A Nixonian approach to Climate Change

U.S. President, Barack Obama is about to bring a blast from the past to deal with the supposed threats posed by climate change. In doing so, he and his environmental team has already made sure that the Federal Government is exempted from all regulations.

By MARK DRAJEM | BLOOMBERG | MARCH 15, 2013

President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they have to consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand a Nixon-era law that was intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

“If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

The president is scheduled to deliver a speech on energy today outside Chicago.

Long Delays

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays.

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)

Targeting Keystone

If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity in Washington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“The real danger is the delays,” said Eisenberg of the manufacturers’ group. “I don’t think the answer is ever going to be ‘no,’ but it can confound things.”

Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality to issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publish the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Those reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action. They do provide a chance for citizens and environmentalists to weigh in before regulators decide on an action — and to challenge those reviews in court if it’s cleared.

FULL ARTICLE…

Advertisement

Is the Kyoto Protocol Dead?

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 6, 2012

Not likely. Even if the Doha Climate Summit fails to consolidate the validity of the accord signed by countries back in 1997, it is expected that climate alarmists keep the core of the plan with or without the Protocol itself.

The Kyoto Protocol is now in assisted living condition. It is set to expire this month, and with only two days to conclude in Doha climate summit, where the UN sponsored meeting intends to renew its precepts, the disagreements between the countries is making things more difficult than expected for those who promote the centralized regulation of living standards around the planet.

Before the conference ends on Friday, an agreement is needed if globalists behind the fake environmentalist movement want to extend this international convention and set new greenhouse gas reductions for 2017-2020. But the accord is threatened by the current disunity between the developed and developing world and even within the developed nations. Right now the only possible outcome is that in the Kyoto Protocol II there would be only a small group of countries (EU, Australia, Switzerland, Ukraine), but internal divisions in the EU  threaten to bear a not too valued fruit.

The Doha summit follows two negotiating tracks. First, about renewing the Kyoto Protocol, with new targets for greenhouse gas reduction pact for an extension until 2017-2020. The EU is its main supporter, while countries like Canada, Japan and Russia are completely disengaged from it. These and other developed nations such as the US have made it abundantly clear that Kyoto II would not will not have their support, because according to them, developing nations are not making equally significant commitments to cut their emissions. That is a smart choice especially because greenhouse gases are not the cause of global warming or climate change.

Parallel to the Kyoto II negotiations, there seems to be a global negotiation (agreed in Durban last year), aimed at a new global legal agreement or covenant to involve all nations in limiting emissions — U.S., China, but with different goals. The pact should be ready in 2015 and it is expected to be enforced by 2020.

Apparently, the first negotiation (the Kyoto II) was the easiest one, as the only effort to reduce greenhouse gases will be made by the EU. But new minor issues have become important, and there is a strong disagreement about them.

Countries from the former Eastern bloc — such as Poland — want to take advantage in their favor that they have fulfilled their objectives of leftover gas reduction by 2012, which according to experts happened due to the collapse of the global economy and not necessarily because the nations actively pursued such reduction. So, this nations now want their right to sell their emissions credit, which could help them get some cash effortlessly. In the negotiations, other EU countries are pursuing limits on the use of these rights and want to negotiate the cancellation of these rights once Kyoto II is over.

“Poland blocks the progress of the negotiations and wants to drag these rights to the new comprehensive global agreement, but what you have to do is cancel and set the clock to zero in 2013,” says Aida Vila, representative from Greenpeace.

The intention of the countries of the former Eastern bloc is to benefit from the sale of these rights — Spain recently bought 40 million euros in carbon credits from Poland. But if the EU accepts this situation, markets will be flooded with an oversupply of CO2 credits at low prices, which opens the door to buying other  countries’ credits so that some nations continue having a license to pollute. Those who benefit from the carbon credits Ponzi scheme must be loving it, but the pro deindustrialization folks are not too happy about it.

Meanwhile, developing nations and environmental groups continue to call for the EU to raise its gas reduction targets for 2020 (up to 30% less compared to 1990) to regain credibility as a fighter of climate change . “The EU should hold a cabinet meeting here in Doha, to agree to new emissions limit,” says Aida Vila.

The second major issue is conflicting financial assistance to countries most vulnerable to climate change. The UN climate fund created in Copenhagen failed to deliver the cash to its self-entitled members as it was promised. That is because the whole idea of having a centralized entity that dictates climate policy is not really meant to rescue nations may or may not become victims of our changing climate, but to finance the tyrannical operation of the globalist elite that seeks to gain greater control of resources and power.

As expected, developing countries are still wondering where is the money that rich countries announced they would receive in aid. They demand more assurance that aid will continue in the coming years, but their co-negotiators justify the delays with the economic crisis in the EU, U.S. absenteeism and reconstruction costs in Japan.

In Doha, much of the debate is centered on the repeated discussions of principled but differentiated responsibilities and attempt to continue establishing two blocks of countries, rich and poor, to the setting of differentiated commitments limiting greenhouse gases, with China and India in this second group, although this distinction seems increasingly outmoded.

New research presented at the meeting appears to show that even if rich countries cut their emissions to zero, which is near the goal set by the fake environmental movement and its corporate partners, that would not be enough to mitigate the warming, given the high growth rate of the gases in developing nations in the last two decades. Meanwhile, on main stream television, those in favor of taking the world back to the stone age are openly carrying the water for the corporate controllers with ever scarier doomsday stories that attempt to describe what will happen if nothing is done.

Arguments are now circulating that to avoid a temperature increase of two degrees (relative to pre-industrial era), and avoid a ‘climate catastrophe’, it is necessary that global annual emissions, which are estimated to be at 35,600 million tonnes of CO2, go down to less than 35,000 million by 2030. What this means is that the world’s progress will come to a halt and nations will need to go back to pre-industrial standards of living to stave off a catastrophe that is not only not coming, but that cannot be solved by killing the very same engine that can help humanity develop cleaner ways to develop.

As for the rules and regulations contained in the Kyoto Protocol, they will be approved either at the national level through executive decrees, or internationally adopted by technocrats who will then impose those rules and regulation on member nations. The idea to think globally and act locally has never been so useful for the globalists who seek to end one of the brightest eras in the history of humanity. They don’t need Kyoto II because they already have Agenda 21, which is the real blueprint for economic and social enslavement.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Even Climate Alarmists Reject Planetary Geo-engineering

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 4, 2012

As The Real Agenda reported recently, Geo-engineering is far ahead of being a mere project or vision of the kinds of ways that mad scientists intend to affect global climate. As exposed on our November article Climate Change spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering, the use of chemicals to change weather patterns, cause floods, droughts and other natural phenomena has been going on since the 1950s. Despite the vast documentation that proves that Geo-engineering is very real, the main stream media continues to present it as something that may be attempted to save us all from global warming. Heck, bets are now being placed on weather events and how disastrous they may be.

The latest example of media disinformation on Geo-engineering, comes from Alister Doyle, an environmental writer from Reuters, whose article was re-published by Scientific American Magazine. In it, Doyle puts out a list of examples of supposed Geo-engineering techniques which are meant to distract readers about the significance of artificially affecting climate through man-made techniques. Doyle presents Geo-engineering as a possible, future tool to stave off the effects of global warming.

She cites CO2 sequestration, putting gigantic mirrors up on the sky to reflect sunlight and the well-known spraying of chemicals as ways to reduce the effects of anthropogenic warming. But the real news in the article comes from statements from some of the most popular climate alarmists who not only do not support Geo-engineering, but also say its effects on the planet are at the very least questionable.

First in the list is current United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, Cristiana Figueres, the sister of former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres Olsen. According to her, “there are so many proven technologies we know exist that are tried and true that have not been used to their maximum potential.” Figueres is talking about energy efficiency, which has many positive and negative aspects. For example, no one can argue with the benefits of using energy efficiently, but that is far from what the UN and other globalist organizations and NGOs, for example, want to introduce as forms of efficient use of energy. (compact fluorescent ligh bulbs, smart meters, appliances that are remotely controlled by energy companies or government agencies, etc.)

Another climate alarmist who opposes Geo-engineering as a way to “save us” from climate doom is Ragendra Pachauri, the same guy who is the chairman of the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists. He told Reuters that “geo-engineering has a lot of unknowns.”  He then questioned the science of climate modification: “How can you go into an area where you don’t know anything?” In this case, may be it is Pachauri the person who needs to do some reading, because the dire consequences of artificially manipulating the weather have been known for a while now. Pachauri and his team are now looking into Geo-engineering as a tool to carry out weather modification. The group is scheduled to issue a report about Geo-engineering in 2013.

But we need not to wait for their assessment. Uncountable articles and documents have already documented the negative effects that Geo-engineering has on the planet and everything that lives in it. See a short list of articles below:

Climate Change spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering

Government Study: Geo-engineering Too Dangerous

Geo-engineering Could Backfire, Make Climate Change Worse

Why Geo-engineering Doesn’t Make Economic Sense

Geo-engineering To Mitigate Global Warming May Cause Other Environmental Harm

The only positive feedback regarding Geo-engineering comes from the mad, power thirsty scientists who seek to advance their careers by imposing a systematic program of global weather modification, even though they claim to ignore the full-scale of the negative consequences that such program will have on all of us. Most pro Geo-engineering articles and alleged studies generally focus on the money aspect of the matter — it is the cheapest way to stave off global warming — although its effects on the planet, advocates say, are unknown.

Unfortunately, on the main stream cloud of ideas, the other solution to “save us” from global warming is reducing emissions, which intrinsically means taking us all back to the stone age, as United Nations globalists have proposed: To de-industrialize the developed world while keeping the poor nations poor (@ 7 min 40 sec). In fact, the current emissions reduction scheme is just a way to fund the United Nations’ global climate executive branch while helping front-men like Al Gore get richer. It is also about allowing big polluter nations such as China, India and large corporations a license to pollute at will through the payment of carbon offset credits while ignoring what seems to be the real cause of global warming: Geo-engineering itself.

As Joe Romn said, “Geo-engineering is a dangerous course just as chemotherapy and radiation are when treating a condition curable through diet and exercise.”

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Highest storm activity associated with cold periods

NATURE GEOSCIENCE | NOVEMBER 14, 2012

Considerable climatic variability on decadal to millennial timescales has been documented for the past 11,500 years of interglacial climate^1, 2, 3. This variability has been particularly pronounced at a frequency of about 1,500 years, with repeated cold intervals in the North Atlantic^1, 3. However, there is growing evidence that these oscillations originate from a cluster of different spectral signatures⁴, ranging from a 2,500-year cycle throughout the period to a 1,000-year cycle during the earliest millennia.

Here we present a reappraisal of high-energy estuarine and coastal sedimentary records from the southern coast of the English Channel, and report evidence for five distinct periods during the Holocene when storminess was enhanced during the past 6,500 years. We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods diagnosed earlier^1, 2, 3.

We show that millennial-scale storm extremes in northern Europe are phase-locked with the period of internal ocean variability in the North Atlantic of about 1,500 years⁴. However, no consistent correlation emerges between spectral maxima in records of storminess and solar irradiation. We conclude that solar activity changes are unlikely to be a primary forcing mechanism of millennial-scale variability in storminess.

Read Full Article →

 

Meteorologist Tim Kelley: ‘Consensus’ has little place in science

By TIM KELLEY | CLIMATE DEPOT | NOVEMBER 9, 2012

Meteorologist Tim Kelley of WLNE TV in Providence, Rhode Island, analyzes Sandy and global warming. Kelley’s bio available here.

Tim Kelly: Here is a note I sent to many who asked me about climate change and Sandy.

Since my 1974 6th grade science class with Mr.Melnick at Wixon Middle School in Dennis Massachusetts, I have studied weather, climate and climate change.

I am fascinated by the Geology and Climate of Cape Cod and New England.

The name of my public speaking presentation is ‘Why Cape Cod has the most interesting weather on Earth”.

It’s an obsession for me.

It was a great honor when I was invited to the White House by Al Gore in 1997.

I listened from the front row as he stated his case on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ever since that time, not a day goes by without me contemplating his warnings.

After years of exhaustive analysis on the subject, there is only one conclusion.

The alarm and fear of anthropogenic global warming is a major distraction and a waste of resources that could otherwise go to helping humanity.

We should be adapting to climate change, not trying to change climate.

Sandy is not an unprecedented storm. The 1938 hurricane was worse, and was followed by major hurricanes in 1944 & 1954. Three major hurricanes in 16 years.

We are fortunate to have gone nearly 60 years without a comparable storm here in the northeast.

History is full of stories of storms much worse than Sandy.

1898, 1888, 1831 , 1821 , 1717 , 1635

Thomas Jefferson (yes, that Thomas Jefferson) was also concerned about climate change

In fact, climate change may reduce intensity of tropical cyclones

“The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones”

A glance at the history of Global Temperature reveals that for most of the planet’s existence the temperature has been much warmer than today. Using the logic of natural variations, we should enter a much warmer phase, humans or no humans.

Our atmosphere is composed of many compounds, among them 390 parts per million of CO2, a tiny fraction of our atmosphere.

Of that tiny fraction, an even smaller amount may be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.

Study after study shows that our planet thrives in times of more CO2, it is vital to life on earth. If anything we should hope for more CO2.

Heat on Earth comes from our Sun, and is stored in our oceans.

Small fluctuations in solar and oceanic cycles dwarf any impact on climate when compared to influence of anthropogenic CO2.

“Increasing evidence from around the world shows that the main driver of terrestrial climate is the Sun. It is responsible for climate variability that ranges from millennial, centennial, multi-decadal, and seasonal timescales.”

From a scientific perspective, it’s almost unfathomable that we have been duped into believing the scare generated by Climate Change Alarmists.

There is no consensus regarding this issue.

In fact that word, ‘consensus’ has little place in science.

We look at data.

The data shows no correlation at all between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and climate change.

Here is a list of 30,000 or so scientists that agree with my position.

Most Sincerely,

Tim Kelley

Scituate MA

B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College 1987

Life time student of Atmospheric Science