II The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown. The Numbers don’t add up!
Redacted from an article By JUDITH CURRY, Wall Street Journal Oct 10, 2014
I Stop taking environmentalist hypocrites seriously.
By DREW JOHNSON – The Washington Times – October 6, 2014
Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire-turned-environmentalist, just launched a multimillion-dollar attack-ad blitz that takes political dishonesty to a whole new level. In his latest spot, Mr. Steyer accuses Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst of pushing American jobs overseas. In reality, all Mrs. Ernst did was bravely pledge to oppose tax hikes. Watchdog group Politifact judged the ad to be, in a word, “False.”
The ad campaign isn’t just deceptive; it’s hypocritical. As a self-described “professional pain in the [butt],” Mr. Steyer brags he’ll spend $100 million this election cycle to defeat candidates such as Mrs. Ernst who don’t buy in to his particularly sleazy brand of climate-change hysteria. A lot of the money Mr. Steyer now uses to advance his fringe environmental agenda was made off his investments in oil and natural gas.
While managing his hedge fund, Farallon Capital, Mr. Steyer made a killing off the same fossil-fuel industry he is now smearing as greedy and sinister. Mr. Steyer isn’t the first green crusader to secretly owe his wealth or his way of life to fossil fuels. Given the stakes of our nation’s energy debate, Americans should stop taking these environmentalist hypocrites seriously.
Any list of “do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do” environmentalists needs to put former Vice President Al Gore at the top. With his global-warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the former veep established himself an expert on carbon dioxide footprints — and his is massive.
In 2007, using public records, I determined that Mr. Gore’s Nashville mansion devoured more than 220,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year — more than 20 times the national average. In some months, his electric bills topped $2,400. During the same year he was touting “An Inconvenient Truth,” a film demanding that Americans reduce their energy consumption, Mr. Gore’s combined electricity and natural-gas bills totaled just under $30,000.
Public pressure eventually forced Mr. Gore to give his Tennessee home a green-friendly overhaul. Since slapping solar panels on his roof, though, Mr. Gore purchased additional properties, and he continues to fly in private jets, even though the resulting carbon dioxide footprint can be more than 100 times greater than flying commercial.
Another elder statesman of enviro-hypocrisy is Robert Redford. The actor urged Americans to embrace “green buildings that use less energy,” but when an environmentally friendly housing development was planned too close to his Napa Valley winery, the actor quashed the project.
Mr. Redford also demands America “kick the oil habit,” despite having served as a paid spokesman for the world’s second-largest airline — no conflict there.
George Soros is a megadonor for environmental groups like the Alliance for Climate Protection and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Both groups are staunchly opposed to fracking, a technology that uses pressurized water and sand to capture oil and natural-gas deposits trapped deep underground. His support for abolishing the drilling technique didn’t stop him from recently buying a $234 million stake in Consol Energy, an avid practitioner of fracking.
Then there’s Bill McKibben. As the head of 350.org, he is a leading advocate for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and killing the Keystone XL pipeline. He’s gone so far as to demonize imported foods, including oranges, because of the fuel consumed to transport them. That hasn’t stopped Mr. McKibben from jetting around the globe to spread his anti-fossil fuel-message. It’s still unclear how this busy jet-fuel-guzzling travel schedule squares with his hard-line views on citrus.
Despite the silliness spewing from the mouths of environmentalist hypocrites, the economic and security benefits of domestic oil and gas production are hard to deny. Thanks to advances in fracking technology, natural gas now sells for one-third of what it did in 2008. As a consequence, Americans are saving hundreds of dollars on their heating and electric bills annually — and that has to be good news for Mr. Gore.
Fracking is also propelling domestic oil production to its highest levels ever. In fact, the International Energy Agency recently announced that the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer. With the unrest in the Middle East and Ukraine, our energy boom couldn’t have come at a better time.
Despite so much good news, naysayers like Tom Steyer, Al Gore, Robert Redford and George Soros are doing their best to condemn the fossil-fuel industry. Until they start taking their own advice, however, there’s no reason for anyone else to.
Drew Johnson is an editorial writer for The Washington Times.
II The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown. The Numbers don’t add up!
Redacted from an article By JUDITH CURRY
Ms. Curry, a professor and former chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network.
The Wall Street Journal
October 10, 2014
At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that, “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.” Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.
In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.
Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the UN considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.
The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.
More than a dozen other observation-based studies have found climate sensitivity values lower than those determined using global climate models, including recent papers published in Environmentrics (2012),Nature Geoscience (2013) and Earth Systems Dynamics (2014). These new climate sensitivity estimates add to the growing evidence that climate models are running “too hot.” Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased.
The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is a central question in the debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.
Continuing to rely on climate-model warming projections based on high, model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. This can bias policy decisions. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper, as well as similar other recent studies, is that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario.
This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.