When Rice is Worth Gold: Legalization of Golden Rice in the Fight against Poverty

By 

Golden Rice was declared safe for consumption by Canada recently. This has huge implications for the rest of the world, where Golden Rice can be vital resource in tackling vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are engineered to display traits that are otherwise absent or subdued in natural crops. For example, gene modification results in crops that are highly resistant to diseases and more accustomed to extreme weather conditions. Sometimes, these crops also contain increased nutritional value.

Golden Rice, also known as Provitamin A Biofortified Rice Event GR2E, has strikingly higher levels of Provitamin A than other commercially available rice varieties. The name may have been derived from its golden yellow color, but it is certainly more valuable to our food security than gold.

Being a powerful antioxidant, Vitamin A plays a key role in growth, reproduction, eyesight and immune system health. Vitamin A deficiency is more prevalent in developing countries, where it causes preventable childhood blindness and amplifies the risk of death from other common childhood illnesses such as diarrhea.

Golden Rice can certainly reduce the magnitude and frequency of Vitamin A deficiency as it acts as a Vitamin A supplement. The rice can thus act as a preventive element against the death and disease due to vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.

However, GM crops such as Golden Rice face constant opposition from anti-GM crusaders who accuse these crops of being dangerous to human health.

The claims of anti-GM groups are false and baseless. Particularly, their accusations on Golden Rice lack scientific credibility, besides acting as a major hurdle in the fight against malnutrition and global food insecurity.

On March 16, Health Canada—the department of the government of Canada with responsibility for national public health—approved the genetically engineered Golden Rice as safe for human consumption.

It was a pleasant coincidence that Golden Rice was approved just a week before the birthday of Norman Borlaug—the man who revolutionized the use of GM crops, eventually helping billions of people afford a daily meal and sustaining billions of lives to this day.

This approval comes after a robust scientific assessment done by scientists with expertise in molecular biology, microbiology, toxicology, chemistry, and nutrition.

The assessment complied with scientific principles approved internationally by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the regulatory bodies in the United States, the European Union, Australia, and Japan.

The assessment results showed that Golden Rice had the same nutritional property as other commercially available rice varieties, except for the increased provitamin A levels. Further, it displayed no new risk to human health and has no potential to create or amplify allergies.

Unlike Health Canada’s robust scientific assessment, the claims of anti-GM advocacy groups fall short of credibility, as they have been in the past.

The approval of Golden Rice by Health Canada is a lethal blow to one of the many myths that are propagated by anti-GM activists. Developing countries should seize the momentum by declaring Golden Rice safe for consumption in their respective countries.

This article was originally published on Townhall.com.

 

Advertisements

Gallup: Left Became More Militant About Global Warming Under Trump

From Gallup News: Global Warming Concern Steady Despite Some Partisan Shifts
by Megan Brenan and Lydia Saad

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Partisan gaps across global-warming measures slightly wider than in 2017
Democrats view global warming seriously; Republicans view it skeptically
69% of Republicans, 4% Democrats say global warming is exaggerated
This story is part of a special series on Americans’ views of the environment, global warming and energy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ concerns about global warming are not much different from the record-high levels they were at a year ago. However, the views of some partisans have shifted, creating larger gaps than what Gallup saw last year across all questions about global warming.

Gallup’s annual survey about the environment, conducted March 1-8, found that Americans’ opinions about global warming, like many other issues, have increasingly become politically polarized.

In general, Democrats view global warming seriously, while Republicans view it skeptically:

Ninety-one percent of Democrats and 33% of Republicans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, but 67% of Republicans worry only a little or not at all.

While 82% of Democrats think global warming has already begun to happen, only 34% of Republicans agree. Rather, 57% of Republicans think it will not happen in their lifetime (25%) or will “never happen” (32%).

About seven in 10 Republicans (69%) think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated in the news, 15% think it is generally correct and 15% say it is generally underestimated. Democrats, however, are much more likely to think the seriousness of global warming is underestimated (64%) or correct (32%), and just 4% say it is exaggerated.

Eighty-six percent of Democrats versus 42% of Republicans think most scientists believe global warming is occurring. The percentage of Republicans who say most scientists believe this is down 11 percentage points since last year.

Almost nine in 10 Democrats say increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century are due to human activities more than natural changes in the environment. Just 35% of Republicans agree, while 63% attribute the temperature increases to natural environmental causes.

Four in five Republicans do not think global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetime; two-thirds of Democrats think it will.

Full report here

Mike Bastasch at The Daily Caller observes:

“With Trump reversing many of his predecessors’ policies aimed at curbing global warming, Democrats are feeling a greater sense of urgency about the issue, while Republicans have either remained as skeptical as they had been in the past or have become more so,” reads Gallup’s poll analysis.

For example, the percentage of Republicans and Independents who believe global warming is caused by human activities fell 5 percent and 7 percent, respectively, from 2017 to 2018. Democrats, on the other hand, increasingly saw global warming as man-made.gallup-globalwarming-2018-2

Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship

Tomorrow’s Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship The Carbon Sense Newsletter, April 2018.  To view or print the whole newsletter plus images click here.

Produced with the assistance of our volunteer editors. Please help to spread some climate sense.

Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN. No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development”, with them defining what is sustainable.

Greens hate miners. They use nationalized parks, heritage areas, flora/fauna reserves, green bans, locked gates and land rights (for some) to close as much land as possible to explorers and miners – apparently resources should be locked away for some lucky distant future generation. And if some persistent explorer manages to prove a mineral deposit, greens will then strangle it in the approvals process using “death by delay”.

Greens hate farmers with their ploughs, fertilizers, crops and grazing animals. They want Aussie grazing land turned back to kangaroos and woody weeds. They plan to expel farmers and graziers from most land areas, with food produced in concentrated feedlots, factory farms, communal gardens and hydroponics.

Greens hate professional fishermen with their nets, lines and harpoons. Using the Great Barrier Reef as their poster-child, they plan to control the Coral Sea using marine parks, fishing quotas, bans and licenses, leaving us to get seafood from foreign seas and factory fish farms.

Greens hate foresters and grass-farmers. They want every tree protected, even woody weeds taking over ancient treeless grasslands. Red meat and forest timber are “unsustainable”. Apparently they want us to live in houses made of recycled cardboard and plastic and eating fake steak and protein powder made from methane generated from decomposing rubbish dumps.

Greens despise the suburbs with their SUV’s, lawns, pools, rose gardens, manicured parks, ponies and golf courses. They prefer concentrated accommodation with people stacked-and-packed in high-rise cubic apartments, with state-controlled kindies in the basement, and with ring-roads of electric trams and driverless cars connecting apartments, schools, offices and shops.

Greens hate reliable grid power from coal, nuclear, oil, gas or hydro generators. Their “sustainable” option is part-time power from wind and solar with the inevitable blackouts and shortages needing more rules and rationing.

Greens lead the war on fracking and pipelines. The victims are energy consumers. The beneficiaries are Russian gas and Middle-east oil.

Greens think it is “sustainable” to uglify scenic hills with whining wind towers, power poles, transmission lines and access roads, and to clutter pleasant estuaries and shallow seas with more bird-slicing turbines. They think it is “sustainable” to keep smothering sunny flatlands under solar panels and filling the suburbs with extra power lines and batteries of toxic metals. Greens think it is “sustainable” to clear forests for bio-mass to feed large wood-fired power stations, or for establishing biofuel plantations. They think it is “sustainable” to keep converting croplands from producing food for humans to producing ethanol for cars.

Greens hate free markets where prices are used to signal changing supply and demand. There is no room for fun, frills or luxuries in their “sustainable” world. They want to limit demand by imposing rationing on us wastrels – carbon ration cards, electricity rationing meters, water rationing, meat free days, diet cops and bans on fast foods and fizzy-drinks.

They also favor compulsory recycling of everything, no matter what that process costs in energy or resources. Surveillance cameras will keep watch on our “wasteful” habits. None of this vast green religious agenda is compatible with individual freedom, constitutional rights or private property – and none of it makes any economic or climate sense. To view or print the whole newsletter plus images click: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/green-dictatorship.pdf

The Despotic Green New World is coming. Climate alarm is the stalking horse, “sustainable development” is the war cry, and global government is the goal.

Further Reading: “Sustainable Development” is the UN code for total reorganization of human society:  https://newswithviews.com/the-code-for-reorganizing-human-society-is-sustainable-development/

Climate policies governed by groupthink: https://mailchi.mp/1a014f9b3e23/press-release-climate-groupthink-leads-to-a-dead-end-171361?e=e1638e04a2

The UN Plan Itself: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

Easter Island myths and realities

The island’s demise was a human and Little Ice Age tragedy, not “ecological suicide”

Dennis Avery

In a recent New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof misleads us about the awful history of Easter Island (2,300 miles west of Chile), whose vegetation disappeared in the cold drought of the Little Ice Age. In doing so, he blinds modern society to the abrupt, icy climate challenge that lies in our own future.

Kristof repeats the archaeological myth that Easter Island’s natives committed “ecological suicide,” by cutting down all their palm trees. They supposedly used the logs as rollers to move their famous huge statues. Afterward, they could no longer build canoes to catch the fish that were their key protein source. Worse, he says, clearing the trees resulted in so much soil erosion that most of the population starved and/or killed each other in famine-driven desperation.

This myth disguises the impacts of the Little Ice Age on Easter, and ignores the inevitable reality that our coming generations could relatively soon face another icy age that will harshly test our technologies. The cold centuries may even make man-made global warming look positively attractive!

Easter Islanders never cut their palm trees at all! According to their cultural legends, when the Polynesians’ canoes reached Easter about 1000 AD, the island was covered in grasses. There were only a few palms. Modern pollen studies confirm this, showing that the island did have palm trees in the ancient past – but most died in the cold droughts of the Dark Ages (600–950 AD). The few surviving palms died during the Little Ice Age after the Polynesians colonized the island. The last palm died about 1650.

Kristof seems not to understand the killing power of the cold, chaotic, carbon dioxide-starved climate in those “little ice ages.”

The islanders wouldn’t have used palm logs for canoes in any case. The Polynesians knew palm logs are far too heavy. Canoes need to skim on top of the waves, even when carrying heavy loads. The Polynesians made their canoes out of sewn planks from the much-lighter toromiro trees, whose seedlings they’d brought with them from the Marquesas Islands to the west.

Soil erosion? The Easter Islanders didn’t need to clear trees from their land to grow their crops of taro, yams and sweet potatoes. They planted the tubers between the stumps of smaller trees cut for occasional house-building. The cut trees re-grew from their living stumps; their root systems remained alive and continued to protect the soil. In fact, the islanders’ agricultural techniques protected soil even more effectively than mainland farms did until the advent of modern no-till farming.

No fish to eat? A U.S. Navy lieutenant, who visited Easter in 1886, shortly after the Little Ice Age ended, reported that the natives ate huge amounts of seafood! Most of the fish were caught from small inshore canoes, with rockfish a favorite. The natives also speared dolphins in the shallows, after confusing the animals’ famed “sonar” by clapping rocks together. Crayfish and eels abounded in the shoreline’s rocky crevices, and flying fish flung themselves onto the beaches. Turtles and shellfish were plentiful.

Nor did the islanders kill each other off in hunger wars – although the sweet potato crops were scanty and population numbers dropped during those chilly Little Ice Age droughts.

What did happen to the Easter population? The truth is a sickening look at exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people on earth by some of the most powerful of the day. Peruvian slave-raiders took most of the men to Peru in the 1800s, to dig shiploads of seabird dung (guano) from offshore islands to fertilize Europe’s fields. Terrible conditions, overwork and European diseases killed most of the kidnapped slaves.

Peruvian citizens’ outrage over their mistreatment eventually forced the authorities to return the few who had survived. Unfortunately, the survivors carried smallpox back to Easter. Only a few natives lived through the ensuing epidemic. Later, well-meaning missionaries brought tuberculosis.

The final disaster was Peru’s leasing of the island’s grasslands to absentee landlords for sheep-grazing. The sheep destroyed the last of the toromiro trees, while the surviving natives were (unbelievably) penned behind barbed wire – until 1960 – when worldwide condemnation finally intervened.

Kristof, who may have gotten his Easter Island myths from Jared Diamond’s misguided book Collapse, demeans the sustainable traditions of the South Pacific’s Polynesian settlers. Their insightful tradition was not to use up a resource more rapidly than they could see it restoring itself.

Mother Nature, not the Polynesians, destroyed the trees. She did it over and over: in the Iron Age Cooling, during the cold Dark Ages and then again amid the Little Ice Age. Nor was Mother Nature being “careless.” She was responding to the age-old commands of the sun, the gravitational fields of the four biggest planets, and the other powerful natural forces that have always governed Earth’s climate.

Those same planetary patterns also govern our future, whether we like it or not. Another “icy age” will inevitably replace our current and relatively supportive climate warmth and stability. That probably (hopefully) won’t arrive for another several centuries. Our current warming period is only 150 years old; the shortest Dansgaard-Oeschger warm phase on record was the Medieval, which lasted 350 years.

The Easter Islanders were technologically capable enough (if barely) to sustain their society through Nature’s climate cycles. Elsewhere, nomads from the Black Sea region survived the Last Glacial Maximum (in temperatures below -40 degrees Celsius/Fahrenheit) by inventing mammoth-skin tents to survive the cold as they followed migrating mammoths. Those huge furry beasts were themselves forced to move frequently as the Ice Age turned the grass into less-nourishing tundra.

Our ancestors also made the most important discovery in all human history farming, only about 10,000 years ago. Farming finally allowed humans to become more than scattered hunting bands, carrying their babies and scant possessions on their backs. They could support larger populations, create languages, build temples, cities and trading ships, and launch industries that made copper, bronze and then iron.

Collective learning has now gotten us to the point where we create resources rather than just finding them. Think nitrogen fertilizer, which is taken from the air that’s 78% nitrogen, and then returned to the sky through natural processes. Think computer chips and fiber optic cables made from sand.

We are no longer doomed to thrive, only to collapse again. Our challenge today is not to retreat into a harsh and uncertain dependence on Mother Nature and her deadly “ice age” betrayals. Rather, we can and must prepare for the next “icy age” we know is coming – by continuing our collective learning, using a matured wisdom, and not turning our backs on the fossil fuel, nuclear and other reliable, affordable energy sources that have made our industries, health, innovations and living standards possible.

Mr. Kristof’s mythology would lead us back into ignorance, not forward.

Dennis Avery co-authored the New York Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years with astrophysicist Fred Singer. His forthcoming book is titledClimates of Collapse: the Deadly “Little Ice Ages.” This article is based on those carefully researched treatises.

An Avalanche Of Global Warming Alarmism Is About To Hit

By Tim Ball and Tom Harris

With the United Nations Climate Change Conference starting on Monday in Bonn, Germany, we need to brace ourselves for an avalanche of global warming alarmism. We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels.

What will make this session especially intense is that this year’s meeting is being presided over by Fiji, a government that has taken the climate change fears to extremes.

Conference president Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama calls for “an absolute dedication to meet the 1.5-degree target,” the most stringent goal suggested by the Paris Agreement. In support of Bainimarama’s position, the COP23/Fiji Website repeatedly cites the frightening forecasts of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating, for example, “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”

To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulae to represent atmospheric conditions. Besides the fact that we lack a comprehensive ‘theory of climate,’ and so do not have valid formulae to properly represent how the atmosphere functions, we also lack the data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. And, without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history of its average condition—the climate. Meaningful forecasts of future climate change are therefore impossible.

An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the ‘HadCRUT4’ global average temperature history for the past 167 years produced by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Centre, both based in the United Kingdom.

Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data was collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.

The data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius, often times no better than +/-1 degree. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.

Modern weather station surface temperature data is now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4. This was done initially because governments believed that satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection. But the satellites did not show the warming forecast by computer models. So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.

Today, there is virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

So, the HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems with the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above the surface, the conclusion is unavoidable: it is not possible to know how the Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data is therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.

In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind—temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, etc.—to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past. So, the IPCC’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world.

This will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing the IPCC in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe. No one should take them seriously.

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Cuomo’s Natural Gas Blockade

New York’s Governor is raising energy costs for millions of Americans.

By The Editorial Board

Aug. 23, 2017 7:00 p.m. ET

The U.S. shale boom has lowered energy prices and created hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. But those living in upstate New York and New England have been left in the cold by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose shale gas blockade could instigate an energy crisis in the Northeast.

Progressives once hailed natural gas as a “transition fuel” to renewables like solar and wind, but now they are waging a campaign to “keep it in the ground.” New York is ground zero. First, Mr. Cuomo banned hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking), and now he’s blocking natural gas pumped in other states from reaching Northeast markets.

The Empire State’s southern tier overlays the rich Marcellus and Utica Shale formations, among the most productive drilling regions in the country. Shale fracking has been an economic boon for Appalachia—and could have lifted upstate New York. Since 2010 natural gas production has surged 520% in West Virginia, 920% in Pennsylvania and 1880% in Ohio. (See chart nearby).

Mr. Cuomo’s predecessor David Paterson imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2010. After winning re-election in 2014, Mr. Cuomo started laying the ground for a White House bid and made the ban permanent. Between 2010 and 2015, New York’s natural gas production plunged by half—which has translated into fewer jobs as well as less royalties for landowners and revenue for local governments.

Last year the Governor compounded the economic damage by blocking the 120-mile Constitution pipeline transporting natural gas from Pennsylvania to upstate New York and New England. Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the pipeline in 2014, Mr. Cuomo’s Department of Environmental Conservation conducted a separate review and denied a water-quality permit putatively because the developers hadn’t provided sufficient information.

Constitution’s developers challenged the denial in federal court. While the Clean Water Act lets states perform their own environmental reviews, New York appears to have abused its discretion. Last week the Second Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to state regulators while leaving a door open for the pipeline companies to challenge the timeliness of the state review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

While Constitution isn’t dead, environmentalists say the appellate-court decision will give New York and other states more latitude to block pipelines, which is no idle threat. Two major pipelines in the Northeast under development will need state approvals, and developers pulled two others in the past two years amid regulatory obstacles in New England.

All of this is ominous since the region desperately needs more natural gas to make up for lost power from the impending shutdown of nuclear and coal plants. New England’s Independent System Operator projects that 14% of the region’s electric generation capacity will be retired within three years and says more pipelines are needed for grid stability.

Mr. Cuomo is also forcing the premature retirement of the Indian Point nuclear plant, which provides a quarter of New York City and Westchester County’s electricity. He hasn’t offered a back-up plan, but natural gas will have to play a role. Renewables (excluding hydropower) make up only 5% of New York’s electric generation, and we doubt the local liberal gentry will abide wind farms off Long Island.

Energy costs in the Northeast are already the highest in the nation outside of Alaska and Hawaii in part due to the shortage of natural gas. Northeast residents pay 29% more for natural gas and 44% more for electricity than the U.S. average, according to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Industrial users in the Northeast pay twice as much for natural gas and 62% more for electricity.

Electricity and natural gas constitute many manufacturers’ biggest costs, which in part explains why so many are fleeing the Northeast. Since 2010 manufacturing economic output has increased by 1.5% in the Great Lakes region while shrinking 0.7% in New England and 2.4% in New York.

Inclement weather can cause energy costs to skyrocket. During the 2014 polar vortex, natural gas prices in New York City spiked to $120 per million Btu—about 25 times the Henry Hub spot price at the time. Natural-gas power plants in New York are required to burn oil during supply shortages. Due to pipeline constraints and the Jones Act—which requires that cargo transported between U.S. ports be carried by ships built in the U.S.—Boston imports liquefied natural gas during the winter from Trinidad. This is expensive and emits boatloads of carbon.

Speaking of which, about a quarter of households in New York, 45% in Vermont and 65% in Maine still burn heating oil—which is a third more expensive than natural gas and produces about 30% more carbon emissions per million Btu. Yet many can’t switch due to insufficient natural gas and pipeline infrastructure.

Mr. Cuomo’s natural gas blockade is harming residents and businesses throughout the Northeast while raising carbon emissions that he claims are imperiling the planet. The likely Democratic presidential aspirant may hope to ride this record to the White House, but millions of Americans are already paying a high price for his policies

Bamboozled Billionaires

Many prominent persons have adopted a cause, using their prominence and money to support their chosen cause. For example, Bill Gates created a foundation that works to improve the lives of the world’s poorest persons. Sometimes prominent persons adopt false causes, wasting their time and money in pursuit of a dubious goal. The billionaire trio of Henry Paulson, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer have been bamboozled by global warming profiteers.
The 3 billionaires have commissioned a study to promote the global warming scare. It is very clear that the billionaires have embarked on a fool’s quest. Even if one believes in the dubious computer projections of global warming doom, it is clear that the billionaires’ approach does not make sense. They imply that CO2 reduction policies should be adopted in the U.S. and they give the impression that this will result in prevention of a global warming catastrophe. But the CO2 emissions mainly come from Asia and that is where the rapid growth of emissions is. Emissions in the U.S. have been declining. Reducing emissions from the United States is basically a waste of time because even if U.S. emissions were reduced to zero, according to global warming theory it wouldn’t make much difference in the face of massive and rapidly growing emissions in Asia.
A cynic might suspect that the billionaires are promoting global warming hysteria as part of a plan to make money. In this article I assume their activities are motivated by sincere good intentions, however confused those intentions may be. When confronted by the choice that someone is either confused, or is pretending to be confused as part of a clever scheme, the correct answer is usually the obvious one.

Global warming advocacy has become a multi-billion dollar industry. The money goes to scientific research and to subsidies for green energy. The money is comes from government appropriations as well as government mandates that force consumers to pay inflated prices for green energy. The global warming establishment is one of the basic constituent groups supporting the Democratic Party.

Global warming is a political movement disguised as a scientific movement. The global warming movement provides money to political supporters and burnishes its image with junk science. Critics are treated as political enemies rather than as honest questioners. So, anyone who effectively raises questions about global warming doctrine is denounced as anti-science, ignorant or a tool of the fossil fuel industry. Sincere scientists who point out the flaws in global warming science are ignored or denounced. The science has been thoroughly corrupted by the need to protect the flow of money. Only a naive person would think that the advocates of global warming catastrophe, bathing in a sea of money created by government policies, are objective about their claims. Like any special interest, their reports and studies are as one sided as they can get away with.

The billionaires have produced a 50-page report: Risky Business. The report is incredibly biased. It never mentions the severe problems of global warming theory, for example the problem that global warming of both the ocean and atmosphere stopped more than a decade ago, or the fact that the various climate models used to make forecasts disagree strongly, one with another. The report presents regional climate forecasts stretching 90 years into the future and presents these forecasts as if they are scientifically sound. It is well known that regional forecasts from climate models are very dubious and even true believers in global warming don’t take regional forecasts seriously. Regional forecasts are generated because global warming propagandists are discouraged by the fact that a large segment of the public hasn’t believed global warming propaganda in the past. They think that regional forecasts for the U.S. will make a stronger impression on the skeptical public. In other words science takes a back seat to propaganda.

Henry Paulson was secretary of the treasury under President George W. Bush and before that the head of Goldman-Sachs. As a Republican Paulson is more credible than the other two billionaires. In an opinion piece, published in the New York Times, Paulson repeats crude global warming propaganda and says nothing that would indicate that he has any real understanding of the subject. Paulson repeats the popular claim that global warming is progressing faster than expected. That claim is exactly opposite reality. Atmospheric warming stopped 17 years ago and surface layer ocean warming stopped 10 years ago.

The gurus of global warming try to cover up the failure to warm by concentrating their propaganda on secondary indicators of global warming, like arctic sea ice or mountain glaciers. These secondary indicators are influenced by complicated forces besides warming. If you want to show evidence for global warming in the face of the opposite trend, you can always find something that is changing in the “right” direction. The global warming advocates scream loudly about downward trends in arctic sea ice but keep quiet about a strong upward trend in Antarctic sea ice. The best indicator of global warming is the temperature, of the atmosphere and ocean, and, according to those indicators, global warming is absent.

There was a 30-year warming of the climate, from about 1970 to about 2000. That warming was correlated with a rapid increase in CO2. But, correlation does not prove causation.  From about 1910 to 1940 there was a nearly identical warming of the climate that cannot be blamed on CO2, because CO2 was not a significant factor in that less industrially developed era.

Science has never established the cause of that 1910 to 1940 warming. If the early century warming happened without CO2, how do we know that the late century warming was caused by CO2? Various attempts have been made to explain the early century warming, for example by a change in the sun’s output, but the embarrassing truth is that the early century warming remains unexplained. As long as the cause of the early century warming is unexplained it is not reasonable to try to blame the late century warming exclusively or mostly on CO2.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is the former mayor of New York. He gave the Sierra Club $50 million to help their campaign to destroy the coal industry on the grounds that burning coal contributes to global warming. In the junk science hands of the Sierra Club, burning coal is represented as an activity that lowers your kids’ I.Q. and gives them cancer.

The third billionaire, Tom Steyer, has been called Harry Reid’s lapdog. He is a big contributor to Democrat politicians. He plans to spend $50 million to promote climate change in upcoming elections. Steyer, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, went to the best schools and is obviously well connected in financial circles. He lives in an exclusive district of San Francisco and has an 1800-acre ranch on the California coast where he practices fashionable ranching. None of his writings or YouTube interviews suggest that he has even a superficial understanding of the science behind the global warming scare.

My opinion is that we would all be better off if these billionaires were doing what they are really good at – making money – rather then trying to scare us with extreme speculation presented as if it is a sober assessment.

It is difficult to explain just how corrupt and deceptive the billionaire’s Risky Business report is. Start with the cover of the report. The picture of a roller coaster flooded by hurricane Sandy is used to give the impression that the hurricane was a consequence of global warming or that global warming will create more and worse hurricanes in the future. However there is no scientific basis for the idea that hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming. A worse hurricane took place in the same area in 1938 when global warming was not in the picture. The idea that global warming will result in worse hurricane damage is wildly speculative. In the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) it was reported that according to climate models global warming would result in less hurricane activity.

The Risky Business report repeatedly invokes a rise in sea level of 2-4 feet by the end of the century. This is implausible in the extreme. The current trend in sea level is a rise at the rate of about 7 inches per century. A dramatic increase can only come from significant melting of the Greenland ice cap. Significant warming of Greenland during the next 90 years is speculative as is warming of the globe in general. The climate of Greenland is volatile and significant warming occurred in the 1920’s without the influence of human caused greenhouse gases. Further it is not even clear if warming will result in a reduction of the ice cap, because warming is likely to increase snowfall that expands the ice cap.

The Risky Business report makes the elementary and no doubt conscious error of suggesting that the current value of seaside property is at risk by a rise in sea level to be completed 90 years in the future. They don’t bother to discount the future value of the supposed flooded property. If it became apparent that property would have to be abandoned due to a slow rise in sea level, the owners would write off the property rather than refreshing it and the loss would be far less than its current value. Put another way, it is not difficult economically to adapt to a loss of land that takes place slowly over a long period of time, and 90 years is a very long time for real estate.

Norman Rogers is a retired entrepreneur who writes about global warming and renewable energy. He is a volunteer Senior Policy Advisor with the Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank. He maintains a website.

Proposal for a Most Inconvenient Movie on Climate

fd1432dc-3e3d-4953-91fa-970810b44272
Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif., left, and former Vice President Al Gore arrive at the Premiere (in California) of “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” at the Arclight Hollywood on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, in Los Angeles. (Willy Sanjuan/AP)
——————

The scene opens in 1988 on a steamy day in Washington D.C. at hearings hosted by former senator-turned-eco-evangelist Al Gore. The day was selected and carefully staged on the basis of hottest summer records in the city.

As Gore’s Senate colleague character Timothy Wirth later tells a PBS interviewer, “We called the weather bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. . . . so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it  . . . we went in the night before and opened all the windows so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”

There could be no doubt that the recent summer heat was exceptional. Only about a decade earlier, three decades of cooling had led leading scientists and news agencies to trumpet an opposite concern. (Movie screen pans to the 1975 March cover of Science News depicted Manhattan being swallowed by an approaching glacier with a bold headline announcing “The Ice Age Cometh.”)

The hearing’s foregone conclusion regarding the cause for this sudden and dramatic climate change reversal launches its star witness to instant fame. James Hansen, who then heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testifies, “Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe a high degree of confidence of cause and effect relationship between the [human] greenhouse effect and the observed warming.”

(Screen pans again to a June 30, 1989 Associated Press article headlined: “U.N. Official Predicts Disaster: Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.”)

But now, only about a decade later, the world and its polar bears face a new, even greater, crisis . . . a looming overheated Armageddon which the U.N. wastes no time blaming upon capitalistic excesses.

Their solution is to institute an international carbon “cap-and-trade” agreement — a Kyoto Protocol — which penalizes developed countries by forcing them to purchase CO2 emission credits from less developed countries. China and India, which emit huge and growing amounts of CO2, are given get-out-of-jail-free passes due to their developing country status.

Kyoto timing provides a dream opportunity for one particularly influential company.

During the early 1990s, Enron is diversifying its energy business to emphasize natural gas, a fuel that is facing difficult market competition with coal, a larger CO2 emitter. The company, already heavily leveraged, owns the largest natural gas pipeline that exists outside Russia . . . a colossal interstate network.

U.S. participation in Kyoto will create carbon-capping advantages which will dramatically tip the energy market playing field in Enron’s favor.

Pursuing enthusiastic help in Washington, Enron’s boss Ken Lay begins collaborating with now-Vice President Gore and his former Senate operative Timothy Wirth who is now undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Clinton-Gore administration. Together, they prepare a White House strategy to lobby Congress for Kyoto ratification.

Enron’s Kyoto lobbying efforts don’t end there. Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation finances an aggressive and successful global warming fear campaign which includes hostile attacks on scientific dissenters.

As an internal Enron memorandum states, Kyoto will “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside the restructuring [of] the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”

Flashing forward, after leaving the White House, now green hedge fund entrepreneur Gore and his partner David Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, take big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange. CCX is poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 trading offsets if the U.S. adopts cap-and-trade legislation.

Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, lobbiest Gore tells members, “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it . . . There will be unchained investment.”

As a surprise ending to my movie finally reveals, this turns out to be the same snake oil tycoon who rakes in hundreds of $millions cashing in on man-made climate fright . . . the same greenhouse gasser who sells his Current TV cable network to Al Jazeera owned by the emir of oil-rich Qatar . . . the same hypocrite whose Nashville home annually consumes more than 20 times more electricity than the average American Household . . . and even the same sanctimonious jerk who has just released a “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” thriller to his earlier conveniently alarmist film.

Al’s buddy Timothy Wirth then goes on to serve as U.N. Foundation president, and later on its board. James Hansen finally retires from NASA after being arrested four times for noncompliance with police orders during green activist demonstrations. Ken Lay dies in his Aspen vacation home while facing prison following Enron’s titanic bankruptcy.

And meanwhile, satellites show no statistical global warming over nearly the past two decades.

Yeah, you’re probably right. Few would likely take such a fantastically implausible script seriously.

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom” (2015) and “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax” (2012).

Series and Research Reports Challenge ‘Consensus Science’

 

By Joseph D’Aleo

Peter Lanzillo, host of Pete’s Corner on Hudson NH cable offered me and a team of scientists an opportunity to present an alternative view on the so called ‘consensus science’ that has driven policies that have devastated Europe’s economies and started our region and country on the same path.

biography-michaelcrichton

Michael Crichton (pictured), Biology degree then MD from Harvard, taught at MIT, Cambridge (UK), did research at the Salk Institute before becoming a writer, playwright, lecturer wrote about consensus:

“Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled.”

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc)”

Science has been politicized. The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The global warming hoax may be the biggest example of the politicization of science in the history of man. It continues in the universities, the media and the next few weeks unfortunately in the theatres.

What you may never have heard it, the UK courts required all schools that showed the first Al Gore movie, had to distribute a list of the 9 most major egregious errors. A judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change. It is, he ruled, a “political film”. In the next story and cable show we will outline all the exaggerations and falsehoods in the sequel. Gore predicted in the 2007 movie, that we had 10 years to save the planet, that sea levels would rise and flood places like New York City. Sea levels have risen less than 1 inch at the Battery since 2007.

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 10.19.23 AM.png

But Al uses Sandy’s storm surge in the sequel to say he was right. Much stronger hurricanes in the past have come ashore in NYC – like the category 3 storm in 1821 with similar storm surges, but back then there were no subways or tunnels to flood and the city had a population of just 155,000 compared to over 8.2 million today.

Also, the number of polar bears, a movie icon, have increased to record highest population levels.

THE WINDS OF CHANGE

Peter, I and the very capable production team at Hudson Cable have produced so far 7 shows. They can be viewed here 

Part 1: CO2 the ‘Demon Gas’ showed how the demonized CO2 is a trace gas, just 0.04% of our atmosphere. We showed evidence how it has little effect on temperatures but instead is a highly beneficial gas. It is a plant fertilizer that has greatly greened the planet and increase crop yields 3 to 5 fold. CO2 combines with water, nutrients and sunlight to grow plants through photosynthesis. We pump CO2 into greenhouses. As for it being a harmful pollutant, every breath you take emits 100 times more CO2 than the air you took in.

Part II: Taking the Earths Temperatures showed the many issues in attempting to assess what is happening globally. 75% of the global stations were dropped after 1990, up to 90% of the remaining stations have missing months each year, a large percentage of the stations are now not properly sited. Oceans cover 71% of the globe and full accurate global coverage was not achieved until 2004. Dodgy models are used to adjust temperatures. Yet we claim we can assess global temperatures to hundredths of degrees.

Part III: In Weather Extremes, we (guest Michael Sununu and I) showed though after Hurricane Katrina in 2004, scientists (and Al Gore) predicted devastating storms would be a yearly certainty. Yet since 2005, we have this week surpassed a record 4300 days without a major hurricane making landfall in the U.S..

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 10.17.38 AM.png

The annual number of strong tornadoes are decreasing. There is no change in flood or drought frequency. Sea level rise globally has slowed to a 4 inch/century rate while models and the movie suggested changes in meters. Polar ice is just going through normal cyclical changes.

Part IV: In the Natural and Man-made Causes of Climate Change, we show how El Nino and La Nina cause warming and cooling and how decadal ocean basin cycles lead to a tendency for one or the other to dominate and lead to decadal temperature trends. We looked at the sun, which the climate models ignore and show how solar cycles and the different solar outputs affect the climate and likely drive land and ocean temperature cycles. Volcanoes have a very strong affect but it tends to be shorter term. Man’s primary influence is through land use changes most specifically urbanization.

Part V: We looked at the energy story. Return guest Michael Sununu and I joined Peter to discuss the energy story. We showed how we here in New Hampshire and the northeast pay, along with California, the highest electricity prices in the nation because of bad policies and how the Paris Accord would devastate our nation’s economy and hurt the poor and middle class and those on fixed incomes the most.

Part VI: We had a NASA Expert on sea level, Tom Wysmuller who confirmed the slowing of sea level rise and the beneficial nature of CO2 and Part VII a college professor Dr. Larry Gould who talked about how the schools and the media are indoctrinating our young and the public to support harmful and unnecessary policies.

Since April, I worked with a team of expert co-authors and highly competent reviewers to produce two research reports here and here.  Like the shows, the papers were done pro bono.

Although, alarmists could not attack the solid science or our rigorous statistical analyses, they argued for all to dismiss the works because they did not pass through their controlled peer review process. But our review was more rigorous and our reviewers even shared their names as well as their endorsement.

See how we followed the scientific method properly unlike most well paid researchers in science and medicine and how their peer review is failing with serious consequences here.

 

 

Rush Limbaugh is right about Climate Change

No doubt you’ve heard Rush Limbaugh’s occasional rants about the issue of man-made climate change. It’s a hoax, he says, complaining that the science isn’t based on actual data but on computer models. Well, I’d like to address that point.

No doubt you’ve heard Rush Limbaugh’s occasional rants about the issue of man-made climate change. It’s a hoax, he says, complaining that the science isn’t based on actual data but on computer models. Well, I’d like to address that point. In my view, climate scientists can’t help but employ computer models because the phenomenon they’re attempting to simulate doesn’t exist in reality. In other words, these models are the scientific equivalent of digitally generated Unicorns.

Given the dire warnings we hear about overheating the Earth with greenhouse gases, we ought to step back a moment and ask, what is heat? Is it some kind of entity, like a pile of leaves on the lawn? No, heat is more like a verb than a noun; it is an action that occurs due to a temperature difference. Heat is that which heats, i.e., raises a material body’s temperature. Broadly speaking, this action is accomplished by vibration. In conductive heat transfer, quickly vibrating molecules excite slower neighbors, thus raising their temperature. By the same token, as molecules vibrate faster they emit more light and at higher frequencies, and this too – radiative heat transfer – is a means of heating something that’s radiating less vigorously.

It shouldn’t need saying that heat always transfers from more to less. That is, a conductive donor cannot make the recipient’s temperature higher than its own, nor can a radiative donor make the recipient radiate more than the donor is supplying. Otherwise, this would constitute the creation of thermal energy ex nihilo, violating the law of energy conservation. This law basically states that you can never squeeze more energy out of less; you can only break even.

Being imaginary, however, a Unicorn is exempt from the conservation law, as shown by The National Center for Atmospheric Research diagram below.

Global energy flows

Here, please note, the Earth’s surface and atmosphere together are seen to gain a total of 239 watts per square meter from the Sun (the rest is reflected) and ultimately to release that 239 to outer space. Yet here the Earth’s surface is also seen to discharge 396 watts per square meter due to a shroud of “Greenhouse Gases” constantly blasting a radiant power of 333 downward. (NASA’s version of events is much the same.)

But how can you gain 239 and lose 239 and still have 333 left over? Ask a Unicorn.

Bear in mind that the term “watts per square meter” denotes a rate of energy outlay, one Watt being equal to 1 Joule per second, which is not a pile of leaves. In this sense, wattage is akin to rates like miles per hour or gallons per minute. So if you still can’t see the Unicorn hiding in the NCAR diagram, perhaps this visual aid will help.

Energy Budget Pipeline

The National Center’s energy model depicts a similarly unfeasible rate of flow. As much radiant energy (light) continuously exits to space as continuously enters… while some kind of insulating/radiating gas layer is continuously cranking out 139% more radiant energy, the conservation law be damned.

What you might call a Proof Of Absurdity lies in the simple fact that no one has been able to put this reputed radiative mechanism to use. For consider, if less than 1% of our leaky atmosphere’s gases can generate 139% more radiant energy than the Sun provides, a far greater surplus could be generated simply by replacing an open volume of gas with sealed panels and thick insulation. Why, the resultant oven could theoretically roast a turkey with a double-A battery!

But such a radiative enhancement mechanism has not and never can be replicated. It’s physically impossible.

This is not to say, however, that scientists haven’t tried to prove that so-called “greenhouse gases” reduce radiant heat loss by — umm, radiating. On the premise that CO2 and other gases have a way of trapping heat, a team from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory exhaustively tested the insulative impact of several infrared-absorbing gases as fillers for double-pane windows. Please read the report yourself, but I will cut to the chase: They found that infrared emission from these gases “adversely affects the window performance” and, in particular, that “the infrared radiation properties of CO2 is unnoticeable.” My emphasis.

Bottom line, although misnamed “greenhouse gases” absorb and emit thermal radiation, they cannot make the Earth’s surface radiate more energy than the Sun supplies. That the Earth’s surface temperature is higher than assumptions have led certain people to predict is attributable to their faulty assumptions, not to a few trace gases.

Rush Limbaugh is right. His instincts are sound. There’s many a fanciful Unicorn lurking inside this “settled science,” which is why its forecasts keep failing.

Alan Siddons


Biography – Alan Siddons

A former radiochemist for Yankee Atomic Electric Company and similar sites in the United States, Siddons found himself out of work at one point and in 2007 decided to learn a bit about the Greenhouse Effect so that he could speak somewhat knowledgeably if ever the subject came up in conversation. Little did he know at the time what a nightmare journey he was embarking on.