inslee decided to join the Oregon and California Governors in signing a pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in March 2014. They want to reduce carbon emissions back to 1990 levels. It will impact 53 million people on the west coast.
The new pact commits Inslee and Kitzhaber to giving carbon pricing another try. Oregon, it says, will “build on existing programs to set a price on carbon emissions.” Washington “will set binding limits on carbon emissions and deploy market mechanisms to meet those limits.”
He’s now on the verge of proposing a “carbon tax” that will raise not only the price of gasoline, but also our home heating oil, our natural gas, and our electricity. One estimate is that the tax “could” be as high as $1.60 per gallon of gas. That would add $30 to the price of the average families bill, up every time they fill up their gas tank.
Representative Liz Pike reported the following in September 2014.
“One of our policy staff people in Olympia attended the most recent meeting of the CERT (Climate Emissions Reduction Taskforce), and he provides a quick update on the portions relevant to transportation.
According to one of the consultant’s presenting at the meeting, this increase would be on the order of $1.60 per gallon by 2035 if the state was going to meet its goal of a 50% reduction in GHG emissions. The OFM (Office of Financial Management) presentation on meeting the state’s GHG goals indicated a potentially higher increase, on the order of a 60% increase in the price of gasoline by 2035. However, both of these predictions were based on placing a tax on carbon emissions rather than a cap on GHG emissions, thus introducing another layer of uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the predictions.
In a second communication, Rep. Pike shared:
The Office of Financial Management estimates that Inslee’s new carbon pricing TAX resulting from his Executive Order 14.04 will generate $1.2 billion in 2016 – YES, he’s taking $1.2 billion out of the state’s economy to be redistributed to government chosen entities. How much of that funding will go to build new roads and bridges? NONE!
Since our beautiful GREEN state generates ONLY about 3/10ths of 1% of all world wide global emissions (maybe even less because China has increased emissions), what is the expected ecological benefit the taxpayers will see for the $1.2 billion tax in 2016, and the billions thereafter? Not anything significant! The money isn’t going for ecological improvements at all. Most of the new revenue generated from Inslee’s NEW CARBON TAX will go for WSDOT staffers to conduct analysis of fuel carbon emissions around the state and other state bureaucratic agencies.
A Jan. 2015 Washington State Wire report reveals the following:
California has the eighth-largest economy in the world, with gross domestic domestic product of $2.2 trillion in 2013. It had 483.3 million metric tons of carbon emissions statewide, but its cap-and-trade program, which forces polluters to pay to emit, is estimated to generate $850 million in 2014-15.
Washington state’s GDP was $381 billion two years ago and it had 91.7 million metric tons of carbon in 2011, the last year figures were available. But the cap-and-trade proposal put forth by Gov. Jay Inslee is estimated to generate $1 billion annually when it kicks off in 2016.
Why is that? California has been providing about 90 percent of the permits to pollute carbon for free. That means lower costs for industries that could suffer a competitive disadvantage, and helps ease them into compliance with the program while still cutting their carbon emissions, said Dave Clegern, a spokesman with the state’s Air Resources Board.
Inslee’s proposal doesn’t do that. There aren’t any free allowances, as they’re known, meaning the affected businesses will get hit with the higher costs as soon as the auctions begin. That means the state can generate more money from the cap-and-trade auctions, where firms can swap the allowances on a market at a certain price per metric ton. The state derives funding by taking a cut of the proceeds.
Who are the affected businesses? How about University of Washington, Washington State University, & Boeing.
Jay Inslee’s Department of Ecology has issued a list of the top 130 “polluters” in the state. Among those “entities” are numerous SW Washington firms.
On the list are:
Georgia Pacific — Camas,
WaferTech — Camas
Longview Fibre, Paper & Packaging — Longview;
NW Pipeline — Washougal;
Naval base Kitsap — Bremerton;
Puget Sound Energy — Longview;
River Road generating plant — Vancouver;
Joint Base Lewis McChord;
Weyerhaeuser — Longview
If these businesses suddenly have to “buy” carbon credits from the state, what do you that will do for local job creation? It can’t be good.
An appropriate question: Will Governor Inslee’s cap & trade program work?
One new study shows thousands of job losses
A study conducted by Energy Strategies—in collaboration with the University of Idaho and Washington State University and commissioned by the Washington Climate Collaborative (WCC), a business coalition—found that Jay Inslee’s cap-and-tax proposal would have a devastating impact on our state’s economy and cost jobs.
“adoption of the Act would result in an average annual reduction in gross state product of approximately $5.7 billion, or 1.43% of Washington’s gross state product. The net annual jobs impacts range from a loss of 42,537 jobs in 2016 to a loss of 75,278 jobs in later years, averaging a loss of 55,538 per year against the baseline projection.”
“Total household income as measured by employee compensation, proprietor’s income, and employer supplements was reduced by a $3.1 billion dollars on average in the primary energy scenario, including the multiplier effects. Averaging this number across the total Washington State households (2,629,126) yields a loss of income of $1,194 per household.”
What would Governor Inslee do with the money the state government receives from the “carbon tax”?
We don’t know for sure.
The Columbian in a Sept. 29th story, (which only focused on the lower end of the proposed tax), said the following:
The Legislature would decide how to spend the money collected. But one possibility would be to spend 30 percent for lower-income populations through a working families tax credit, 15 percent through business tax cuts for those harmed by the carbon tax, 10 percent on renewable energy programs and 5 percent on program administration, said Matt Steuerwalt, the governor’s executive director of policy.
Has a carbon tax been tried before? What was the outcome?
Let’s look at California.
Californians already pay the nation’s second highest gas tax at 68 cents a gallon — and now it will go up again in January to pay for a first-in-the-nation climate change law.
When gas prices go up, motorists typically blame oil companies, Arab sheiks and Wall Street speculators. This time they can blame Sacramento and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for passing a bill requiring California to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The tax on carbon already raised about $1 billion in revenue by requiring manufacturers and utilities to buy credits for each ton of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. At the beginning of next year, the law will also apply to oil and gas. Refiners and distributors say they will pass another $2 billion in costs on – largely to consumers.
Estimates of the cost of the tax vary. The California Air Resources Board, the Golden State’s premier anti-pollution agency, predicts the new tax will raise gasoline prices from 20 cents to $1.30 per gallon. A prominent state senator who helped author the bill estimated the cost at 40 cents a gallon.
California is the only state to extend the idea to gasoline. By the end of the decade, the state is expected to collect $5 billion in revenue by charging businesses and consumers for the right to pollute. So far the state collected $833 billion by selling ‘carbon credits’ to polluters.
And what did California do with all that tax revenue that it has already been collecting?
build low-income housing near mass-transit hubs and support construction of the state’s high-speed rail project.
See the full story here.
Surely this tax will be devastating to the poorest of our citizens. It will reduce their ability to commute to/from work, to be involved in their children’s before & after school activities. It will restrict their ability to enjoy so many outdoor activities available in our beautiful Pacific NW.
The German experiment with “clean energy”.
“while Germany has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on solar panels and wind turbines, they provide only an unreliable 15% of its electricity and 3% of total energy. Consumers pay a fortune for that unreliable energy; the average German pays 3 times more for electricity than the average American. It’s so bad that Germans have had to add a new term to the language: “energy poverty.”
“despite Germany’s world-leading spending on solar and wind, because unreliables require life support from reliables, its coal capacity is at a record high—and CO2 emissions haven’t dropped since 2008.”
One problem with wind and solar energy — it’s unreliable.
Over the last decade, Germany has pursued the popular ideal of replacing reliable fossil fuel energy with unreliable energy from solar and wind. Since unreliable energy can’t be relied upon—as Germany’s own data show below—they have to be propped up by reliable energy.
In Canada — similar horrible results!
From our neighbors to the north, in Canada. The Financial Post reports that “The cost of electricity for the average Ontario consumer went from $780 more than $1,800, with more increases to come.” This increase occurred because the controlling political party replaced “fossil-fuel generated electricity with renewable energy from wind, solar and biomass.”
“Over the past several months there has been a constant din of noise from all business segments in Ontario about the high price of electricity and its effects. Electricity prices have risen as they have absorbed the high costs of 20-year contracts for renewable energy in the form of wind and solar as additions to Ontario’s electricity grid. Ontario currently has a huge surplus which results in as much as 20 per cent of our generation exported at fire sale prices. Couple that with a drop in demand, annual spending of $400 million on conservation messages, smart meters that allow time of use (TOU) pricing and the Hydro One, OPG and other Ministry of Energy employees enjoying wages and benefits that outstrip the private sector means electricity bills for all segments of businesses and households are now a drain on the economy versus an attraction for new business and the jobs they might create.
The situation for many small business owners is dire
The foregoing recently manifested itself in a report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce entitled: “Empowering Ontario: Constraining Costs and Staying Competitive in the Electricity Market.” The report stated soaring electricity prices would cause one (1) in 20 Ontario businesses to shut their doors within the next 5 years. The report didn’t suggest how much electricity those 5 per cent of businesses consume or how many jobs would be lost but it should represent a concern to the ruling Liberal Party of Ontario. Should the scenario play out it would also result in a revenue drop for generators, transmitters and local distribution companies. Due to how the electricity sector operates in Ontario a revenue drop results in rate increases to all remaining Ontario businesses and residential households.”
Here at home, Senator Ann Rivers said it best:
“It is of utmost importance that the leaders of our state create policy that is driven by science rather than politics.”
In an August 3, 2014 Opinion piece in The Columbian, she discussed the following appropriate facts:
Washington is already a low-carbon place — especially when compared to a carbon giant such as China, which produces around 8,000 million metric tons annually compared to Washington’s 96 million.
One study shows that cap-and-trade could ultimately cost each Washington household upwards of $8,200 in disposable income per year and eliminate up to 82,000 jobs.
At the same time, LCFS could add more than $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline — on top of any fuel-tax increase that comes out of Olympia. That isn’t exactly pocket change considering the average driver buys 558 gallons of gas every year.
Given what climate-change policies could mean to the average Joe, then, it’s important to have these conversations out in the open, free from politics and based on sound science.
Unfortunately, the governor chose to carry out his personal agenda on climate change and bypass the legislative process when he issued an executive order this spring. By strategically choosing a group of 21 people, many from special-interest groups that would benefit from aggressive carbon regulation, to vet his ideas, he has put the Legislature and the public on the sideline.
It is of utmost importance that the leaders of our state create policy that is driven by science rather than politics.
While I am sure people across Washington would agree that cleaner air is a good thing, I’m gravely concerned that all of this will not actually produce meaningful results.
Cap-and-trade programs in Europe and California haven’t been runaway successes at reducing carbon emissions, even though taxes and energy prices have increased. Additionally, the top-down approach to controlling carbon emissions would give bureaucrats the power to ultimately determine the type of car you drive, the type of house you can build, and whether your business survives.
Is that to be the future of our state?
See the entire piece by Senator Ann Rivers here.
To emphasize Senator Ann Rivers point, this Investor’s Business Daily article contained the following graph.
Some extremely relevant facts from the article:
“But a review of recent research indicates that, no matter how many costly regulations the U.S. imposes or how dire the warnings, the battle appears to be already lost.”
“While global per-GDP carbon emissions have dropped about 28% since 1990, overall emissions climbed more than 50%, according the Nature study.
Even China has cut the “carbon intensity” of its economy in about half since 1990, while its annual emissions nearly quadrupled.”
In 2012, for example, the U.S. and Europe emitted 1.2 million tons less carbon than they did a decade before. But over those same years, global emissions climbed by 6 million tons.
By 2019, CO2 emissions from China alone will likely exceed the U.S., Europe and India combined, the Global Carbon Project says. India will be emitting more than all of Europe.
From a Nov 2015 Investors Business Daily piece:
China apparently has been burning 17% more coal annually than it has claimed over the past 15 years. And as a result, it’s been emitting a billion tons more CO2 a year than it had admitted. The New York Times points out that this difference alone is equal to what Germany’s entire economy produces each year from burning fossil fuels.
In other words, if Germany shut down its entire economy, it wouldn’t compensate for China’s “error.”
Is there any doubt that even “if” human’s burning carbon-based fuels were the “cause” of “climate change”, that anything Washington state or the U.S. does would have no impact on climate change?
Some new, “sound science” with Washington state connections.
A newly released study by two former University of Washington educators says the 1 degree rise in temperatures over the past century can be attributed to changes in air circulation.
A well-documented rise in temperatures along the U.S. West Coast during the past century is almost entirely the result of natural forces — not human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to a major new study released Monday.
The vast majority of coastal temperature increases since 1900 are the result of changes in winds over the eastern Pacific Ocean, the authors found. But they could find no evidence that those weather patterns were themselves being influenced by the human burning of fossil fuels.
“It’s a simple story, but the results are very surprising: We do not see a human hand in the warming of the West Coast,” said co-author Nate Mantua, with NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center. “That is taking people by surprise, and may generate some blowback.”
Mantua and co-author Jim Johnstone, both formerly with the University of Washington, published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Since the ocean is the biggest driver of temperature changes along the coast, the authors tracked land and sea surface temperatures there going back 113 years. They found that virtually all of the roughly 1 degree Celsius average temperature increase could be explained by changes in air circulation.
Watch this NASA video of global wind currents. If the wind currents “change”, it makes sense that just like the two former U of W scientists reported, the “changing wind currents” are responsible for changing temperatures.
Here’s a 2004 article that would seem to tie in very well with the former U of W (now NOAA) scientists findings. With 70% of the earth’s surface covered by water, changes in water temperature circulating the globe could certainly impact temperatures on land.
The conveyor belt in the ocean that circulates warm water at the surface (White) and deep cold water (Purple). Credit: Jayne Doucette, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
A lake twice the size of the Caspian Sea broke through an ice sheet that contained it over current day Minnesota and Canada, the evidence shows. It poured its fresh water into the salty Atlantic and changed the density of the ocean water.
The oceans work on a sort of conveyor belt method to circulate cold and warm waters, thereby helping control cold, moderate, and warm areas of the globe. (Earth’s climate is only partly affected by land temperatures and sunlight. Oceans, which store vast amounts of energy and are slow to warm up and cool down, contribute greatly to climate.)
But what happens if that conveyor belt stops or slows down?
Cold, fresh water sinks, and warm salty water rises. The influx of fresh water into the Hudson Bay from Lake Agassiz provided a barrier against the warm, salty water struggling to move north on the conveyor belt. This effectively shut down the circulation of warm water in the Northern Atlantic.
A more local connection
Cascade Policy Institute President John A. Charles, Jr. points out that “the “carbon intensity” of driving has dropped by 47% since 1975. Moreover, carbon dioxide is not a real “pollutant” anyway, so there would be no public health benefits to reducing emissions.”
“Moreover, this trend is almost guaranteed to continue due to the federal CAFE standards.”
Here is an excellent discussion on “green” electric cars.
Greenpeace Founder — no evidence that humans are in any danger from global warming
“Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace — says that there is no evidence that humans are in any danger from global warming. In fact, he says that today’s temperature changes are just a blip on the radar according to the online site The Australian.
“If you want to see rapid change,” says Moore, “look at the end of the glaciation period when the climate suddenly changed into this inter-glacial period we’re in now. For most of the history of modern life, it has been much warmer,” he says.
In fact, as I have noted repeatedly in this column, Moore says that the true danger to man is if the planet enters a cooling phase.”
Moore who left Greenpeace in 1986 is in Australia giving a series of public presentations. Recently he condemned Greenpeace as an “evil” organization that has lost its concern for people.
You can read more here.
Learn about CO2!
John Stossel interviews 3 “experts” on Climate Change
Dr. Murry Salby – Control of Atmospheric CO2
His new research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It reveals the mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, including its increase during the 20th century. Thereby, the analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emission.
Watch the video from London, March 17, 2015
Fossil Fuels are “greening” the planet!
Take a few minutes an listen to Matt Ridley share a great deal of information about how burning fossil fuels is actually allowing for more of the planet to turn green.
Additionally, there is a new study from Arizona State University says Africa is getting “greener”!
Climate change has saved hundreds of thousands of Africans from extreme poverty, starvation and premature death, a study from Arizona State University has confirmed.
The study shows that the West African Sahel – part of the semiarid strip just south of the Sahara desert, which spans the African continent from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea – has been steadily “regreening” since the severe droughts of the 1970s and 1980s which killed more than 100,000 people.
Among the reasons for the “regreening” are increased rainfall, the beneficial effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant growth and the ingenuity of farmers (“community-led conservation efforts) in this harsh, marginal region.
Skeptics have long been aware of these beneficial side effects of “global warming” – see, for example, this report from 2011 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation called The Sahel Is Greening.
Is the “threat” real?
Is there a true “consensus” about climate change or man-caused global warming?
Here is a superb history of the global warming phenomenon, by John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel. “9,000 PhD’s signed a petition denying C02 is causing “global warming” and 31,000 total scientists have signed that petition”, according to John Coleman.
If you’ve taken the time to read thru all this, and watch the John Coleman video — THANK YOU!
For more information on “climate change”, you can visit: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Shouldn’t public policy be based on legitimate, sound science? Absolutely!
Furthermore, our citizens cannot afford the additional taxes on their electricity, on their home heating bills, and their vehicle’s gasoline, that Governor Inslee is about to propose. This would be one of the most regressive taxes ever, hitting the poorest in our state the hardest.
And it would do NOTHING to actually impact “the climate”. As John Coleman’s video demonstrated, there is no “consensus” on man-caused climate change.
Here’s a BBC video from 2007 that is excellent history.
Follow the Money
In the name of “climate change”, Washington Governor Jay Inslee is hoping to impose a “carbon tax”, that could add from 40 cents to $1.17 to every gallon of gas you buy. (Now up to $1.60 according to Rep. Liz Pike’s report from legislative staffers.)
This would be done via a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and a “carbon tax”.
The governors own economists estimate the impact would be to reduce the growth of the state’s economy over the next 20 years by up to 75%.
Listen to Seattle’s KVI host Jon Carlson interview Randy Pepple’s of ShiftWA.
The U.S. spends $22 Billion a year
According to a Newsmax story, the U.S. spends $22 Billion a year on “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”.
It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).
To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.
The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara. It’s very eye opening, and at a minimum demonstrates “no consensus”with regards to “climate change”. A person of this stature (and the 200+ other scientists he worked with), no not resign from a professional society for no reason.
Read the letter here.
Video and Speakers Bios of Heartland’s Nine Conferences on Climate Change
The Heartland Institute is “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
— The Economist
The Heartland Institute has organized and hosted nine International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, events that attracted extensive international attention to the debate taking place in the scientific community over the causes, extent, and consequences of climate change. Videos from the latest conference can be viewed below. Videos from previous conferences — as well as videos organized by speaker — can be browsed at the link menu bar above.