Wednesday, 19 July 2017

Every state in the US over 90F July 1934.

Every state in the US was over 90F in 19 July 1934, many over 100F.   Highest temperatures in US history.  acknowledgements to Google earth and Tony Heller.  (to say todays temperatures 2017and 2016 were highest is outright lies)

Friday, 7 July 2017

Tom Harris article in Washington Times on climate change

The flaw in President Trump`s energy policy.
Tom Harris International Climate Science Coalition

President Trump’s energy policies are, mostly, a beautiful thing to see. In line with his America First Energy Plan, Mr. Trump has ended the Obama administration’s war on coal, America’s least expensive source of electricity, by rescinding the Clean Power Plan and other burdensome and unnecessary regulations. He has fast-tracked the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to increase the flow of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta to U.S. refineries. And of course, he has announced U.S. withdrawal from the flawed Paris Agreement on climate change, while promising to “refocus the [Environmental Protection Agency] on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.”
On June 29, at the Unleashing American Energy Event at the Department of Energy in Washington, Mr. Trump went even further. He committed to work to “revive and expand our nuclear energy sector,” starting with a “complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy.” He will encourage the financing of highly efficient overseas coal stations. New petroleum pipelines are in also the mix, as are new natural gas sales to South Korea, new export terminals for natural gas, and a new offshore oil and gas leasing program.
But there is a fly in the ointment, an echo of climate change policies that, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Obama administration spent $120 billion on. Rather than dismissing the Paris Agreement as fundamentally unsound, a multitrillion-dollar boondoggle devoid of sound science, Mr. Trump said at the Energy Department event, “Maybe we’ll be back into it someday, but it will be on better terms, fairer terms. We’ll see.”
The Paris Agreement is based on the hypothesis that carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial activities are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous climate change. If carbon-dioxide emissions are harmless or, as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month, not “the primary control knob for climate,” then the raison d’etre for Paris vanishes. It makes no sense to boast, as Mr. Perry does, that, even though the U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement, “the United States already leads the world in lowering emissions.”
All efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions are, at best, a waste of money. That includes the capture and storage underground of carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, which Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., told E&E News on June 30, “was a pseudonym for no coal.” Mr. Murray explained, “It is neither practical nor economic . It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”
Senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute, Frederick D. Palmer, said, “Though still undergoing further research, capturing CO2 and compressing it to a liquid for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery from shale fields may be valuable. But it should be funded mostly by industry as they see fit, not the government.

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry questions CO2 climate change.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry did a remarkable thing last week: he expressed skepticism about the causes of climate change in a TV interview and, even after widespread condemnation from environmentalists and the press, he did it again a few days later before a major Senate committee.
After telling a CNBC host on June 19 that he did not believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary “control knob” for climate, Perry said:
“This idea that science [of climate change] is just absolutely settled and if you don’t believe it’s settled then you’re somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective. I think if you’re going to be a wise, intellectually-engaged person, being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite alright.”
Climate activists and many media were outraged. The Houston Chronicle reported, “Perry’s comments drew attacks from environmental groups, which called the former Texas governor a ‘climate denier.’” The Chronicle’s energy correspondent, James Osborne, condemned Perry for questioning “one of the fundamental tenets of climate change.”
“Rick Perry’s outrageous comments are the latest indication that this administration will do everything in its power to put polluter profits ahead of science and public health,” said Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Liz Perera.
Labeling Perry’s comments “anti-science,” Mashable, a prominent online media company, headlined their coverage, “Rick Perry just said CO2 isn’t the leading driver of climate change, even though it is.”
On and on went the attacks from Associated Press, Salon magazine, Toronto Star, Market Watch, etc. Media outlets that reported uncritically on Perry’s comments were few and far between.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) even sent an open letter to the Secretary, warning him, “It is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause [of recent global warming]… Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.”
Most politicians would have responded to the onslaught by quickly issuing a mea culpa press release, pledging allegiance to political correctness. But not Perry. Only three days later, in response to intense questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) at the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing about President Trump’s 2018 energy department budget request, Perry asked, “Don’t you think it’s OK to have this conversation about the science of climate change…What’s wrong with being a skeptic about something that we’re talking about that’s going to have a massive impact on the American economy?”
Perry’s points about climate change, in both the TV interview and his Senate testimony, are justified. And being a skeptic about such a complex and uncertain field, especially one with expensive policy ramifications, is indeed “quite alright.” Besides being necessary for science to advance, skepticism is the duty of our elected officials when activists demand the allocation of vast sums of public money to contentious causes.
In fact, dozens of open letters and other public lists show that many experts do not support the hypothesis that we face a man-made climate crisis. The Climate Scientists’ Register assembled by the International Climate Science Coalition is perhaps the simplest document of its kind. In only a few days in 2010, over 100 experts from 22 countries agreed to the following statement:

Leading alarmist climate scientist Michael Mann commits contempt of court
report by John  O`Sullivan (PSI EO)

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
Defendant in the libel trial, 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

John O'Sullivan
CEO & Trustee: 
Principia Scientific International (A registered UK charity)