NASA and NOAA’s Latest Climate Warning Is a Result of Purposefully Flawed Data

Image result for al gore mad

Because science is the pursuit of knowledge, and political actions almost necessarily restrict personal freedom, science, laws, and regulations should use the best available data. Using bad data undermines both the pursuit of truth and the legitimate justification of laws and regulations.

Everyone, from the far left to the far right on the political spectrum, should be able to agree about this.

Sadly, in the field of climate research and climate policy, good data, when not ignored entirely, is increasingly twisted to fit the narrative claiming that humans are causing a climate crisis. Climate action partisans, in pursuit of political power and ever increasing resources, force data to fit their delusion that humans must forego modern, industrial civilization to save humanity and the earth from climate doom.

This problem is more than evident in a recent report from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on global temperature trends. Between them, the two agencies operate the most accurate, comprehensive system of temperature measuring instruments in the world. But rather than cite data from their best sources when NASA and NOAA reported global temperatures on January 15, they chose to use severely compromised data from temperature readings adjusted—in a process called “homogenization”—they and others gathered from biased monitoring stations.

NASA and NOAA announced that 2019 was the second warmest year since modern record keeping began in 1880, helping to make the 2010s the “warmest decade on record.”

These claims are based on the utterly unreliable adjusted temperature measurements recorded by surface temperature stations scattered across the globe. These measurements, at least the raw data from them, are usually sufficiently accurate to inform local inhabitants of the temperature and weather anomalies in their area on a particular day, but as measures of actual trends telling us something important about whether humans are causing global warming, most of them are virtually worthless.

As has been hammered home repeatedly over the years by meteorologist Anthony Watts (who is also a Senior Fellow with The Heartland Institute), many of the monitoring stations throughout the United States fail to meet the standards established by the agencies themselves for reliable data measurement. Watts recorded hundreds of stations on pavement, at airports collecting jet exhaust, located next to artificial sources of hot and cold, such as air conditioning systems or commercial grill heat exhausts. Many of these stations were once located in rural areas, but are now surrounded by development, and others are rural stations where data is not recorded or monitored regularly.

After Watts’ 2014 revelations, the U.S. Office of the Inspector General issued a scathing report, almost entirely ignored by the media, that found lack of oversight, non-compliance, and a lax review process for the climate recording network led it to conclude program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers.” In a panic, during the investigative process that resulted in the Inspector General’s report, NOAA closed approximately 600 of its most problematic weather stations.

Numerous reports have shown data manipulation is not limited to the United States, but is common across the globe. Temperatures recorded at pristine rural monitoring stations in far flung locations such as Australia, Paraguay, and Switzerland have been inexplicably homogenized so that past temperatures are now reported as cooler than were actually recorded, and recent temperatures are now reported as warmer than were recorded, necessarily making the temperature rise at these locations over the past century appear steeper and larger than the unadjusted data indicate.

NOAA violated its own rules when it undertook a similar adjustment process for recording ocean temperatures, beginning in 2015. As David Rose wrote for the Daily Mail, “[NOAA scientists] took reliable readings from [ocean] buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards—using readings from seawater intakes on ships … even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.” When you mix bad data with good, you no more produce reliable results than you do by adding muddy river water to purified bottle water to produce safe drinking water.

NASA and NOAA’s new report is another instance of “garbage in, garbage out,” in which their use of bad data produces flawed results, which, based on experience, will be used to push bad policies.

NASA and NOAA jointly or separately operate the U.S. Climate Reference Network, the gold standard of surface temperature data, global satellites, and weather balloons. The temperature data recorded by these three independent, unbiased temperature-measuring networks show minimal warming over the past 40 years. Yet the agencies ignored these data sets in their recent report—proving their dogmatic belief in a human-caused climate catastrophe.

NASA and NOAA are like toddlers trying to fit square pegs into round holes, and just as likely as toddlers to throw fits when their efforts are stymied by reality.

The Trump administration should steeply cut NASA and NOAA’s climate budgets until agency heads and career staff get the message they will not be rewarded for repeatedly telling “sky is falling” climate scare stories, when the truth about temperature and climate trends is, in fact, far from alarming.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. ( is a senior fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

‘White People’ Blamed For Causing Cyclone Idai in Africa – ‘Even The White Man’s Own Science Corroborates, What We Blacks Know’

Image result for yawning
BLF president Andile Mngxitama declared that the cyclone that hit Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi, was “not a natural disaster but a direct consequence of the white, Western system of ecological assault for profits.” This (cyclone) is mass murder which could be prevented if the West abandoned its ways,” Mngxitama stated. 
“It’s no longer speculation – even the white man’s own science corroborates what we blacks know: Africa is paying a heavy price for the actions of the white world,” he added with a reference to “climate change” science allegedly causing increase in extreme weather.
This is not the first time that “white people” were blamed for causing bad weather or changing the climate. See: ‘Blame White People, Science Says’ – Study: White people to blame for pollution – But blacks and Hispanics suffer the most – 2019
Climate Activists: ‘White America’ condemned to Hell!? — Warmist Bill McKibben laments ‘White America’ has failed: ‘White America has fallen short’ by voting for ‘climate deniers’
Flashback 1846: White Men Blamed For Destroying The Climate For Over 200 Years

Flashback 1846: Hey Al Gore Did You Know? That White Men Blamed For Destroying The Climate For Over 200 Year?

Image result for al gore memes

1846: ‘That great changes have taken place in the climate of Australia all testimonies satisfactorily prove…It is evident to any observer,at some period, the country has been sub-ejected to the mighty action of heavy rains, and of sweeping, deluging floods…The aborigines say that the climate has undergone this change since white-man came in country’

The Atlantic Ocean and States In The Northeast are Warming Dramatically: Really?

It’s a scientific fact that whatever liberals believe is false, so if they believe in global warming it is most certainly untrue.

Image result for liberal global warming

Busted: Scientists Lied About Rising Ocean Temperatures & Global Warming

It comes as no surprise to many of us that scientists have lied about the rising ocean temperatures and global warming. What is shocking, however, is when the liberal media is forced to eat crow and admit climate change data is bunk. In a surprising admission, leftists were actually forced to admit reality, and it didn’t help the global warming narrative they desperately try to push.

The ocean plays an important part in taking up energy from the Sun and stopping the Earth getting too hot.

Image result for sun over the ocean
Does the sun heat up the ocean?
When the sun heats water at the surface of the ocean, some of the water will evaporate and increase the concentration of salt in the water at the surface. … These will flow very slowly in the deep ocean currents. The sun also heats up the air in the atmosphere at the equator

States in the Northeast are warming more over the long and short-term than other U.S. regions, according to a USA Today analysis of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data.

Why it matters: The changes have manifested in the unusual appearance of warm-water fish off the New England coast, the warming of the Great Lakes, and higher ocean temperatures, which influence coastal weather and push snowfall farther inland.

By the numbers: Long-term data shows Rhode Island‘s average temperature increased by 3.64 degrees from its average in the 20th century, according to NOAA data going back to 1895.

The bottom line: The Atlantic Ocean is warming dramatically, scientists concluded, possibly as a result of climate change.

Alaska Bakes Under Heat Wave Linked To Global Warming, Al Gore Predicted In 2008 That The Northern Polar Ice Cap Would Be gone In 2013 2014, Inconveniently.

Alaska residents accustomed to subzero temperatures are experiencing a heat wave of sorts that is shattering records, with the thermometer jumping to more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit (16.7 Celsius) above normal in some regions.

“Both February and March have been exceptionally warm,” Rick Thoman, a climate specialist with the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, told AFP. “Many places are on their way to their warmest March on record.”

Al Gore Climate Derangement Syndrome: Al Gore Academic Friend’s Suggests UN Use Military To Enforce Global Warming Agenda!

Image result for global warming alarm

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

What’s the carbon footprint of a military invasion? And where’s the army that the UN would use to invade a country that emits the CO2 that makes the world greener and greener?

This guy makes me even happier that I ditched academia after getting my PhD and teaching at Harvard.  Simon Kent reports for Breitbart:

The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen.

In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

Global dictatorship, justified by a climate hoax. Does it get any more sinister?

Rounding up SUV drivers?

Photo credit: US Army

Ever wonder why so many powerful institutions adhere to the hoax?

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Could climate change become a security issue — and threaten democracy?

Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.

That’s the view of Ole Wæver,a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.

“At some point this whole climate debate is going to tip over,” he tells RN’s Late Night Live.

“The current way we talk about climate is one side and the other side. One side is those who want to do something, and the other is the deniers who say we shouldn’t do anything.”

He believes that quite soon, another battle will replace it. Then, politicians that do ‘something’ will be challenged by critics demanding that policies actually add up to realistic solutions.

When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to “be securitised”.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.AUDIO: Hear more from Ole Wæver on climate security (Late Night Live)

Professor Wæver, who first coined the term “securitisation”, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.

“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”

A risk of armed conflict?

Professor Wæver says despite “overwhelmingly good arguments” as to why action should be taken on climate change, not enough has been done.

And he says that could eventually lead to a greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in unstable political climates.

Close-up headshot of a man in glasses sitting on steps.

PHOTO: Professor Ole Wæver is currently a James Fellow in Social Sciences at the University of Sydney until January 2020. (Supplied: Lars Svankjær)

“Imagine these kinds of fires that we are seeing happening [in Australia] in a part of Africa or South-East Asia where you have groups that are already in a tense relationship, with different ethnic groups, different religious orientations,” he says.

“And then you get events like this and suddenly they are not out of each other’s way, they’ll be crossing paths, and then you get military conflicts by the push.”

He isn’t the first expert to warn of the security risks of climate change.Climate change and the ADF
Australia’s Defence Department has spelled out clearly to a Senate inquiry that climate change will create “concurrency pressures” for the Defence Force as a rise in disaster relief operations continues.

Chris Barrie, former Defence Force chief and honorary professor at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote in October that “climate change is a threat multiplier”.

“It exacerbates the drivers of conflict by deepening existing fragilities within societies, straining weak institutions, reshaping power balances and undermining post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding,” he wrote.

And current Defence chief Angus Campbell has warned that increased incidences of climate change-related natural disasters could stretch the capability of the ADF.

Letting ‘the dark forces’ loose

Professor Wæver argues that delayed action will lead to more drastic measures.

“The longer we wait, the more abrupt the change has to be,” he says.

“So a transformation of our economy and our energy systems that might have been less painful if we had started 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

“If we have to do that in a very short time, it becomes extremely painful.

“And then comes the question: can you carry through such painful transformations through the normal democratic system?”

He says classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses


“That’s what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means,” he says.

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.

“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”

Partnerships as pathways

Volunteer Qld firefighter from the Rural Fire Brigade

PHOTO: Major events like bushfires elevate concerns about climate change in Australia, Professor Mark Howden says. (Supplied: Qld Dept of Community Safety)

But Mark Howden, director of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute, does not see this happening any time soon — and says it would be counter-productive in the long-term.

“I wouldn’t support that sort of hypothesised action by the UN, because I think solutions to climate change need to be a partnership,” he says.

“The way to generate persistent, long-term and positive action is by partnerships, so actually bringing people along, developing a collective vision of what could be, and making climate change not something to fear but something to take sensible decisions over.

“So for me, taking a security approach — taking a unilateral, very militaristic, interventionist approach — would break apart all those positives.

“It wouldn’t necessarilygenerate partnerships, it wouldn’t generate bottom-up action and wouldn’t generate innovation.”Paris 2030: Will we make it?
Are Australia’s efforts to curb global warming enough to meet our Paris targets? Four Corners investigates.

But, Professor Howden says, there’s an “elevated conversation happening across many different domains” about climate change in Australia, particularly because of bushfires and droughts.

He says climate-related disasters create a “step up in terms of public concern in relation to climate change” — whether or not they are linked.

“Climate-related disasters tend to get people reflecting on their lived experience and the things they value and it raises that level of concern and tends to stay high for an extended period.”

He recognises “we haven’t solved this problem”, but says the Paris Agreement — and the national and international greenhouse gas inventories that support it — still shows promise. He says “it is the only global game in town to limit climate change”.

The 2015 agreement set targets to block global warming at well below 2C, and 1.5C if possible.

But a recent UN report revealed global fossil fuel output is currently projected to overwhelm these efforts.Listen to the podcast
From razor-sharp analysis of current events to the hottest debates in politics, science and culture, Late Night Live puts you in the big picture.

“Everyone knows that those initial commitments aren’t adequate to meet the temperature targets, but they’re a start,” Professor Howden says.

“The key to the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement is the mechanism that ratchets up those commitments over time.”

Professor Howden says we should give the Paris Agreement “a chance to work” — and if it does, it will “take a chunk out” of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The big question is: is it going to happen fast enough?”

Beware Global Warming! Not Because It Will Consume Our Planet In Fire But Rather Because It Is A Trojan Horse!

Image result for al gore liar

 one that will consume our economy, our democracy and our way of life.

Ever since Michael Mann’s fantasy “hockey stick” temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null.  The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate.  No experiment can confirm its impact, models can’t predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation.

The conclusion must be that man-made climate change and the need to eliminate carbon emissions to avoid climate change simply do not exist. None of the narrative is based on objective science.  It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history.  All the classic elements of a con job are present; the victim (mostly liberals and other virtue signalers), the play (appeal to environmental issues), the rope (emotional foundation and persuasion – the world is coming to an end), the convincer (the way it will work to your benefit – eliminate carbon and all is well) and so on.  The dangled payoff is saving the world.  As in all con jobs, the con artist gets what he wants and the mark gets nothing.

Like all cons, this one looks good to the rubes.  Who doesn’t want to save the world and breathe clean air?  The basic problem, even if the basic mechanism of eliminating CO2 to stop increasing temperatures were real, is that it would not achieve what its adherents think it would.  Let’s look at some facts.

What if we could reduce CO2 emissions?  The U.S. produces only 15 percent of the carbon emissions in the world.  The rest we have no control over.  That leaves 85 percent of emissions in place after spending trillions of dollars.

Most, if not all, of the big proposals for reduction of Carbon emissions by reducing CO2 are simply impossible, impractical or ineffective.  Eliminating coal fired electrical generating plants in the US is just one example.  The cost of shutting down the US coal industry with the attendant loss of jobs and downstream business would be astronomical. What impact would it have globally? Seventy three percent of India’s electricity is generated from coal fired power plants.  India has no plans to reduce its production and consumption of coal.  Coal India Ltd. will produce 660 million tons of coal next year, increasing to one billion tons by 2022 – 2023. 

In other words, if the U.S. destroyed its economy and eliminated all coal fired electricity production, whatever CO2 reduction that might net would be offset by the increase in coal consumption by India alone.  The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the largest civil engineering project in the world, will include 700 new coal fired power stations.  When they are all in operation, these plants could consume an incredible 1.8 billion tons of coal a year.  So why are the US and the UK risking catastrophe in their economies when whatever they eliminate will be more than replaced elsewhere?

This, then, brings us to the final piece of the global warming con – what role do the Green New Deal and related decarbonization programs play?

The components of the GND are staggering in magnitude, cost and audacity.  They include such “modest” proposals as shutting down the entire coal, oil and natural gas industry, requiring all housing and buildings to be rebuilt and reinsulated, eliminating all gasoline cars and trucks, forcing populations to relocate to urban areas, controlling population by selective abortion and it just goes on.

The reality of many variants of the Green New Deal and all the other absolutely preposterous proposals is that they are not even intended to address environmental issues.  Note how often you see the word “justice” associated with certain proposals.  Social justice, environmental justice, economic justice and racial justice to name a few.  These are code words that lead one back to One World Government socialist theology and redistributive economics.  The idea, in a nutshell, is to transfer enormous sums of money and other resources from first world countries in the West to third world and developing nations.  Rest assured that a significant portion will find its way into the pockets of the charlatans promoting this con through choking the energy needs of the industrialized nations and transferring that wealth to developing nations.  This is done by socialist redistribution in the name of the nebulous concept of sustainable development. 

It was, and is, necessary to create the “existential crisis” of global warming in order to scare the multitudes into following the socialist elites blindly down the path of economic destruction to global governance.

Only in the recent round of hysteria have the concepts of Marxist redistribution been introduced and the whole concept of environmental concern been taken over by a political agenda.

If one is to examine the GND closely, it speaks of five goals and three of them are solely focused on some type of social or economic “justice” rather than an environmental outcome.  The two environmental goals use language quoted from UN literature.  Much of the current virulently Marxist bent of the GND is related directly to the 1992 UN Earth Summit from which came the infamous Agenda 21 that pledged “to change the way people live, eat, learn and communicate, all in the name of saving the earth from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming.”  So, tying all of what we have said together let’s see what we have.

  • There is no demonstrable or provable pattern of net temperature change over a millennium so it cannot be said that we’re confronted by catastrophic global warming or cooling. 
  • While CO2 may have some impact on global temperature, its exact influence is not known and cannot be accurately modeled.  In any case, CO2 is not the sole or dominant driver of global temperature so that controlling CO2, if it could be done, would have little predictable impact on temperature.
  • No accurate predictive model of global temperature exists because the system is too complex and too many variables are either unknown or their influences and relationships are not understood.
  • If spending untold trillions of dollars on reducing CO2 in this country actually did reduce CO2 output, that reduction would be offset many times over by increases from developing nations such as China and India that have every intention of dramatically increasing their CO2 output.
  • Reliable engineering calculations show very convincingly that the chance of replacing carbon energy sources with renewable energy is exactly zero. 
  • The current global warming narrative has been hijacked by Marxist One World Order extremists to press their revolution to destroy industrialized nations and to redistribute wealth to developing nations and create a world government.

Within the above context, we can see much more clearly that powerful Marxist forces forces are using the construct of a manufactured climate crisis, populist environmental language, and public fear to prosecute their political agenda which is to destroy the Western world and create a One World Order, nirvana to a Marxist, where a group of elites run the world.  That’s the con.


Image result for environmental defense fund

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) raises money by scaring Americans about global warming., including in its latest fundraising letter.  Read the article disputing the EDF letter in the Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, Vol. 18 No. 8, September 2015 and is written by James M. Taylor, vice president for external relations and Senior Fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute.

It’s not unusual for the environmental Left to make false assertions to attract media attention and raise money. But the recent mailer from EDF “may have set a new low,” writes Taylor in a 12-page response to EDF.

“The only good thing about EDF’s preposterous mailer is that it can be used to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers,” he writes.

Taylor’s extensively footnoted response addresses 10 “alarmist assertions” made by EDF:

1) Bats Drop from the Sky – In  2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.

2) Lyme Disease Spreads – Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.

3) National Security Threatened – The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a “threat multiplier” in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.

4) Sea Levels Rising – Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.

5) Allergies Worsen – Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.

6) Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests – Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.

7) Canada: The New America – “lusher” vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.

8) Economic Consequences – the costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease.

9) Infectious Diseases Thrive – The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.

10) Shrinking Glaciers –  In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.

Taylor concludes:

There you have it. These are the 10 best arguments global warming activists like EDF can make, along with the objective scientific facts that prove them wrong. No wonder global warming alarmists are so terrified of people having access to both sides of the debate.

Here’s the link to Taylor’s rebuttal:

Trump makes it official: U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate accord,Why did George W Bush pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?

Image result for al gore george bush

Why did George W Bush pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?

Despite the huge amount of fossil fuel funding upon which George W. Bush was elected president in 2001, insiders in the monopoly-dominated oil industry remained unsure that he would fight for them – and against climate scientists.

Bush had suggested during his candidacy that CO2 should be treated as a pollutant and, therefore, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act – even if the international Kyoto Agreement was not economically favourable for America.

Bush’s fence-sitting was strategic: swing states such as Florida were environmentally conscious and speaking out would likely give Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore the advantage.

But, optimistic environmentalists remained hopeful while wary oil-men were worried that it demonstrated a willingness to agree to the broad principles of the treaty.

A Rumoured Speech

Shortly after his inauguration, a rumour circulated that Bush planned to include a line reinforcing his earlier pledge in a forthcoming speech.

Word of the speech reached the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Koch- and Exxon-funded think tank that helped donate to Bush’s presidential campaign. CEI set to work. As their founder and president, Fred Smith later told Newsweek: “We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.”

Despite the think tank’s best efforts, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified, on 27 February 2001 at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works subcommittee, that she was in favour of regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

A week later, she signed a joint statement at the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting which said: “We commit ourselves to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol.”

The President’s Position

At this, the denial machine set in motion. Haley Barbour, a lobbyist for a utility firm that stood to lose if greenhouse gases were regulated, urged Vice President Dick Cheney in a March 1 memo to persuade Bush not to align with the “eco-extremism” of those who saw carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

A group of far-right Republican senators wrote an open letter to their new president. In light of Whitman’s testimony, they asked that Bush clarify his position on climate change, “in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.”

Aware of the rising tide against her, Whitman went to the Oval Office to fight her case on the morning of March 13. But, Bush had already composed his response, shortly to be sent via Cheney to the senators, which he read to her.

“I do not believe,” read the letter, “that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

Information from the Department of Energy had shown that consumers’ energy bills might be affected, and that this warranted a re-evaluation of his earlier pledge, “especially… given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of and solution to global climate change.”

Polluter Pull-Out

Whitman left defeated, just as the puppeteer Cheney arrived to hand-deliver the President’s response to the senators.

By the end of the month, the world’s biggest polluter had pulled out of Kyoto.

Whitman, who later said the decision was “the equivalent to ‘flipping the bird’ frankly to the rest of the world,” was the one to deliver the news. “We have no interest in implementing that treaty,” the former New Jersey Governor told assembled journalists.

Though the terms of the treaty would be finalised in Bonn that July, they would be made all but useless, with the world’s largest polluter out of the game.

Years later, freedom of information disclosures revealed the industry’s input to this decision.

A briefing note prepared for Paula Dobrianksy, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, ahead of her meeting with Glenn Kelly of the Exxon-bankrolled Global Climate Coalition, states: “POTUS [President of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you… Interested in hearing from you, what type of international alternatives to Kyoto would you support?”

Image result for bush pull out of' kyoto

The Trump administration notified the international community Monday that it plans to officially withdraw from the Paris climate accord next fall, a move that will leave the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases as the only nation to abandon the global effort to combat climate change.

President Trump has long criticized the 2015 accord and insisted that the United States would exit it as soon as possible. As recently as last month, Trump called the agreement “a total disaster” and argued that the Obama administration’s pledges to cut carbon emissions under the deal would have “hurt the competitiveness” of the United States.

In a statement Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the administration had sent official notification of its plans to the United Nations.

“In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model — backed by a record of real world results — showing innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy,” Pompeo said. “We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.”

How Big-Government Regulation Contributed to California’s Wildfires! , But Wait Minute, We Been Told It Was Global Warming, Contributed to California’s Wildfires!

In 2013, cartoonist Jack Ohman made a macabre attempt at humor that was published by the Sacramento Bee in a political cartoon referencing an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, at which fifteen people were killed and more than 200 were injured.  In the left panel of that cartoon, Ohman portrayed then-governor Rick Perry saying, “Business is BOOMING in Texas!” while standing in front of a sign that says “Low Taxes!” and “Low Regs!”  In the payoff panel to its right, we see a massive explosion representing the tragedy in West: “BOOM!”  The image comes complete with a mushroom cloud. 

I have no doubt that Ohman believed he was making some high-minded political comment with this cartoon, and his message is clear.  The explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas was somehow the failure of the relatively small-government, low-regulation policies for which Texas is well known, meant to be juxtaposed with the comparatively high-tax, highly regulatory government policies for which California is equally well known, and where one might not expect such disasters to happen.

This leads to an obvious question.  If, according to the proponents of big government at the Sacramento Bee, a random explosion at a fertilizer plant in West must signify the failures of small-government policies and low regulation, why do the persistent catastrophic wildfires in California’s forests not represent the failures of comparably big-government regulation?

In truth, there was nothing, then or now, to suggest that more regulations upon industry at the federal or state level might have prevented the calamity in West.  It was, in fact, later determined to have been caused by a criminal act, therefore it was a horrifying anomaly.  There is, however, plenty to suggest that the irresponsibility of bloated federal and state government bureaucracies’ impositions of regulations has led to the destructive extent of the wildfires in California.

Fires are nothing new in California, and there’s something of an interesting history to them that used to not be nearly as tragic as we see today.  Chuck DeVore, vice president of national initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, reminds his readers at Forbes that as “a citizen soldier in the California National Guard for two decades, I often heard the gallows humor that California’s four seasons were: flood, fire, earthquake, and riot.”

DeVore takes to task the editorial board at the Sacramento Bee for their commentary around the Carr Fire of 2018, in which they suggested that the recent fires are the result of “climate change, for real and in real time.  We were warned that the atmospheric buildup of man-made greenhouse gas would eventually be an existential threat.”

“The problem with the Bee’s editorial is that making a passionate argument is no substitute for the truth,” DeVore writes.

He recalls that as a freshman California assemblyman in 2005, he visited forest product industry professionals in Northern California.  They told him of a “worrisome trend” that had begun many years before, where “both federal and state regulators were making it more and more difficult for them to do their jobs.”  Mainly, the problem was that “[a]s timber harvesting permit fees went up and environmental challenges multiplied, the people who earned a living felling and planting trees looked for other lines of work.”  As the “timber industry gradually collapsed,” the “combustible fuel load in the forest predictably soared,” because forest management professionals stopped “clearing brush and thinning trees.”

The process of clearing forests in California had begun long before industrialization, with the native populations in California prior to the Gold Rush — but for different reasons then.  Photographic evidence of the Sierra landscape in the 1850s and 1860s presents “open fields of grass punctuated by isolated pine stands and scattered oak trees,” largely because the natives “shaped this landscape with fire to encourage the grasslands and boost the game animal population.”

When the Gold Rush took hold and California grew, forests were a vital resource for both construction and fuel.  “The landscape filled with trees,” DeVore writes, “but the trees were harvested every 30 to 50 years.”  Increasing federal and state regulation “disrupted” that cycle in the 1990s, however, “especially on the almost 60% of California forest land owned by the federal government.” 

It is ironic, I suppose, that proponents of big-government regulation are quick to blame a lack of regulation for such singular tragedies as the explosion in West but fail to see how an abundance of expansive and oppressive regulations have led to the extent of tragedies like the modern California wildfires.  But even that observation is overshadowed by an even larger irony, in an environmental sense.

[O]ver time the fire-prone forests that were not thinned, burn in uncharacteristically destructive wildfires, and the resulting loss of forest carbon is much greater than would occur if the forests had been thinned before the fire moved through. … [F]ailing to thin leads to a greater greenhouse gas burden than the thinning created in the first place, and that doesn’t even account for the avoided fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions due to the production of energy from the forest thinning.  In the long term, leaving forests overgrown and prone to unnaturally destructive wildfires means there will be significantly less biomass on the ground, and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The reason for the regulations curtailing logging and the use of biofuels as an energy source is predicated upon environmental concerns.  Specifically, “wood doesn’t burn as cleanly as natural gas,” and the “wood waste from timber operations” that used to be burned in biomass generators became scarcer.  As such, there have been mass closures in recent decades of the biomass generators that once provided readily available and affordable energy.  “What used to be burned safely in power generators is now burned in catastrophic fires,” DeVore writes.

Today, there are many who would defend the regulatory endeavors that have made logging less profitable and thereby less prevalent, and particularly might celebrate that such regulations have led to the closure of biomass fuel generators, in favor of massively subsidized wind and solar energy.  But as early as 2006, it was observed by the Western Governors’ Association, in their Biomass Task Force Report, that:

It would be difficult to argue that federal and state regulations that curtailed the incentive for private companies to engage in forestry work have led to a better environmental outcome in terms of carbon emissions, and harder still to argue that such regulation has not led to the catastrophic extent of the devastation in California’s persistent wildfires.

And yet, what is the solution, according to California’s Governor Gavin Newsom?  He has found a viable patsy for regulatory overreach by the government in the corporate entity known as Pacific Gas and Electric. 

Count me among those critical of PG&E, as the arguably overbroad rolling blackouts in California have caused some days without power when the “high winds” (ostensibly the reason for the power outage) may not have blown a napkin off my patio table.  But somehow, Newsom and his big-government cohorts, anxious to compel public sentiment toward more government regulation, feel that the best way to capitalize on consumer anger and correct the struggling company’s business practices is to allow state control in reshaping and regulating its practices — “even if it mean[s] a public takeover,” according to the New York Times.

Imagine the insanity in what is being offered to solve this crisis.  For the crime of having equipment malfunctions which created the sparks that allegedly ignited some of California’s wildfires, the “solution” is to allow more expansive regulation to be crafted by the same regulatory bodies that allowed for the copious kindling and fuel which allowed those fires to burn at such levels as to consume so much of California’s forests and inhabited land, claiming the businesses, homes, and lives of so many of California’s citizens?

That is definitely misguided, and there’s an undeniable irony in Newsom suggesting that more government and environmental regulation will fix California’s problems with wildfires, when it seems obvious that expansive government and environmental regulation has greatly contributed to the destructive extent of the wildfires it is experiencing.  

But, unlike cartoonist Jack Ohman and the Sacramento Bee’s editorial board, I don’t find anything funny at all in my making this well evidenced contention today.