Monday, June 24, 2013

Global Warming: There's Nothing To Fight Against

Global Warming: There's Nothing To Fight Against

Investor's Business Daily, 06/24/13 06:43 PM ET
Hysteria: "The science of climate change is screaming at us for action," Secretary of State John Kerry said over the weekend. Yes, we hear screams, but not from science. They're from the alarmist movement dying.
But it's not going easily. On Tuesday, President Obama will lay out his plan for fighting climate change at a speech at Georgetown University. He's expected to announce a regime for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants.
This from the same politician who in 2008 as presidential candidate promised that his administration would bankrupt anyone who wanted "to build a coal-powered plant."
So no new coal plants plus new regulatory authority that puts the government boot on existing power plants' necks. From where does this president think electricity will come?
Oh, that's right: Both he and Kerry believe green energy will replace the carbon-based fuels we use today.
Indeed one day it might. But our transformation to green energy won't happen in the near future and will not come by force of government.
Trying to speed up a process that can occur only in the free market, Washington has already poured tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into green energy projects only to watch them go under.
The junkyard of failed green energy efforts is stacked high with the carcasses of Solyndra, A123 Systems Inc., Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy, to name some of the many defeats.
Making the losses sting even more is the fact there has been no reason to hurry the development of green energy. The feared warming predicted by models simply hasn't materialized. The flaw is so obvious that even the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is having to acknowledge that maybe there's nothing to this global warming after all.
"If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models," Hans Von Storch, the IPCC report's lead author has admitted to Der Spiegel, the German magazine.
"But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations."
It's time the public did some screaming — to let alarmists know their efforts have been counterproductive.



  1. Given the threat to unleash the EPA on coal-fired electricity generation it needs to be publicized that change to the level of atmospheric CO2 has had no significant effect on average global temperature.

    This is demonstrated at . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a single external forcing, a proxy that is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated temperature anomaly trajectory overlaid on measurements.

    All changes not explicitly considered must find room in the unexplained 10%.

    1. Thanks,

      Similar to my 'very simple climate model'

  2. I would say VERY similar. Our significant difference from the 'consensus' is using the time-integral of sunspot numbers instead of TSI. The only difference between you and me is in how to handle natural ocean oscillations. I favor all, both named and unnamed, but you got a higher correlation by selecting. Both include the PDO which is the big kahuna, so, shrug . . .

    You might find interesting my calculations on the high sensitivity of average global temperature to low-altitude area at

    1. Thanks for that - very interesting

      Ok if I reblog that as a post here?