White House Graphic Distorts Impact of Climate Change

    As Earth Day approaches, the White House is once again pushing action on climate change, presenting a rather stark contrast between action and inaction on carbon emissions. Monday, the following graphic appeared in a White House tweet, presenting almost a night-and-day difference between the status quo and adopting the president's policies:

    The way in which the White House chose to present the alternatives, however, seems to be designed to exaggerate the difference between the two.

     Although both the graphic and tweet display a link to the Climate Change page on the White House website, the map showing worldwide temperature variances does not appear there, although the same graphic has appeared several times in the past on the White House Twitter account. 

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, does present similar maps on its website. The following graphic shows low emissions, medium-high emissions, and high emissions scenarios during three time periods: 2011-2030; 2046-2065; and 2080-2099:

     The White House apparently chose to present only the longest range projection, the one extending to the end of the 21st century. But by using a different color scheme than the EPA and by leaving out any actual reference to the period of time being portrayed, the White House overdramatizes the comparison. Rather than a more gradual transition from greens and yellows to oranges and reds, the White House scale abruptly changes at the seven-degree mark from a dull gold to a rather dark orange that is almost indistinguishable from the next color, a dark red that represents the nine to eleven degree range. The result is striking. Here again is the White House map:

And here is a composite map representing the world split in half like the White House map, except using the EPA maps for low emissions versus high emissions:

     The difference is still apparent, yet far different from the extraordinary contrast implied by the White House graphic. The White House did not respond to a request for the source of the map using for its graphic.
     Of course, those who question the models and projections that the White House, the EPA and others rely on to press their case for draconian reductions in emissions reject the premise that human activity is driving a catastrophic increase in global temperatures. These skeptics are not likely to be swayed by the above maps in any case. But by presenting nearly a century of projections in such a misleading way, the Obama administration appears to be trying to manipulate those sitting on the fence to buy into a doomsday scenario that calls for the president's policies to avoid endangering the entire planet.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

John Kerry: 'By What Right Do People' Dispute Climate Change?

    Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at the Atlantic Council Thursday morning as part of the Road to Paris Climate Series and he compared the certainty of human-caused climate change to the law of gravity and to the temperature at which water freezes. He also questioned the right of anyone to dispute or deny that humans are causing climate change [emphasis added]:

So stop for a minute and just think about the basics. When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that. 

So when science tells us that our climate is changing and humans beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, “Well, I dispute that” or “I deny that elementary truth?” And yet, there are those who do so. Literally a couple of days ago, I read about some state officials who are actually trying to ban the use of the term “climate change” in public documents because they’re not willing to face the facts. 

Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say “climate change.” We have to talk about how we solve climate change. Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. I have been involved in public policy debates now for 40-plus years, whatever, since the 1960s. It is rare, rare, rare – I can tell you after 28 years-plus in the Senate – to get a super majority of studies to agree on anything. But 97 percent, over 20-plus years – that’s a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore.

    Kerry also said that although from "Venezuela to Iraq to Ukraine, there is no shortage of energy challenges in the world today", "at the top of the list of energy challenges is climate change." The United Nations is holding a conference on climate change in Paris later this year.
    When asked if Kerry was suggesting that people do not have the right to dispute or deny that humans "are largely causing" climate change and if perhaps he regretted his choice of words, a State Department official replied, “The Secretary’s comments speak for themselves.”
    Kerry's full remarks are here.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

EPA Chief: In Year 2100, 'Aspen’s Climate Could Be a Lot Like That of Amarillo, TX'

    In a move that might have at least the northeast section of the country shaking its head this week, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy took to the EPA and White House blogs Wednesday to declare that "We Must Act Now to Protect Our Winters." McCarthy was in Aspen, CO, last week, famous ski destination and home to an X-Games venue, and she warned that without action on climate change, "Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, TX, by 2100." Her post reads in part:

2014 was the hottest year on record, and each of the last three decades has been hotter than the last. 

In mountain towns that depend on winter tourism, the realities of climate change really hit home. Shorter, warmer winters mean a shorter season to enjoy the winter sports we love—and a financial hit for local economies that depend on winter sports. 

Even if you hate winter, climate change affects you – because climate risks are economic risks. Skiing, snowboarding and other types of winter recreation add $67 billion to the economy every year, and they support 900,000 jobs.... 

There are a lot of small businesses in Aspen that can’t survive without tourists coming into town, and I sat down for a chat with them in the afternoon. If we fail to act, Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, TX, by 2100. Amarillo is a great town, but it’s a lousy place to ski.

    According to the website usclimatedata.com, temperatures and snowfall in Aspen and Amarillo compare as follows:

AspenAnnual high temperature: 55.8°F
Annual low temperature: 28.3°F
Average temperature: 42.05°F
Av. annual snowfall: 179 inch 

AmarilloAnnual high temperature: 70.9°F
Annual low temperature: 43.7°F
Average temperature: 57.3°F
Av. annual snowfall: 19 inch

    For the climate of Aspen to resemble that of Amarillo, a temperature swing of 15 degrees and a 13-foot drop in annual snowfall would need to take place over the next 85 years.  Even the most catastrophic models of global temperature change in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not predict a temperature increase of 15 degrees. An attempt to contact Administrator McCarthy was not returned.
    McCarthy's entire post can be read here or here.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry: Climate Change 'Enormous Cloud Hanging Over All of Us'

    While the attention of much of the world Sunday was focused on the massive unity rally in France in response to the recent terror attacks in that country, Secretary of State John Kerry was in India for a "global business" summit where he spoke of, among other concerns, the "one enormous cloud hanging over all of us which requires responsibility from leaders. Global climate change[.]" Kerry said that climate change is "violently affecting communities" worldwide, but that the silver lining in his view is that responding to climate change offers an "unprecedented number of plusses, and frankly, almost no downside." His full remarks on the subject came during his speech at the opening ceremony of the summit [emphasis added]:

I am convinced, as we look to the relationship of the future though, just as Ban Ki-moon mentioned a few minutes ago, there is one enormous cloud hanging over all of us which requires responsibility from leaders. Global climate change is already violently affecting communities not just across India but around the world. It is disrupting commerce, development, and economic growth. It’s costing farmers crops. It’s costing insurance companies unbelievable payouts. It’s raising the cost of doing business, and believe me, if it continues down the current trend-line, we will see climate refugees fighting each other for water and seeking food and new opportunity. 

So this is a relationship between India and the United States where we believe very deeply that we could turn sustainable economic growth opportunities into a prosperity we have ever seen before. And it means one very [simple] thing: Unlike many problems in public life where you struggle sometimes between the plusses and minuses of a particular choice you make – and leaders here all know and business leaders all know what I’m talking about – the choices of climate change offer an unprecedented number of plusses, and frankly, almost no downside. If we make the choices that are staring us in the face, the fact is that a solution to climate change is already here. It’s called energy policy. Sustainable energy policy. And in a sustainable energy policy comes a whole set of benefits to our economy, something many countries of the world are screaming for today.

    While the bulk of Kerry's talk centered on economic and business issues, he did pay tribute to the rally in France:

We may all come from different walks of life, but we stand together this morning with the people of France as they march in tribute to the victims of last week’s murderous attack on the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. And we stand together not just in anger and outrage, but in solidarity and commitment to the cause of confronting extremism and in the cause that extremists fear so much and that has always united our countries – freedom. We stand together in freedom and together we make it clear that no act of terror will ever stop the march of freedom. (Applause.)

    Kerry's complete remarks at the opening ceremony can be found here.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry Uses Tsunami Anniversary to Push 'Climate Change' Agenda

    Secretary of State John Kerry used the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami in the Indian Ocean region as a reminder about climate change. The earthquake released huge walls of water that inundated a number of coastal regions in both Asia and Africa just before Christmas in 2004. Kerry recalls hearing the news:

I’ll never forget hearing the news of the tsunami that struck in the Indian Ocean 10 years ago. The images were gut-wrenching: entire towns razed from Indonesia to Somalia; raging waters sweeping away people’s homes; hundreds of thousands killed and many more separated from their families. 

Today of all days, we pause to remember those we lost—from farmers and fishers to travelers from our own lands. I know that there are no words to express such a horrific loss. There’s no way to wipe away the pain of parents who lost a child, or children who lost their parents and were forced to assume adult responsibilities at a tender age. 

We recognize the millions of people who contributed to the recovery effort. And we honor those who have continued to work in the years since to help the victims pick up the pieces and rebuild their communities. The tsunami was one of the worst we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us.

    However, Kerry went on to say that the tsunami "sounded a warning" about climate change as well:

It also sounded a warning. We know that many regions are already suffering historic floods and rising sea levels. And scientists have been saying for years that climate change could mean more frequent and disastrous storms, unless we stop and reverse course. Last year I visited the Philippines and saw the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan. It is incomprehensible that that kind of storm – or worse – could become the norm. The time to act on climate change is now – before it’s too late to heed the warning. 

On this day of reflection, we mourn with our friends in Asia and Africa who were affected by this terrible disaster. We commit to the hard work still ahead to help the region build safer, more resilient communities. And we pledge our best efforts to leave our children and grandchildren a safer and more sustainable planet. Future generations are counting on us.

    Kerry did not indicate what kind of efforts could be taken to mitigate the effects of a similar tsunami in the future.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry: If U.S. Gave Up All Fossil Fuels, It Wouldn’t Stop Climate Change

    While the nation was focused on the mid-term elections Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies regarding U.S.-China relations. As he often does, Kerry brought up the subject of climate change, which he asserted is happening "faster and [at a] greater rate than scientists predicted."
    According to Kerry, the U.S. and China are "the world’s two largest emitters of global greenhouse gases," together accounting for "about 45 percent and climbing, unfortunately." And to hear Kerry tell it, the situation almost appears hopeless:

So we need to solve this problem together. Why? Because neither one of us can possibly solve it alone. Even if every single American biked to work or carpooled to school or used only solar panels to power their homes – if we reduced our emissions to zero, if we planted each of us in America a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. And the same would be true for China if they reduced everything and we continued. We would wipe out their gains; they would wipe out our gains. 

    Kerry called the recently released United Nations climate report a "wakeup call" that demands "ambitious, decisive, and immediate action":

The UN climate report that was released over this last weekend is another wakeup call to everybody. The science could not be clearer. Our planet is warming and it is warming due to our actions, human input. And the damage is already visible, and it is visible at a faster and greater rate than scientists predicted. That’s why there’s cause for alarm, because everything that they predicted is happening, but happening faster and happening to a greater degree. The solutions are within reach, but they will require ambitious, decisive, and immediate action.

    Kerry sees climate change as "not just an environmental threat but an economic threat, a security threat, a health threat, and a security threat," but he is nonetheless optimistic about solving the problem:

The solution to climate change is as clear as the problem itself. And it’s not somewhere out there, pie in the sky, over the horizon, impossible to grab ahold of; it’s staring us in the face. The solution is energy policy. It’s as simple as that. Make the right choices in your energy policy, you solve the problem of climate change.

    Solving the problem, Kerry says, has the added bonus of creating tremendous wealth, not just for the United States and China, but for the whole world:

Guess what? You also happen to kick your economies into gear. You produce millions of jobs. You create economic opportunity unlike any that we have ever known, because the global energy market of the future is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. Between now and 2035, investment in the sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. The market that made everybody wealthy in America – everybody saw their income go up in the 1990s, and the greatest wealth in the history of our nation was created in the 1990s... [W]ith a few smart choices, together we can ensure that clean energy is the most attractive investment in the global energy sector and that entrepreneurs around the world can prosper as they help us innovate our way out of this mess and towards a healthier planet.

    Despite Kerry's enthusiasm for working together with China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the furthest China has been willing to go so far is to say the country will seek to cap emissions "as soon as possible."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

The UN and the Rise of the Seas: A Miss is As Good As a Mile. Or Even Three.

   In case you missed it, June 5 was World Environment Day. The United Nations heavily promoted this day-of-awareness-raising, which finds itself neatly sandwiched between the anniversaries of the Tianeman Square massacre in China and the D-Day invasion in France. And to hear the environmentalists tell it, the tolls of those two events will pale in comparison to the devastation to be reeked without draconian measures put in place immediately to rein in carbon pollution.
    The official slogan of World Environment Day this year was "Raise your voice, not the sea level." (The slogan leaves one with the impression that perhaps it sounded better in the original language in which it was coined.) This year, the UN deployed a unique new weapon in the climate change arsenal: an award-winning website called World Under Water. Visitors are greeted with an ominous warning:

Sea levels are rising. Soon, climate change won’t just affect people living in coastal regions, but each and every one of us.  See the effect of global warming in your neighborhood.

    The next page features various well known locales with famous landmarks (utilizing Google Street View,) but with a twist. The website's gimmick is superimposing a shimmering, moving image of water of the lower part of the screen, presenting the mildly hokey illusion of devastating inundation:

    But remember, the website invites visitors to "see the effect of global warming in your neighborhood." There is a slight problem with the concept, however. The interface accepts any street address. Any. Regardless of the location's elevation. As you might be guessing by now, this allows for some rather incongruous images.  For instance, here is Mile High Stadium in Denver, CO:

Here's an exterior shot:

    For non-football fans, "Mile High" is not hyperbole or clever marketing. The official elevation of the city is 5,280 feet, which is, if you recall from your elementary school days, exactly one mile.  So while "climate change deniers" are the ones usually blamed for ignoring science, the World Under Water folks may have some explaining to do. All other things remaining equal, a glacier roughly the size of Jupiter would have to melt to flood Denver. [Full disclosure: I am not a scientist. I ball-parked the glacier size.]
    But a mile is nothing compared to this image from Cerro de Pasco, Peru, which sits at 14,370 feet above sea level in the Andes Mountains:

    The caption says, "When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges." But the earth hasn't seen a storm surge like this since Noah.
    Just to see how sea-level rise might hit closer to home, I entered President Obama's current address, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which, according to my sources, is 59 feet above the current sea level:

Despite the caption captured in the photo above, it remains unclear how many species of fish currently reside in the Entrance Hall of the White House that may be displaced by rising sea levels.
    So while the impacts of predicted increased sea levels (which President Obama famously albeit obliquely pledged to hold back) may be somewhat up in the air (so to speak,) it seems safe to say they will not be a mile up in the air, or three miles, or even 59 feet. The text captured at the bottom of the photo of Mile High Stadium above says, "Even a small amount of sea level rise will have profound and largely negative effects." Even as a non scientist, I believe I can say with confidence that flood-delayed Broncos games, cruises in the Andes, and White House tours via submarine will not be among them.

Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'

    Secretary of State John Kerry did not shy away from pejorative language when addressing "climate change" in his commencement speech at Boston College on Monday.  Kerry referred to those skeptical of the Obama administration's climate claims as "members of the Flat Earth Society" who are "risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet" by resisting implementation of the administration's policies.  At the very least, Kerry argued, what have we got to lose by taking the steps he and the president are advocating? [emphasis added]:

If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.

    Kerry also suggested there's not much time to act, because "things will change in a hurry," and indeed some things have already changed:

Two major recent reports, one from the UN and one from retired U.S. military leaders, warn us not just of the crippling consequences to come, but that some of them are already here. Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent. Why? Because if crops can’t grow, there’ll be food insecurity. If there’s less water because of longer droughts, if there are stronger and more powerful storms, things will change in a hurry and they will change for the worse. 

    Kerry seemed to be echoing the words of French foreign minister Laurent Fabius who last week at an appearance with the secretary said that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."  As CNS News later reported, Fabius went on to warn that the earth stands at "the edge of a climatic abyss."  He was heartened, however, from some "glimmers of hope," adsserting that since the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, "climate denial is – at least in Europe – less audible."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

French Foreign Minister: '500 Days To Avoid Climate Chaos'

    Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, "climate chaos." Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid "climate chaos"[emphasis added]:

Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.

    It is unclear what the foreign minister had in mind with the 500 days.  However, France is scheduled to host the "21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change" in December 2015, about 566 days from now.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

John Kerry Addresses Climate Change in First Policy Guidance as Secretary of State

    Even as the situation in Ukraine has some talking about the possibility of a new cold war with Russia, Secretary of State John Kerry issued his first Policy Guidance since assuming his position a little over a year ago. The subject: Climate change.  In a blog post entitled "We Need To Elevate the Environment in Everything We Do", Kerry expresses a desire to make climate change his signature issue much in the way his predecessor Hillary Clinton made women's issues a "top-tier diplomatic priority":

Leading the way toward progress on this issue [climate change] is the right role for the United States, and it’s the right role for the Department of State.  That’s why I’ve decided to make climate change the subject of my first Policy Guidance as Secretary of State.  I have been deeply impressed by the way Secretary Clinton  elevated global women’s issues as a top-tier diplomatic priority, and believe me, we’re committed to keeping them there.  When the opportunities for women grow, the possibilities for peace, prosperity, and security grow even more.  President Obama and I believe the same thing about climate change.  This isn’t just a challenge, it’s also an incredible opportunity.  And the Policy Guidance I’m issuing today is an important step in the right direction.

    Saying "there’s no time to lose", Kerry enumerated seven steps the State Department will take to carry out the "critical mission" of addressing climate change:

I.  Lead by example through strong action at home and abroad.
II.  Conclude a new international climate change agreement.
III.  Implement the Global Climate Change Initiative.
IV.  Enhance multilateral engagement.
V.  Expand bilateral engagement.
VI.  Mobilize financial resources.
VII.  Integrate climate change with other priorities.

   Kerry closed with a call to action for members of the State Department, telling them tackling this issue is part of their "mission as diplomats":

Climate change has special significance for the work we do here at State, and so do clean water, clean air, sustainability, and energy.  We’re talking about the future of our earth and of humanity.  We need to elevate the environment in everything we do.  There’s nothing I’m more proud of then when we send one of our diplomats somewhere to really get out in the field and engage, to solve a problem, and to make something happen.  I want all of you to feel empowered to think and operate that way on climate change.  That’s our mission as diplomats and that’s our call to conscience as citizens of this fragile planet we inhabit.  So let’s get to work. 

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

The EPA and the New Scientific Method for Kids: Just Believe Us

    The Obama administration's position on "climate change" is hardly news, but a page on the EPA's website targeted at students is a particularly egregious example of how the concept of "science" has been corrupted for political purposes.  Under the heading "A Student's Guide to Climate Change" is the promising subheading "Think Like A Scientist."  The subheading continues with the exhortation to "Uncover the cause of today's global climate change."  Then comes the following paragraph where "science" heads swiftly downhill and off a cliff:

Did you know that thousands of measurements of the Earth's air, water, and land are taken every day? These measurements come from weather stations, airplanes, ships, satellites, and many other sources all around the globe. Taken all together, these measurements and other observations tell us that the Earth's climate is warming, people are the main cause, and impacts on society and the environment are already happening.

    Isn't science grand?  Three sentences and our scientific journey has led us to the inescapable conclusions that:

1. Earth's climate is warming
2. people are the main cause
3. impacts on society and the environment are already happening

Science!  We just scienced!

    If any students' minds are still open at this point, a visit to the page helpfully entitled "Ruled Out" should take care of that.  Despite the foregone-conclusion nature of the heading, students are invited to investigate.  "Can you rule out natural factors as the main cause of today's climate change?  Examine the facts by clicking on the images below [sun, Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions], and then make your decision."  Clicking on the images provides a short paragraph of information and then a question, "Could the sun/volcanoes/Earth's orbit be responsible for today's climate change? Reveal answer." A click on "reveal answer," of course, brings up the reasons why these factors have been - you guessed it - ruled out.  Eureka! Just a few minutes and a few clicks and voilà! We've just scienced again! And plenty of time left to play a few hours of X-Box before lunch!

    For those in middle school interested in delving deeper into the subject, the EPA recently announced a video contest.  Not surprisingly, the EPA is not looking for students to do experiments and present scientific conclusions - too messy.  So the conclusions are provided for them:

1) The signs of climate change are all around us. 

Here a few of the signs of climate change we’re seeing now: 

Higher Temperatures
Wilder Weather
Rising Sea Level
More Droughts
Changing Rain and Snow Patterns 

Visit our Signs of Climate Change web pages to learn more about the signs of climate change, and see the trends over the decades. 

2) The climate you will inherit as adults will be different from your parents' and grandparents' climate. 

Climate change means serious impacts on… 

Our health...Through longer allergy seasons, increased number of heat-related illnesses, and increased air pollution that can worsen asthma. 

The spread of disease... Warmer temperatures can expand the ranges and lifespans of disease-spreading mosquitoes and ticks. 

Heat waves and droughts... Climate change increases the frequency and intensity of heat waves and droughts. Heat waves increase energy costs for households, lead to blackouts and brownouts, and threaten human health and safety. Droughts can drive up food prices, limit hydroelectricity supplies, and affect manufacturing operations that rely on water to run their businesses. 

Wildfires... With climate change increasing the likelihood of hot, dry weather in many parts of the country, the risk of wildfires is expected to increase. 

Storms... In much of the country, more precipitation will fall in intense, short bursts such as blizzards and downpours, which can lead to flooding. In addition, scientists expect that hurricanes will become more intense, with higher wind speeds and heavier rains. 

Learn more about how climate change will affect people and the environment 

3) Now is the time to act on climate change. 

Reducing carbon pollution, and preparing for the changes that are already underway, is key to solving climate change and reducing the risks we face in the future. A major way carbon pollution gets into the atmosphere is when people burn coal, oil, and natural gas for energy. Everyone uses energy so everyone can be part of the solution!

It would appear that climate change "deniers" need not apply.
    The deadline for the contest is March 10, so time is running out.  So, ready kids? Grab your video camera and your EPA talking points, and let's science!

President Obama's Flimsy Case for Climate Change

    Shortly after President Obama gave his climate change speech at Georgetown University, the White House posted Fact Sheets to highlight the ostensible effects of climate change/extreme weather in all 50 states and Washington DC.  If the "facts" presented in Maryland's Fact Sheet are representative of the other fifty, the White House's case is embarrassingly flimsy.
    Each Fact Sheet begins with the same paragraph entitled "The Threat of Carbon Pollution" with broad generalizations about pollution, climate change, extreme weather, and the president's plan to reverse course.  Next comes a section entitled "The Impact of Pollution and Extreme Weather."  After a statistic about how many metric tons of carbon pollution each state produces per year comes this introduction/disclaimer:

Recent  incidents provide a reminder of the impacts to our public health and costs due to extreme weather in Maryland.  Although we cannot say that climate change is responsible for any individual event, climate change is already increasing our risks from these events. 

    The document then goes on to list five bullet points to bolster the case that "climate change is already increasing our risks from these events."  However, a closer look shows that the points are non sequiturs at best, and actually counter-arguments at worst:

 Hurricane Sandy effects in Maryland impacted 477 residences and required over $34 million in federal assistance in 23 counties and the City of Baltimore.  

 The cumulative cost of severe weather events in 2011 and 2012 was over $70 million. 

    Although viewed in isolation these figures might seem high, in 2003, Maryland's costs from Hurricane Isabel alone reached $100 million with 8,691 individual applications for aid approved by FEMA.  And in 1996, there were three weather-related disasters declared in Maryland in one year, though costs figures were not provided on the FEMA website.  2011 and 2012 were not exceptionally costly, let alone indicative of a trend.

 In Maryland, there were over 9,100 hospital admissions for asthma in 2011, with an average charge of close to $8,000 for each stay.

    This chart from a Centers for Disease Control report on asthma, however, shows that hospitalizations in the U.S. for  asthma have been trending down for 30 years:

 Changing temperature and precipitation patterns can affect the life cycle and distribution of insects, many of which transmit  disease that already pose problems to public health in Maryland.  In 2010, there were 1163 cases of Lyme disease in the state. 

    However, just like the asthma statistics, the data on Lyme disease do not back up the White House assertions. Confirmed cases of Lyme disease have been flat for 10 years:

 In 2009, there were 407 emergency room visits in Maryland due to heat stress. 

    The population of Maryland is nearly 6 million.  407 emergency room visits means that just over one of those six million residents per day was in the emergency room for heat stress.  Hardly a crisis, and no attempt is even made to link the statistic to extreme weather.
    The president's call for action on climate change seems to rely largely on anecdotes, statistics without context, and sheer volume of information.  If the situation is as dire as the president suggests, the White House should be able to come up with more convincing arguments than the easily debunked "facts" above.

The Silence of the Greens, Part II

    A post by Jazz Shaw at Hot Air reports on the recent revelation that Chesapeake Energy funneled $26 million to the Sierra Club to fund a campaign against coal-powered energy.  There is a quote from the original blogger at Time magazine (via the Daily Caller) that referenced the Sierra Club's deep concerns with hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking":

The Fracking Regulatory Action Center (or FRAC tracker) is a resource for activists to help secure strong safeguards for fracking. It tracks state efforts to update their rules to stay ahead of the fracking boom, and to blunt its most dangerous effects. It also collects a growing library of technical comments and reports on these rules, which activists can use in their own work.

The last time I wrote about fracking, it was in reference to the upcoming exploration at the dormant Newberry volcano in Oregon and the relative silence from the environmental movement and the media in general, despite the fact that a process similar to fracking was being used.  I speculated that since the Newberry volcano project involved "renewable" energy, the green movement might be giving it a pass.  At the time, I was unaware of the Sierra Club's FRAC tracker.  Now a general search of all Sierra Club websites for "fracking" returns 362 results.   But interestingly, although not surprisingly, conducting searches on the FRAC tracker for "Newberry" and "volcano" come up with zero results.
    A further internet search did yield some references to the project and the Oregon chapter of the Sierra Club.  As far back as November 2007, the Juniper Group of the Oregon Sierra Club has been commenting on and opposing the Newberry project.  But in fact, it is only on the "oregon.sierraclub.org" portion of the Sierra Club's website where these references are found.  And despite the upcoming test this summer that will pump 24 million gallons of water into the side of the volcano, my research found that there have been no references to project on their website in at least a year.  Could it be that the Sierra Club's championing of geothermal energy is influencing its consistency on fracking?

The Silence of the Greens

   President Obama expended no less than 700 words in his State of the Union speech last night discussing energy, although to be fair, many of those words were recycled.  And appropriately so, since "renewable" and "clean" energy consumed a significant percentage of those words.  The president emphasized his priorities by even roping the Navy into "purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year" using "clean energy."  (As an aside:  if one is using the Navy to make a point, wouldn't some quantitative measurement of power using "ships" instead of "homes" have been more apropos?)  In any case, the President made it clear that his administration will continue tout its green credentials loudly and often.
  So when the Drudge Report recently linked to a story outlining plans to try to harness heat generated by the inactive Newberry volcano in Oregon to produce power, the most remarkable thing about the story is what it has not generated, that being media attention.  A Google news search for "Newberry volcano" as of January 25th generated only 188 hits.  Contrast this with "Keystone pipeline" which generates 7,720 hits or "hydraulic fracturing" which returns 2,420 hits.  According to USA Today, the Department of Energy has put $21.5 million into the project, and a peer review on the DOE website dates all the way back to May 2010, so it is not as though this project is a secret.  And yet "Newberry" was not among those 700 words the president used to highlight his administration's most exciting developments in energy in the year's most prominent address to the American people.  What gives?
   Of all the recent ideas for developing new sources of energy, this volcano project is the one that sounds most like some junior high school boys pouring all the chemicals in the science lab into one beaker just to "see what will happen." Volcanoes and earthquakes remain two of the least predictable natural phenomenon in nature and are capable of truly cataclysmic consequences.  Wouldn't it seem reasonable that we'd hear from the usual The-Sky-is-Falling green groups when a seismologist says of the plan, "That's the $64,000 question.  What's the biggest earthquake we can have from induced seismicity that the public can worry about?"  And, though it may be a long shot, what if this exploration touches off a volcanic eruption?  Think of the air pollution, acid rain, greenhouse gases, and general mayhem that would result!  Talk about an Inconvenient Truth!
   So why the deafening silence?  Why does a search for "Newberry volcano Al Gore" return the disappointing "did not match any news results"?  The answer is found in the first two words of the third paragraph of the story: "Renewable energy".  The same phenomenon leads environmentalists to disregard the noise pollution and bird/bat deaths from windmills and the toxic chemicals that are by-products of solar panel manufacturing.  Unlike any energy production related to fossil fuels, the "renewables" get a pass on possible or even actual collateral damage.  But "hydraulic fracturing", which uses a process similar to the one employed in the volcano research but is used to extract natural gas and oil from rocks deep below the surface of the earth, has already suffered some setbacks due to fear of earthquakes.  It is said that when the Indonesian volcano Krakatoa erupted in 1883 the sound was heard 3,000 miles away.  Is it not safe to say that if some oil company were planning a test to extract petroleum from under a volcano, a similar explosion would be heard from the environmentalists?
   Primitive societies have been known to throw virgins into volcanoes to appease the angry gods.  Is the environmental movement willing to risk sacrificing what remains of their own credibility in this case in hopes that their god Mother Earth, in spite of the risks, will finally deliver the goods on a practical, marketable, affordable source of energy that so far she has stubbornly and embarrassingly denied to her true believers?

The Doomsday Metaphor!

   From the Washington Post today:  “The Doomsday Clock, a figurative timepiece used as a barometer of humankind’s fate, was moved one minute closer to midnight on Tuesday, the first time it has been nudged forward since 2007.”  
   Setting aside the substantive nonsense of the whole Doomsday prediction, how can anyone use a timepiece as a barometer?  Why not use a figurative weather instrument as a barometer?  Especially since Climate Change is now considered a factor in our collective doom by the “venerable board of scientists, Nobel laureates and others,” perhaps Doomsday Barometer would be more apropos.  
   Imagine how dramatic it would be:  “The Doomsday Barometer edged down another quarter of an inch today [or even better “8.5 millibars,” since it has that metric sound to it] symbolizing earth’s gathering perfect storm of human-caused cataclysm that threatens to end life on the planet.”  
   It would also create a natural media tie-in with the Weather Channel, which would run endless promos of a falling barometer with Katrina footage rolling in the background.  Besides, time can’t really be moved back and forth away from and towards midnight, but barometers naturally rise and fall.  
   And if all of these are not reason enough, the Washington Post would not have to use such a silly mixed metaphor when reporting the news.