Tag Archives: Global Warming

Final Push For California Cap-N-Trade Extension Is About Money, Not Global Warming

https://i1.wp.com/image.sbsun.com/storyimage/LG/20170714/LOCAL1/170719699/AR/0/AR-170719699.jpg&maxh=400&maxw=667

Gov. Jerry Brown is racing to convince state lawmakers to extend California’s cap-and-trade program which puts a price on carbon emitted by polluters, including oil refineries like the Valero Benicia Refinery seen Wednesday, July 12, 2017, in Benicia, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

There is one thing that is not up for discussion as Gov. Jerry Brown battles to win support for the extension of California’s cap-and-trade program: the flow of cap-and-trade funds to the bullet train.

“If that’s a killer for you, then you have a dead body,” Brown told this newspaper’s editorial board.

The governor is urgently pressing the Legislature to pass Assembly Bills 398 and 617, two bills that are the product of months of private negotiations to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program for an additional 10 years. It’s currently set to expire in 2020.

What’s the rush? Brown says the world is hurtling toward catastrophic climate change that will lead to 47 percent of the planet having temperatures of 130 or even 140 degrees, with suffering and migration that will destabilize the world. “It’s damn real,” he said.

For the sake of argument, let’s agree that climate change is happening, catastrophic and entirely our fault.

California accounts for only 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. We could shut down the entire state, turn off all the generators and shoot all the cows, and it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global climate.

But the governor says California’s cap-and-trade program serves as a model for the world, inspiring other governments to adopt similar policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

The idea of cap and trade is that regulators place a statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions and require permits for each ton of emissions that a facility produces. Some permits are given out at no charge, and the state holds back a large share of them to sell at quarterly auctions in order to raise revenue.

The revenue goes into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, and the legislature spends the money on politically favored projects connected to the climate. The connection is sometimes thin.

As of January, according to the governor’s budget summary, $3.37 billion had been spent this way. Those billions of dollars were pulled from the pockets of people who were paying higher prices for everything manufactured or transported in California.

In 2016, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said cap and trade had added 11 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline, 13 cents to the price of diesel. Earlier this year, the LAO estimated that if the cap-and-trade program is extended for 10 years, it will add 63 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas in 2021, rising to 73 cents in 2031.

With its higher cost of living, California’s poverty rate is 20.6 percent, the highest in the nation, and economic distress is evident. In May, state finance officials said sales-tax revenue came in far below expectations, likely because wages were lower. The governor’s January budget proposal said that over the past four years, “the percentage of wage and salary growth from high-wage sectors dropped from 50 percent to 36 percent of total growth.” Cap and trade began in 2012.

Is the cap-and-trade program contributing to the loss of high-paying industrial jobs in California?

There’s no time to think about it, because the vote to extend the program will probably happen on Monday, just one week after the bills were made public.

It’s about money, not climate. The governor’s budget summary says extending the program to 2030 will lessen volatility in the quarterly auctions and boost revenues. And then there’s the bullet train.

As of January, $800 million of cap-and-trade funds had been spent on high-speed rail. And in the rail authority’s 2016 business plan, there’s a letter to legislative leaders from the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group about the financing for the initial operating segment from San Jose to Wasco.

“Most important,” they write, is “the Authority’s ability to securitize cap-and-trade funding when needed in the future.”

Securitizing is the process of borrowing future revenues by selling bonds to investors. The longer the time period of guaranteed revenue, the more that can be borrowed.

“Extending the C&T program beyond 2020 and defining the Authority’s share of the proceeds is one potential way to achieve at least part of the funding objective,” the experts wrote.

The business plan says the first segment of the bullet train will need $5.3 billion in committed cap-and-trade funds, plus another $5.2 billion borrowed against future cap-and-trade revenues to be collected between 2025 and 2050.

But the cap-and-trade program expires in 2020.

Is it starting to make sense? The voters approved a bullet train that would be built without a tax increase and operated without a public subsidy. Cap-and-trade funds are not tax revenues, so they can be spent building high-speed rail forever.

A vote to extend the cap-and-trade program is a vote to fund the bullet train with ever-higher prices for food, gasoline, electricity and everything that’s made or moved in California.

That’s the real path to catastrophe.

UPDATE: It passed.

By Susan Shelley | San Bernardino County Sun

Advertisements

This Discovery Will Change The Climate Change Debate

       Dr David Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

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”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

 

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova

“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”

Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.

He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.

“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”

You heard it here first!

By Miranda Devine for Perth Now

Climate Engineering Is The Biggest Environmental Threat To Earth At This Time

Those doing the Geo Engineering, or Solar Radiation Management, to combat so-called global warming would say they are saving the planet. Just the opposite, researcher Dane Wigington says, “Those in the military who are involved in the program are being told exactly that, and this is imperative to try to sustain the planet’s life support system. In fact, with available data from 65 years of climate engineering, we know this is making the situation far worse, not better.

We now have some in academia with the courage to start speaking out. Many are afraid about speaking about his issue, but we now have peer reviewed studies that say climate engineering can’t work. The trapping of the heat that comes from putting these particulates in the atmosphere and the shredding of the ozone layer, which is now in tatters, are all results of climate engineering. We don’t have the climate science community stating directly that this is happening or acknowledging it, but they are all stating on the record that it can’t work.”

Source: USA Watchdog

Introducing “The American Opportunity Carbon Free Act”… what?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse delivers a weekly speech on climate change on the Senate floor, a series he dubbed “Time to Wake Up.” (Photo credit: Office of Sen. Whitehouse)

Stupid American voters are being heavily conditioned by main stream media for the next massive tax increase before they’ve had a chance to deal with the last one, Obama Care.

Remember Cap and Trade? This one, “The American Opportunity Carbon Free Act”, reported as being formally discussed in the US Senate on a weekly basis since last November’s mid-term elections is a proposed tax on fossil fuels used by manufactures. This revenue act would also assess fees for other greenhouse gas emissions and tariffs on products from countries who aren’t taxing their manufactures in the same way.

Below is a prime example of how government has been using main stream media to scare stupid American voters into accepting the climate change lie behind “The American Opportunity Carbon Free Act”, before it ultimately gets crammed through congress like Obama Care. This makes me wonder if Jonathan Gruber, the highly compensated consultant architect of The Affordable Care Act, made famous for referring to the rest of us as “stupid American voters” have been hired to help sell this one too.

The key words and punch lines CBS editors built the following article around are highlighted in red. The same re-occurring themes found in all global warming / climate change propaganda articles.


Mega-Droughts To Become The New Normal

https://i0.wp.com/stateimpact.npr.org/texas/files/2011/11/51636665.jpg

A stock pond south of Dallas dries up due to a drought. Conditions like this could become more commonplace in the later part of the 21st century due to global warming.

Large sections of the United States will endure “persistent droughts” in the coming decades that will be worse than anything experienced in the past 1,000 years.

Comparing the conditions to the Dust Bowl but lasting several decades, researchers writing in the journal Science Advances warned Thursday that the Southwest and Great Plains will be hit by these “mega-droughts” in the later part of the 21st century. Such events have been linked to the fall of civilizations, including the decline of the Anasazi, or Ancient Pueblo Peoples, in the Colorado Plateau in the late 13th century.

“The story is a bit bleak,” said Jason E. Smerdon, a co-author and climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “Even when selecting for the worst mega drought-dominated period, the 21st century projections make (those) mega droughts seem like quaint walks through the Garden of Eden.”

86611.jpgA representation of the summer moisture in the US Central Plains and Southwest is shown. The brown line represents the variation in dryness since the year 1000; the lower the line on the graph, the drier the conditions. Colored lines to the right side of the graph represent what climate models see ahead: a trend toward dryness not seen in the previous millennium. Cook et al., Science Advances, 2015

To come up with these projections, researchers turned to the North American Drought Atlas which recreates the history of drought over the previous 2,005 years, based on hundreds of tree-ring chronologies, gleaned in turn from tens of thousands of tree samples across the United States, Mexico and parts of Canada.

Taking the Atlas data, they then applied three different measures of drought – two soil moisture measurements at varying depths, and a version of the Palmer Drought Severity Index, which gauges precipitation and evaporation and transpiration. After that, the researchers applied 17 different climate models to analyze the future impact of rising average temperatures on the regions and compared two different global warming scenarios – a continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions and one where they are moderated.

The results, according to the study, point to a “remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaption.”

“The surprising thing to us was really how consistent the response was over these regions, nearly regardless of what model we used or what soil moisture metric we looked at,” said lead author Benjamin I. Cook of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It all showed this really, really significant drying.”

Today, 11 of the past 14 years have been drought years in much of the American West, including California, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona and across the Southern Plains to Texas and Oklahoma, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, a collaboration of U.S. government agencies.

The current drought directly affects more than 64 million people in the Southwest and Southern Plains, according to NASA, and many more are indirectly affected because of the impacts on agricultural regions. As a result, states have imposed water restrictions, aquifers have been drawn down and reservoirs such as Lake Meade and Lake Powell are at historic low levels.

“Changes in precipitation, temperature and drought, and the consequences it has for our society – which is critically dependent on our freshwater resources for food, electricity and industry – are likely to be the most immediate climate impacts we experience as a result of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Kevin Anchukaitis, a climate researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Anchukaitis said the findings “require us to think rather immediately about how we could and would adapt.”

The current study on so-called medieval droughts adds to a large body of research linking climate to worsening droughts in parts of the Southwest. The driver, for the most part, is warming in recent decades brought on by increasing greenhouse gas emissions mostly from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

“The results … are extremely unfavorable for the continuation of agricultural and water resource management as they are currently practiced in the Great Plains and southwestern United States,” David Stahle, professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas and director of the Tree-Ring Laboratory and who was not involved in the study, said.

Aiguo Dai, a University associate professor who did not take part in the study but has done studies on past and future droughts across the globe including the United States, said its findings were “fairly convincing” and hopefully will motivate policy makers to take action.

“This provides huge warning sign for society, for the governments to take action to slow down global warming,” Dai told CBS News. “If they don’t, its likely the Southwest could become unsuitable for agriculture or many other activities.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mega-droughts-to-become-the-new-normal/
© 2015 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/19/carbon-fee-bill-introduced-senate

https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2015/01/17/the-truth-about-climate-change/

https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2015/01/04/health-care-costs-are-crippling-american-middle-class-workers/

https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2014/11/11/obamacare-architect-credits-lack-of-transparency-and-stupidity-of-the-american-people-for-passage-of-healthcare-law/

The Truth About Climate Change

What’s really going on?

by Kit Daniels | InfowarsThe Truth About Climate ChangeThis polar bear isn’t suffering from “climate change” – he’s just swimming at the zoo.

Man-made “climate change” is largely a myth promoted by politicians to scare the public into accepting a vast expansion of government to supposedly stop “global warming.”

Global warming is a manufactured problem played up by the government to instigate a public reaction – fear – the government then exploits to offer a predetermined solution: the expansion of government at the public’s expense.

This strategy, now known as the Hegelian Dialectic, has been used successfully by politicians for millennia to expand government, which can only grow at the expense of individual liberties.

The Bush administration used the strategy successfully in 2003 when it gained enough public support for the invasion of Iraq by claiming the country had weapons of mass destruction, and the war ultimately expanded the military-industrial complex and America’s emerging police state.

Today “global warming” is used as the bogey man because it allows the United Nations to scare the world’s population into believing “man-made climate change” is too big of a threat for their country to handle alone and thus it can only be “defeated” through the expansion of the U.N. at the expense of their nation’s sovereignty.

And state-funded scientists are given thousands and even millions of dollars to help promote the myth of “global warming” by fitting their data into the fearmongering agenda.

“This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution – in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible,” G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. “Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.”

“Accuracy in these predictions would not be important; their purpose would be to frighten, not inform.”

And the latest claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record certainly rejected accuracy in favor of fear.

“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years,’” Marc Morano of Climate Depot reported. “This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges.”

“The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts; ‘hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18-plus-year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ [in warming.]”

The standstill he refers to can be found in Remote Sensing Systems satellite data that shows there has been no significant rise in global temperature since Oct. 1996, which is more than half the 36-year satellite record.

And this pause in warming could last at least another decade.

“The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the [climate change] debate over,” climate analyst Lord Christopher Monckton wrote. “Nature had other ideas.”