Saturday, 25 March 2017

Washington Times: White House petitioned by hundreds physicists on Paris Conference.

 - The Washington Times - Thursday, February 23, 2017
More than 300 scientists have urged President Trump to withdraw from the U.N.’s climate change agency, warning that its push to curtail carbon dioxide threatens to exacerbate poverty without improving the environment.
In a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.
“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.
Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat “dangerous” climate change.
The 2016 Paris climate accord, which sets nonbinding emissions goals for nations, was drawn up under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
“Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from
In a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.
“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.
Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat “dangerous” climate change.
The 2016 Paris climate accord, which sets nonbinding emissions goals for nations, was drawn up under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
“Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions,” says the petition.
 
SPONSORED CONTENT
, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.
“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.
Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat “dangerous” climate change.
The 2016 Paris climate accord, which sets nonbinding emissions goals for nations, was drawn up under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
“Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions,” says the petition.

SPONSORED CONTENTIn a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.
“Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm — with no environmental benefits,” said Mr. Lindzen, a prominent atmospheric physicist.
Signers of the attached petition include the U.S. and international atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, physicists, professors and others taking issue with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], which was formed in 1992 to combat “dangerous” climate change.
The 2016 Paris climate accord, which sets nonbinding emissions goals for nations, was drawn up under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
“Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions,” says the petition.


Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Tony Heller defends Scott Pruitt against the New York Times

New York Times attacks new head of US Environment Protection Agency Scott Pruitt and Tony Heller.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html

Response from Tony Heller

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/reader-view-an-environmentalist-and-a-climate-change-skeptic/article_132c439c-0191-534a-89d2-3ccbee4698ef.html

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Northern Hemisphere snow extent












http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1       (acknowledgements Paul Homewood blog)

Thursday, 23 February 2017

Conservative Daily Post: Nasa to stop Global Warming Research

https://conservativedailypost.com/senate-rules-nasa-global-warming-research-stop
by Matthew Berstein   American Strength.              
                                                     Global Warming Research to be switched to Space Exploration
Conservative Daily Post

Anyone who has ever listened to a liberal talk for more than 10 minutes will have undoubtedly heard about one of at least three things that they consider issues. They will talk about global warming, how President Donald Trump is racist, sexist, etc. or they will discuss illegal immigrant rights.
Despite the fact that the scientific evidence that liberals claim to show evidence of global warming was altered to support their statements, they continue to talk about how it needs to be combatted. They want a tremendous amount of time and research, and money, going into that section of science, taking away from others in the process.
Under former President Obama, that was allowed to happen. NASA, the only science agency that the United States has that can explore space and everything out there, was instead focusing on global warming research, thanks to the money that was given to them by Obama.

Meanwhile, the House is expected to pass the bill as well and early indication shows that President Trump is more than willing to sign it. The bill’s supporters claim it “re-balances” NASA’s budged back to space exploration instead of focusing on global warming and other earth science research.
Effectively, Republicans plan to cut more than $2 billion that NASA spends on its Earth Science Mission Directorate. It might not seem like a lot of money to an agency like this, but every dollar helps.

“By rebalancing, I’d like for more funds to go into space exploration; we’re not going to zero out earth sciences.” That statement came from Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. He is also the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
“I’d like for us to remember what our priorities are, and there are another dozen agencies that study earth science and climate change, and they can continue to do that.” It’s not that unusual a request considering that NASA was literally created to focus on space exploration.
The past eight years under Obama saw NASA’s spending on earth and global warming research increase by over 60 percent. That also made it the largest and fastest growing budget of any single NASA science program.

This includes astrophysics and space technology. Those programs received a little over $780 million and just under $830 million respectively. So even when they are combined, the programs don’t reach the same budget as what NASA was spending on global warming research, really showing how far behind the country is on space exploration.
Smith continued, “We only have one agency that engages in space exploration, and they need every dollar they can muster for space exploration.” If there is only one agency designed for space exploration and they aren’t even focusing on space, then what good is it going to do?
To help in this, Trump has put former Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker as a senior adviser to his NASA transition team. It’s a good call, as this is someone that believes NASA should do less “politically correct environmental monitoring” and more space exploration.
Walker, accompanied by another senior adviser to the Trump campaign, Peter Navarro, wrote an opinion piece in October about NASA and space exploration. “NASA should be focused primarily on deep-space activities rather than Earth-centric work that is better handled by other agencies. Human exploration of our entire solar system by the end of this century should be NASA’s focus and goal.”
Experts have blamed former President Obama for delaying plans to send astronauts to Mars until 2030. This wasn’t anything new as back in 2007, then-Senator Obama had called for delaying the Constellation program to replace NASA’s Space Shuttles for five years to pay for his education program.