Actually understand climate change

By Joseph Bast
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 | 2 a.m.

The column by Frances Beinecke (“Despite misinformation effort, U.S. is targeting climate change,” July 11) recites all the tired myths and cliches of the global warming movement but offers not one iota of evidence. One would have hoped the leader of an organization with an annual budget of more than $100 million would be better informed about an issue as important as climate change.

Then again, most of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s budget relies on exaggerating and misrepresenting the truth about climate change.

Most of Beinecke’s claims are not only wrong, but obviously false, starting with the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists believe “our climate is changing in dangerous ways, and pollution from human activity is causing it.” No survey of climate scientists has ever found that. Reliable surveys show some two-thirds of climate scientists do not believe we have sufficient data to understand or forecast future climate changes. Thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature refute the alarmists’ claim.

Beinecke claims “extreme weather cost our country more than $140 billion,” but she doesn’t tell us how much of that was due to man-made global warming. In fact, she cannot. There is compelling evidence that weather has become less extreme in recent decades even as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen. There’s been no increase in global temperatures for 17 years. How can recent weather events be attributed to something that isn’t happening?

Beinecke cites a survey that found “70 percent of Americans accept climate change as real, and perhaps more importantly, want their leaders to combat it.” But another survey found only 20 percent believe the scientific debate is over, and likely voters rank global warming dead last in surveys that ask them to rank the important issues facing the nation.

More importantly, virtually no one is willing to pay the $3,900 a year the Heritage Foundation estimates a carbon tax would cost the average household. That tax would barely amount to a down payment on the cost of reducing emissions enough to affect the climate. When it comes to actually doing something to combat global warming, the American people are solidly on the side of the skeptics.

President Barack Obama, according to Beinecke, is courageously calling for action to “reduce carbon pollution from power plants.” But even the president’s own scientists admit his proposed regulations would reduce global temperatures in 2100 by a mere two one-hundredths of a degree. According to Ben Zycher, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, “a 40 percent U.S. emissions reduction — more than double the Obama goal — would reduce temperatures by six one-hundredths of a degree.” Is that what the American people want? Why do Obama and the NRDC want this?

Beinecke claims power plants in the U.S. are allowed to emit carbon dioxide because of a “loophole” in the nation’s clean air laws. This is also false. The legislative record clearly shows Congress never intended the laws to include carbon dioxide, and every administration before the current one acknowledged that fact.

Beinecke says the Obama administration’s proposed regulations on power plants could stimulate new investment and lower electricity bills. This is pure fiction. The best estimate of the net cost is more than $50 billion a year and the loss of nearly a quarter-million jobs. Even Obama admitted, when campaigning for office, that under his plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Was he telling the truth then? Why is he telling us something different now?

Beinecke claims the number of global warming skeptics is “dwindling rapidly.” No doubt she wishes that were the case, if only to keep the NRDC’s direct mail machine humming and generating the millions of dollars that support her and her staff.

In fact, the American people have figured out that global warming is not a crisis. They are increasingly calling for the repeal of the taxes, regulations and subsidies passed at the height of the global warming scare. The same backlash against global warming extremism is occurring in other nations around the world, most recently in Australia, where the Senate voted to repeal a hated carbon tax.

Too bad Beinecke didn’t bother attending the climate change conference she chose to criticize. She would have seen more than 600 scientists, economists, policy experts and concerned citizens coming together to actually understand climate change rather than use it to scare people into making contributions or embracing a radical political agenda.

But it’s not too late for her … or for anyone reading this column. All the presentations were recorded and are available online at climateconference.heartland.org.

Joseph Bast is president of the Heartland Institute.

Public Support is Strong, Bipartisan for Energy Development

As far as American voters are concerned, energy is not a partisan issue. New polling shows strong majorities across the political spectrum support increased domestic oil and natural gas production and agree it is good for the economy and our national security. What’s more, Democrats, Republicans and Independents are all more likely to vote for candidates who support increased production and offshore drilling.

The national telephone poll, conducted for API by Harris Poll among 1,012 registered voters, found that:

77 percent support increased production of America’s oil and natural gas resources, including 92 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Independents and 66 percent of Democrats.

68 percent support offshore drilling for domestic oil and natural gas resources, including 80 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of Independents and 61 percent of Democrats.

68 percent would also be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports offshore drilling and producing more oil and natural gas from here in the U.S., including 80 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of Independents and 59 percent of Democrats.

Only 28 percent think the federal government does enough to encourage the development of oil and natural gas resources in the U.S., including just 12 percent of Republicans, 31 percent of Independents and 40 percent of Democrats.

80 percent agree that producing more domestic oil and natural gas could help strengthen America’s national security by lessening the negative impacts of political instability occurring in other parts of the world.

Unfortunately, federal energy policy is often at odds with the wishes of the American people. While production on private lands is soaring, production on federal lands dropped 28 percent for natural gas and 6 percent for oil between 2009 and 2013, according to the Congressional Research Service. And a full 87 percent of federally controlled offshore acreage remains off-limits to exploration even though development in the Atlantic alone could support 280,000 new American jobs and $51 billion in revenue for the government. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s recent decision to issue permits for modern geological surveys in the south and mid-Atlantic is a positive step, but more action is needed. To create more jobs, grow the economy and increase revenue, the federal government should listen to the American people and say yes to domestic oil and natural gas.

Sincerely,

Jack Gerard
President and CEO
API

2 Charts Show Why Wind Power Won’t Solve the Carbon Problem

When discussing electricity, the words “carbon dioxide” invariably come into play. The utility industry’s use of carbon based fuels is responsible for roughly 40% of the generation of this greenhouse gas domestically. Alternative power options are often held up as the solution to this problem. But wind turbines are a great example of why this isn’t true—and these two graphs show why.

Getting into wind
Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL ) has made a big commitment to wind power. This mid-western utility got just 3% of its power from wind in 2005, which happens to be the backdated starting date for CO2 emission regulations being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). By 2020, however, wind is projected to make up 22% of the company’s generation.

That’s a huge increase, with coal taking most of the hit. However, even after the rapid wind power growth coal will still account for 43% of Xcel Energy’s power pie. Natural gas, which is cleaner than coal but still emits carbon dioxide, and nuclear power will throw in another 30%. And the Texas experience with wind power shows why:

Source: EIA

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), “At 8:48 p.m. on March 26, wind generation on the electric grid covering most of the state of Texas reached a new instantaneous peak output of 10,296 megawatts (MW). At that moment, wind supplied almost 29% of total electricity load.” While that’s impressive, note the use of the word “instantaneous” as you look at the graph above.

The power generated by wind turbines is anything but constant. It juts up and down with often severe moves. For example, before and after hitting that peak, wind turbines in Texas were only producing around 2,000 MW of power. It’s not because someone in Texas turned the turbines off, it’s because the wind stopped blowing. That’s why Xcel Energy isn’t giving up on the base-load trio of coal, gas, and nuclear.

I have the power!
This trio is controlled by the utility and can be run as hard as needed. Nuclear, for example, is usually run between 80% and 100% of capacity. Coal and natural gas tend to run at lower levels, but could easily be pushed higher if needed. The important thing is that how hard these power sources are worked is within the control of the utility.

In fact, the next graphic shows how important the interplay between nature-controlled wind and man-controlled power is. Look at the lines for wind and coal. When wind is up, coal is down. And when wind is down, coal is up. The same dynamic is true for natural gas.

Source: EIA

This isn’t a fluke — it’s because utilities like Excel need to have a reliable power source to offset the peaks and valleys of an inherently unreliable fuel source. It’s the same reason why Southern Company (NYSE: SO ) is building 1.5 gigawatts of nuclear and coal plants right now. It wants to maintain its flexibility.

For example, in 2020, the company expects to have the option to generate as much as 50% of its power from coal or gas, whichever is cheaper. Nuclear, meanwhile, is expected to run at a steady state of around 18%. Renewables? Well, they are just small slice of the pie at 8% of total capacity in 2020.

Note, however, that renewable sources provided 4% of Southern Company’s power last year, despite coming in at 6% of the utility’s total capacity. And the 4% is elevated by the fact that hydro, which tends to run at high capacity rates, is a big part of the mix. Despite investing in solar and wind, Southern Company isn’t willing to give up the control offered by natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants.

Good and bad
Renewable power like wind turbines is a wonderful thing. However, it isn’t an answer to the CO2 problem. The generation profiles of Xcel energy and Southern Company prove this out. Expect the wind to become an increasingly important utility player, but don’t expect it to kill coal, gas, or nuclear anytime soon.

Exposing the dangers of wind turbines to animals and humans

15 July 2014

To the government of Denmark,

Allow me to bring your attention to several press releases by our organisation, the World Council for Nature. Press releases that have been picked up by numerous news media around the world, and which cast an unfavourable light on the Kingdom of Denmark.”

http://wcfn.org/2014/06/07/windfarms-1600-miscarriages/

http://wcfn.org/2014/06/23/another-horror-story-from-denmark/

http://wcfn.org/2014/07/10/denmark-wind-turbines-disrupt-menstruation/

The first release draws attention to the 1,600 stillbirths of mink puppies, many exhibiting deformities, which occurred this year at a long-established mink farm which has wind turbines as new neighbours. The second quotes the mink farmer complaining that, “when the wind blows from the South West (where the wind turbines are), mother minks attack their own puppies.” And the third relates the closing of a plant nursery because its female employees complain of irregularities in their menstrual cycles, including unusual bleeding, since the installation of wind turbines nearby. The Danish media had already reported these tragic news, in the following articles:

Click to access 2014-07-03-danish-article-on-plant-nursery-paper-edition.pdf

http://www.tv2east.dk/artikler/kaempevindmoeller-lukker-planteskole

http://jyllands-posten.dk/opinion/breve/ECE6846968/mink-som-forsoegsdyr/

http://www.maskinbladet.dk/artikel/tidligere-miljominister-vil-aendre-vindmollebekendtgorelse

http://www.tvmidtvest.dk/indhold/mink-amok-over-vindmoellestoej

http://aoh.dk/artikel/vindmller-giver-vanskabte-hvalpe

As far as we were able to find out, the response of your government to these health warnings has been to ignore them. When they were brought to the attention of your Minister of Health, Nick Hækkerup, by Member of Parliament Karina Adsbøl at a hearing on the health effects of wind turbines, Mr. Hækkerup turned a deaf ear to the matter: VIDEO Karina Adsbøl

Is ignoring the issue part of your policy for handling well-documented harm done by wind turbines, especially by those of the new, bigger variety? (See the work of Professor Henrik Møller, recently fired from Aalborg University at what appears to be the instigation of the wind energy lobby. Profs. Møller and Christian Pedersen demonstrated conclusively, in a peer-reviewed article a year or so ago, “the bigger they are, the more infrasound they produce.” Inconvenient truths on wind turbines are unwelcomed in your country, it would appear.)

One can’t ignore the facts that infrasound travels as far as 40 km, and that peer-reviewed studies have shown that chronic exposure at shorter distances can cause Vibro-Acoustic Disease. (VAD encompasses a long list of ailments, ranging from tinnitus to cardiac dysfunctions, cancer, and birth defects.) In their research on low frequency noise (including infrasound), Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira and her colleague Dr. Castelo-Branco found that young horses can develop limb deformities when raised in the vicinity of wind turbines (1). Their study also found that the members of the family breeding these horses suffered themselves from VAD.

But the above are just small samples. Globally, cases abound of farm animals gravely affected by wind turbines (1). As for people, thousands of windfarm neighbours suffer from sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, etc. (Sleep deprivation, alone, triggers a host of ailments, ranging from stress and difficulty working and concentrating, to car accidents and a weakened immune system.)

With respect to deformities and stillbirths, it stands to reason that humans can be affected just as are minks and cattle, especially when economic and employment constraints prevent them from moving away from the wind turbines. (The story of the women employed by the garden center, mentioned above, is eloquent and tragic in this regard) (3).

The evidence of adverse health effects from wind turbines has been mounting for years. Let’s note the independent research of Nina Pierpont, M.D. (Johns Hopkins), Ph.D. (Princeton University), who described in detail the symptoms she uncovered through interviewing windfarm victims. (Dr. Pierpont published her 300-page report as, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment,” 2009) (4).

We must add to this the widely available, published work of Dr. Alec Salt and colleagues at the Cochlear Fluids Research Lab, Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis, Missouri). Professor Salt has demonstrated that infrasound produced by wind turbines can indeed dys-regulate inner ear function, triggering the cascade of symptoms documented by Dr. Pierpont. Infrasound can readily do this, despite the fact it cannot be heard audibly. For decades the wind industry has clung to the fallacy that, “If you can’t hear it, it can’t hurt you.” Salt, a professor of Otolaryngology, has demolished that myth.

There is also the widely reported clinical experience of Dr. Steven Rauch, physician, Medical Director of Harvard Medical School’s renowned Clinical Balance and Vestibular Center. Dr. Rauch was recently interviewed by The New Republic:
“Dr. Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS [Wind Turbine Syndrome] is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTS suffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test for either condition but “Nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim” – see: “Big Wind Is Better Than Big Oil, But Just as Bad at P.R.,” by Alex Halperin in The New Republic, June 16, 2014

The list of studies and other research on the health effects of wind turbines is too long for including in this letter. Instead, we direct you to the list published by Dr Sarah Laurie, Australian physician and CEO of the Waubra Foundation:
LIST of Dr. LAURIE

We applaud the fact that, under prodding from windfarm victims, your government has begun investigating the health effects of wind turbines. Unfortunately (or is this intentional?), the scope and methodology of the investigation appear to overlook the following, commonsensical, measures:

First, there must be a rigorous epidemiological study, if necessary using case-crossover data, as Dr. Pierpont, a population biologist besides being a physician, demonstrated.

Secondly, wind turbine ILFN (infrasound and low-frequency noise), must be measured down to 0.1 Hz within the homes of windfarm victims complaining of illness. That is, noise measurements should be taken within their homes at night, windows closed, when the wind is blowing from the direction they perceive as problematic.

Thirdly, there must be a moratorium on the installation of new wind turbines until these studies are completed, published, and commented upon by the scientific and clinical community.

The World Council for Nature’s primary goal is the conservation of biodiversity. We believe a mentally healthy human population and governments acting responsibly, according to transparent and honest science, are the necessary means for achieving this.

We look forward to your response to our concerns.

Sincerely,

Mark Duchamp, Chairman

References

(1) http://wcfn.org/2014/03/31/windfarms-vertebrates-and-reproduction/

(2) http://wcfn.org/2014/06/07/windfarms-1600-miscarriages/

(3) http://wcfn.org/2014/07/10/denmark-wind-turbines-disrupt-menstruation/

(4) http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/what-is-wind-turbine-syndrome/

ALSO
New post from Denmark: http://wcfn.org/2014/07/10/denmark-wind-turbines-disrupt-menstruation/ says in part:

The Danish press reports the case of a garden centre (nursery) going out of business because of nearby wind turbines. Headaches are frequent among employees, and female workers complain of unusual bleeding and problems with their menstrual cycles. They are worried that more serious illnesses may follow. Five have recently resigned. The owner is now closing his business for fear of being held liable should a child be born with deformities, as happened to numerous mink puppies at a fur farm near wind turbines in Jutland (1).

Boye Jensen, the owner of Lammefjordens Perennials, is 67. He started his nursery 43 years ago, and it became a prosperous business with 15 employees and annual sales of 12 million krones (equiv. $ 2.1 million). He was planning to continue working for another 6-7 years, then sell the nursery. But his business is now worth nothing, creating an enormous financial loss.

He is discussing with his lawyer whether to sue Vattenfal, the company that owns the wind turbines, or the Municipality of Holbaek, which approved their installation 400-700 metres from his nursery. He expects to go to court and seek damages worth several million krones.

“Green” Energy Industry Suspected Of Red Kite Cleansing To Clear The Way For Windpark Permitting

By P Gosselin on 7. Juli 2014

The dispute over windpark development on some of Germany’s most idyllic landscapes is heating up rapidly and massively. And should the dispute continue on its current trajectory, it won’t be long before the ugly contraptions get stopped for good.

The dispute reached a boiling point recently with windpark opponents suspecting green energy activists of poisoning birdlife in order clear the way for an unobstructed windpark permitting.

According to south Germany’s online Stuttgarter Nachrichten, a number protected red kites have been found poisoned by the E 605 herbicide – in rural areas that just happen to be sited for the installation of large-scale industrial windparks.

Under Germany’s wildlife protection laws, wherever the predatory red kites are found to be nesting, green energy developers are promptly denied permits to install their turbines. But if red kites are nowhere to be seen, then wind-park developers stand a far better chance of getting the go-ahead. Angry windpark opponents are now pointing the finger at the windpark proponents for the poisoning. The Stuttgarter Nachrichten writes, however, that there’s no proof.

The Stuttgarter Nachrichten writes that a number of poisoned red kites were found at several locations in southwest Germany.

‘Systematically’ rare predatory birds are being killed wherever they find themselves in the way of large windparks, some wind-power critics are now surmising. That in the recent days in Pfalzgrafenweiler in the district of Freudenstadt also a dead peregrine falcon has been found, which according to police died from chloralose, just makes the situation more explosive.”

But windpark proponents are calling the accusations unfounded, and claim that poisoning the birds would even have the opposite effect: The bird would be put higher up on the endangered list, and thus make permitting of wind turbines even more unlikely. Other “green” activists call the accusations “speculation”.

The Stuttgarter Nachrichten ends its article writing that one fact is certainly beyond speculation: “The gloves have come off when it comes to the dispute over the transition to green energies.”

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/07/green-industry-suspected-of-red-kite-cleansing-to-clear-the-way-for-windpark-permitting/#sthash.jGY86bB3.dpuf

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Data Set Changes Makes It Hard To Tell Real Story

Forbes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA
Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA

First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform and alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word monotonic means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.