Category Archives: Environementalism

EPA Out of Touch With CO2

Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Dismantling the EPA’s extremist views regarding CO2.

By Joe Bastardi · Jul. 16, 2013

The systematic assault on economical energy sources and the economy by the EPA was given de facto approval, if not encouragement by President Obama in his speech two weeks ago on the environment. As his words sunk in it became apparent that he seeks to isolate and demonize those who wish to confront him on this matter with facts, and by doing so, destroy opposition to a policy that his EPA has enacted based on easily disproven assumptions. Give the fact that poverty rates continue to rise in our nation under his watch and that the true workforce continues to drop, he seems dangerously out of touch with the facts. Yet he accuses others of such behavior either out of ignorance, arrogance, or both. His EPA has been ruling by decree based on ideas that ignore facts and disregard the harm they are doing to the nation.

There are three lines of evidence the EPA uses to back their environmental policies.

  1. Greenhouse Gas Trapping Hot Spot Theory.
  2. The so-called unusual rise in GAST (Globally Averaged Surface Temperatures).
  3. Assumed validity of climate models, used for policy analysis purposes. (See, for example, SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. Nos. 12-1268, 12-1269, 12-1272.)

One at a time, let’s show why they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Greenhouse Gas Trapping Hot Spot

There is none. In fact, temperature trends in the middle and upper troposphere are flat. For example, a look at the 200 mb level from the Hadley Center Balloon Data shows no rise at all.

The entire layer – the surface to 18km – shows no rise.

The figure bellow shows the Tropical Central Pacific Temperatures. Similarly, it shows no statistically significant slope. There is simply no evidence of EPA’s assumed Tropical Hot Spot.

Unusual rise in GAST

Their second line of evidence of a catastrophic rise in Globally Averaged Surface Temperatures (GAST) in the last 50 years due to CO2 concentrations is easily debunked when one looks at reality.

First of all, there has been a lot of fudging of data since the satellite era started – not with the objective satellite data, but the pre-satellite era where researches have adjusted temperatures down. What is most egregious is the estimation of Arctic temperatures which could not be reliably measured in a widespread fashion without the use of satellites prior to 1978. So right off the bat, there are questions about the “fox guarding the henhouse” with data manipulation. But even taking that into account, the fact is that the link between CO2 and temperatures disappeared once the cyclical warming of the oceans – a natural occurrence – was accounted for in the atmosphere. A temperature leveling and turnaround has begun (the leveling has been occurring over the last 17 years). But let’s look at this so-called “catastrophic” warming. (Amazing how mankind is now living in the most advanced age with more people supported on the planet, in large part due to the freedoms fossil fuels have supported.)

The warming linked to the earth coming out of the cold cycle of the Pacific can clearly be seen below, followed by the leveling off.

The disconnect with CO2 can be seen here:

But is the warming over the entire period as unusual as the EPA claims?

The 1930s still stick out far and away as the decade with the most current high temperature records. The following graph depicts state records by decade.

There is simply no justification for the idea that CO2 is driving a catastrophic warmup. Quite the contrary, man has never been more prosperous on a whole, or produced so much as during the current age we are living in.

Assumed validity of climate models

This is almost laughable. Anyone who works in the field every day – as we do in the private sector – knows how bad models can be. In fact, in spite of the heat wave in the Northeast and Midwest this week, the coming cool – combined with the coolness of the summer overall which was not predicted in many circles before the summer – is saving this country billions of dollars in energy and agriculture costs (a record corn crop is likely). This was not the pre-summer missive from the modeling (my company Weatherbell.com predicted a cooler summer than the previous three, saying that the Midwest could turn into the Garden of Eden agriculture-wise this year rather than a drought driven heat wave as was opined by some). But the point is that the models are a mathematical representation of a chaotic field and I can not even fathom that this could be one of their reasons. It shows the ignorance as to the nature of the climate. It also shows the willingness of those that truly don’t understand weather and climate to place trust in a model. It’s flabbergasting.

One picture destroys the whole premise. Dr. John Christy, who testified before congress on this matter, has put this graph together:

The following graph from Dr. Dr Roy Spencer is even more dramatic. While Dr. Christy shows the average, Dr. Spencer shows how the individual predictions of 19 US models are all well above actual observations. And the EPA is trying to base policy on this?

Why anyone would think they could justify EPA’s regulatory plans or suggest a carbon tax as an alternative given the facts presented above is beyond me.

The facts clearly reveal that the EPA and the president do not have a leg to stand on as their policies assault the very energy lifeline of our economy at this critical time in our nation’s history. The EPA’s decisions are based on erroneous ideas. Quite sinister is the fact that the foundational core values of this country – the encouragement of liberal free thinking, competition and tolerance – are all opposite of what the EPA and this president are doing in regards to climate change. Their policy is to shut down exposure to the facts, destroy the chance to compete in a free and vibrant market, and not tolerate any dissent.

There is more than just a cat fight among scientists involved here, and in fact I would argue that it is a side show to the main agenda despite the fact that each of the EPA’s lines of “evidence” are invalid as shown above. People are already getting hurt. Close to 150 coal plants have been shutdown, throwing people out of work and driving up costs. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It prompted this:

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (WV) said Obama was waging “a war on coal … a war on jobs … a war on America.”

Given the immense problems facing our nation today – which includes the increasingly turbulent Middle East; America could be energy independent and more prosperous by exploiting the resources we have here – why are people pushing these policies? They are either frightfully out of touch with the situation, or worse, they may have an agenda that is weakening the fiber of the nation.

You see the evidence. What is your verdict?

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm

Climate Science Magic

Climate Science Magic: Data “Adjusted” to Make Warming Pause Disappear from Record

Posted on June 6, 2015 by Philip Hodges

Climate science consists in the ability to shamelessly manipulate information in order to substantiate already-decided conclusions.

Now, if you ask scientists over at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) about the dreaded “hiatus” in global warming we’ve experienced over the past 20 years, they’ll say, “What hiatus?” Until very recently, this pause in warming existed and was public knowledge.

It was also a thorn in the flesh of many climate scientists who were baffled as to why this phenomenon was observed. If our global carbon emissions have not decreased – in fact, quite the contrary; they’ve increased – then there should be no pause in warming. There should be a marked increase in warming that correlates with rising carbon emissions.

That’s of course assuming that their presuppositions about what exactly causes the global temperature to rise are correct.

Scientists don’t have to be baffled or bothered by this inconvenient truth anymore. They simply and conveniently “edited” it out of the record. Sounds like racketeeringdoesn’t it? The Daily Caller reported:

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

[…]

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

So now, temperatures in the more distant past are cooler than were previously reported, and temperatures in the more recent past are warmer than were previously reported. That’ll help yield that hockey stick graph they were looking for. And it will also erase any “pause” in global warming.

Science is supposed to be about questioning things. But something these scientists will never do is question their own presuppositions. It seems to be the most obvious thing to do. But instead, they assume their presuppositions are correct and adjust the data to fit their pre-determined conclusion.

 

Ice Caps Not Melting

Matt Vespa

As I’ve written previously, we’ve experienced the calmest Hurricane season in 30 years, the quietest tornado season in 60 years; the creation of 19,000 Manhattan islands worth of sea ice, and (again) the Arctic Ice Cap has grown by 533,000 square miles. In 2007, the BBC warned the cap could vanish by 2013. Oh, and we’re at the most industrialized point in human history–and air quality couldn’t be better, according to the EPA.

Now, the polar ice caps aren’t melting. In fact, they haven’t retreated at all. James Taylor of the Heartland Institute wrote in Forbes that the 1979 baseline on polar ice recorded a figure with that was unusually high, so when some melted we didn’t really need to panic. Well, the green warriors of the world did, but the ice rebounded in 2012. Taylor wrote,“Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.” [emphasis mine]

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

It’s been recently reported that there’s so much sea ice around Antarctica that vessels carrying scientists and supplies are having trouble reaching the research stations there. It appears global warming isn’t melting any polar ice in her ongoing campaign against earth and humanity. Additionally, she decided not to make 2014 the warmest year in history. Global warming, we are still waiting for you to kill us all.

Last week, President Obama said global warming is a threat to national security. So, why did the CIA shut down their climate research project?  As Leah wrote, this is pretty “awkward timing,” and another example that this administration really doesn’t know what’s going on regarding threats to the country.  ISIS is pushing forward, China is upgrading their ballistic missiles, Yemen has fallen, the Iran nuclear deal is fraught with uncertainty.  Is anyone home?

Flashback 1952: Scientists Warned That Polar Ice Caps Were Rapidly Melting Before Blaming ‘Global Warming’

Editor’s note: James Taylor works for the Heartland Institute (still a great organization), not Forbes. The post has been updated to reflect the changes. 

Fracking– No Harm

 

EPA Report on Fracking Crushes Environmentalist Claim

4-year study found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution

6.5.2015

An exhaustive study by the Environmental Protection Agency on fracking’s impact on drinking water has left green alarmists “dismayed.” After conducting an extensive four-year study on the issue, the EPA found no signs of “widespread, systemic” impacts on drinking water.

Politico reports:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-awaited report on fracking dismayed liberal green groups Thursday while pleasing the oil and gas industry — the latest episode in both sides’ fraught relationship with President Barack Obama.

The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. That conclusion dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets.

Thursday’s congressionally mandated EPA report, a compilation of past studies, found isolated incidents in which water pollution was attributable to the use of fracking. But it failed to back up the idea that fracking poses a major threat to water supplies, contradicting years of activists’ warnings dramatized by images of burning tap water in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland.”

Citing anti-drilling activist Rachel Richardson, Jazz Shaw notes that “the people who constantly remind us that the Republicans are the anti-science party were quick to make it clear that they have zero interest in any science which doesn’t agree with their predefined narrative.”

“This study’s main finding flies in the face of fracking’s dangerous reality,” said Richardson, director of Environment America’s Stop Drilling program. “The fact is, dirty drilling has caused documented, widespread water contamination across the country.”

Flashback: Matt Damon’s anti-fracking flopPromised Land, which Phelim McAleer (director of FrackNation) pointed out was based on debunked claims of water contamination in Dimock, Pennyslvannia, and was laterprotested by the very people whose land it was filmed on as being deliberately deceptive:

Scientists Lies About Global Warming

Scientists May Have Lied to Promote EPA’s Global Warming Agenda

Scientists may have lied about the Environmental Protection Agency’s involvement in a recent study put out earlier this year claiming Obama administration regulations on carbon dioxide emissions will save thousands of lives every year.

Emails obtained by the blog JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy show Harvard University and Syracuse University researchers involved in the study consulted with the EPA while conducting their study, contradicting their previous statements the study was done independently of the agency.

“Emails obtained from EPA through the Freedom of Information Act show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two researchers falsely claimed a study supporting EPA’s upcoming global warming rules was conducted ‘independent’ of the agency,” Milloy wrote.

In May, scientists released a study finding the EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” — which aims to reduce CO2 emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 — would prevent 3,500 premature deaths every year because cutting CO2 emissions will also lower traditional air pollutants and allegedly save lives.

The Clean Power Plan is the linchpin of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, so positive study’s like the Harvard-Syracuse one are welcomed by the White House and the EPA. Indeed, the EPA sent out favorable statements on the study’s release.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia told The Washington Post the study showed the Clean Power Plan “is on the right track.” She said the “benefits are in addition to the benefits that will be realized by addressing a changing climate.”

The study claimed to be done independently of EPA influence, and researchers declared there was no conflict of interest in their study. Harvard University and media reports stressed the study as “independent.”

Study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard told U.S. News and World Report the EPA “did not participate in the study or interact with its authors” adding that “[w]ork on the paper began even before the EPA unveiled the Clean Power Plan.”

Lead author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse also said work on their study began before the Clean Power Plan was proposed and told The New York Times it “was a coincidence that one of the researchers’ models so closely resembled the federal proposal.”

Milloy, however, uncovered emails showing the study’s authors were in fact communicating with the EPA during the course of their study, setting up meetings to learn about the Clean Power Plan and meeting with key agency staffers to go over data.

On July 8, 2014 Harvard-Syracuse study author Kathy Lambert sent an email to EPA staffers Bryan Hubbell and Linda Chappell, the agency’s contact person for the Clean Power Plan’s cost-benefit analysis. Also copied on the email were Driscoll and Buonocore.

In the email, Lamberth works with EPA officials to set up a conference call with the research team to “discuss methods for our next set of analyses.” Lamberth also asks the EPA for “IPM results for illustrative cases of [the] proposed carbon standard.”

In a follow-up email, EPA’s Chappell responded, saying she would loop in Amanda Curry-Brown who was responsible for the regulatory impact analysis “for the CPP final rule.”

Another email from Harvard’s Driscoll to EPA staffer Ellen Kurlansky sent on July 15, 2014, talks about how the study had been well-received by other groups (they aren’t specified) and even asks for help fundraising for the International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant.

Milloy also found that authors involved in the Harvard-Syracuse study received or were involved with $45 million in EPA research grants. Driscoll has received or been involved with $3,654,608 in EPA grants and Buonocore has gotten $9,588 in grants. One of the study’s co-authors Joel Schwartz has received or been involved in  in EPA grants.

“Now how could Schwartz’s $31,176,575 or Levy’s $9,514,361 or Driscoll’s $3,654,608 from EPA possibly be considered as a ‘competing financial interest’ in an article they wrote in support of EPA’s flagship regulatory effort?” Milloy asked in a blog post.

Study co-author Jonathan Levy told The Daily Caller News Foundation that the definition of what constitutes a competing financial interest is set by the journal the study gets published in. Levy said “competitive grants awarded by EPA or other federal funders meet none of these criteria and therefore do not qualify as a competing interest.”

Levy, nor any of the study’s other authors, responded to The DCNF’s questions about the emails uncovered by Milloy.

Ocean Acidification Fraud

December 25, 2014

Evidence discovered that ‘ocean acidification’ scare may be as fraudulent as ‘global warming’

A startling discovery by a graduate student has uncovered what looks like a fraud remarkably parallel to the infamous “Hockey stick” graph of Michael Mann that purported to show global temperatures skyrocketing when atmospheric CO2 rose, but only did so because “hide the decline” was the operating principle in selecting data. For those who have not been keeping up with the alarmist follies, alleged ocean acidification has joined and supplemented the rapidly-fading alleged global warming threat as an urgent reason to stop emitting CO2, and hand money and power over to regulators who would control the production of energy, the very basis of modern life.

The theory is that adding atmospheric CO2 leads to the acidification of the world’s oceans, and this profoundly alters the ecosystem, endangering sea life. As Marita Noon of CFACT.org, who first publicized the discovery of the suspected fraud, writes:

 “Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.

The science and engineering website Quest recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil, and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”

Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.

Feely’s four-page report: “Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy,” offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that show a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There’s big money in alarmism:

In 2010, Feely received the $100,000 cash prize from the Heinz Family Foundation awards (established by Teresa Heinz, wife of Secretary of State John Kerry). The Heinz award site touts Feely’s work: “Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean chemistry and its impact on marine ecosystems.”

Here is the chart, via the Quest post, that Feely published that won him the big bucks and appeared to make the case that WE ARE DOOMED! If we don’t cut back on hydrocarbons, even if the global warming has morphed into climate change.

Looks pretty scary, right? Things were going great for the doomster, at least until a graduate student at the University of New Mexico started asking questions about it.  Watts Up with That and James Delingpole of Breitbart both have explained the detective work of one Mike Wallace, a PhD candidate. Delingpole writes:

While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart [the one above]only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.

So Wallace did what any scientist interested in the truth would do:

When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

Note that it is a basic methodology of science that data leading to conclusions should be shared, to allow others to analyze it. The use of threats to the career of a person asking questions is a tell.

Wallace turned to FOIA. From Noon’s piece:

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:

“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.

“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th Century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).

Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

In his last e-mail exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the e-mail string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.

It looks to me as though some posterior-covering was underway:

Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”

“In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”

Here is the chart that Wallace produced, using the data that was omitted from the alarmist graph:

Wallace summarizes what is at stake:

 “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”

This ought to be the subject of congressional hearings next year.

A startling discovery by a graduate student has uncovered what looks like a fraud remarkably parallel to the infamous “Hockey stick” graph of Michael Mann that purported to show global temperatures skyrocketing when atmospheric CO2 rose, but only did so because “hide the decline” was the operating principle in selecting data. For those who have not been keeping up with the alarmist follies, alleged ocean acidification has joined and supplemented the rapidly-fading alleged global warming threat as an urgent reason to stop emitting CO2, and hand money and power over to regulators who would control the production of energy, the very basis of modern life.

The theory is that adding atmospheric CO2 leads to the acidification of the world’s oceans, and this profoundly alters the ecosystem, endangering sea life. As Marita Noon of CFACT.org, who first publicized the discovery of the suspected fraud, writes:

 “Ocean acidification” (OA) is receiving growing attention. While someone who doesn’t follow climate change science might think OA is a stomach condition resulting from eating bad seafood, OA is claimed to be a phenomenon that will destroy ocean life—all due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. It is a foundational theory upon which the global warming/climate change narrative is built.

The science and engineering website Quest recently posted: “Since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s, we have been mining and burning coal, oil, and natural gas for energy and transportation. These processes release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It is well established that the rising level of CO2 in our atmosphere is a major cause of global warming. However, the increase in CO2 is also causing changes to the chemistry of the ocean. The ocean absorbs some of the excess atmospheric CO2, which causes what scientists call ocean acidification. And ocean acidification could have major impacts on marine life.”

Within the Quest text is a link to a chart by Dr. Richard A. Feely, who is a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL)—which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Feely’s climate-crisis views are widely used to support the narrative.

Feely’s four-page report: “Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy,” offered on the NOAA website, contains a similar chart. This chart, titled “Historical & Projected pH & Dissolved Co2,” begins at 1850. Feely testified before Congress in 2010—using the same data that show a decline in seawater pH (making it more acidic) that appears to coincide with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There’s big money in alarmism:

In 2010, Feely received the $100,000 cash prize from the Heinz Family Foundation awards (established by Teresa Heinz, wife of Secretary of State John Kerry). The Heinz award site touts Feely’s work: “Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean chemistry and its impact on marine ecosystems.”

Here is the chart, via the Quest post, that Feely published that won him the big bucks and appeared to make the case that WE ARE DOOMED! If we don’t cut back on hydrocarbons, even if the global warming has morphed into climate change.

Looks pretty scary, right? Things were going great for the doomster, at least until a graduate student at the University of New Mexico started asking questions about it.  Watts Up with That and James Delingpole of Breitbart both have explained the detective work of one Mike Wallace, a PhD candidate. Delingpole writes:

While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.

Mysteriously, the chart [the one above]only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.

So Wallace did what any scientist interested in the truth would do:

When Wallace emailed his query to Feely and Sabine, however, he found them less than helpful.

Sabine replied that it was inappropriate for Wallace to impugn the “motives or quality of our science” and warned that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.” Having provided Wallace with a few links – all of which turned out to be useless – he concluded his email by saying “I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”

Note that it is a basic methodology of science that data leading to conclusions should be shared, to allow others to analyze it. The use of threats to the career of a person asking questions is a tell.

Wallace turned to FOIA. From Noon’s piece:

In an effort to obtain access to the records Feely/Sabine didn’t want to provide, Wallace filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

In a May 25, 2013 email, Wallace offers some statements, which he asks Feely/Sabine to confirm:

“…it is possible that Dr. Sabine WAS partially responsive to my request. That could only be possible however, if only data from 1989 and later was used to develop the 20th century portion of the subject curve.

“…it’s possible that Dr. Feely also WAS partially responsive to my request. Yet again, this could not be possible unless the measurement data used to define 20th Century ocean pH for their curve, came exclusively from 1989 and later (thereby omitting 80 previous years of ocean pH 20th century measurement data, which is the very data I’m hoping to find).

Sabine writes: “Your statements in italics are essentially correct.” He adds: “The rest of the curve you are trying to reproduce is from a modeling study that Dr. Feely has already provided and referenced in the publication.”

In his last e-mail exchange, Wallace offers to close out the FOIA because the e-mail string “clarified that your subject paper (and especially the ‘History’ segment of the associated time series pH curve) did not rely upon either data or other contemporary representations for global ocean pH over the period of time between the first decade of 1900 (when the pH metric was first devised, and ocean pH values likely were first instrumentally measured and recorded) through and up to just before 1988.” Wallace received no reply, but the FOIA was closed in July 2013 with a “no document found” response.

It looks to me as though some posterior-covering was underway:

Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”

“In whose professional world,” Wallace asks, “is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data and also to not disclose the omission to any other soul or Congressional body?”

Here is the chart that Wallace produced, using the data that was omitted from the alarmist graph:

Wallace summarizes what is at stake:

 “Ocean acidification may seem like a minor issue to some, but besides being wrong, it is a crucial leg to the entire narrative of ‘human-influenced climate change.’ By urging our leaders in science and policy to finally disclose and correct these omissions, you will be helping to bring honesty, transparency, and accountability back where it is most sorely needed.”

This ought to be the subject of congressional hearings next year.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/evidence_discovered_that_ocean_acidification_scare_may_be_as_fraudulent_as_global_warming.html#ixzz3NjNmVnlm
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Green Bankrupcies

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies as of 2014:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)