Category Archives: cap and trade

Dr. Judith Curry Believes the RoadMap to Zero CO2 Emissions Is Infeasible.



I have promised some critical views from skeptics regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap to zero CO2 emissions by 2050.  If you need to get up to speed regarding  the Paris Agreement Roadmap,  please review my last two postings. 

Let’s begin with Judith Curry’s thoughts on this topic from her posting of 25 March titled A roadmap for meeting Paris emissions reductions goals”.

JC reflections

Apart from the issues raised in this paper, there are several other elephants in this room:  there is growing evidence of much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2; and even if these drastic emissions reductions occurred, we would see little impact on the climate in the 21st century (even if you believe the climate models).

I think that what this paper has done is important:  laying out what it would actually take to make such drastic emissions reductions.  Even if we solve the electric power problem, there is still the problem of transportation, not to mention land use.  Even if all this was technically possible, the cost would almost certainly be infeasible.

As Oliver Geden states, its time to ask policy makers whether they are going to attempt do this or not.  It seems rather futile to make token emissions reductions at substantial cost.

Deciding that all this is impractical or infeasible seems like a rational response to me.  The feasible responses are going with nuclear power or undertaking a massive R&D effort to develop new emission free energy technologies.  Independent of all this, we can reduce vulnerability from extreme weather events (whether or not they are exacerbated by AGW) and the slow creep of sea level rise.


Dr. Curry’s remarks are very succinct.  To be a success, the roadmap requires many inventions that to date have been sought after but not delivered.  And she points out, as noted in this blog on a number of occasions, the climate sensitivity used by the warmers gives temperature increases that are unsupportable.  This roadmap is necessary in large part because it is predicated on those exaggerated temperatures the climate models produce.  That is Dr. Curry’s “elephants in the room.”

And she thinks it is way too costly.  I believe she is spot on.

Dr. Currys posting can be accessed this link

Some additional comments to follow in the next posting.


Planning CO2 Reductions Has Been Haphazard At Best–And Is It Really Needed?

My first venture into the study of global warming was as a researcher for a State Senator at a time when his State was considering a set of new laws to combat man made global warming. The laws were to be based upon a just published study that had been led by a Professor at the University.  The study was how the State should control emissions, improve energy efficiency and develop schemes to reduce energy consumption.  In many respects, energy efficiency, for example, had good programs. But its ideas for regulating and controlling energy in the name of global warming, was a reach too far in my thinking. 

In my reports to the Senator, I always requested that he try to make the study authors provide an end point and how they were going to get there. I know he tried to do this, but with no success. They would only say that it was necessary to prevent or stop man-made global warming.  It was obvious to me this would be an enormous task that might not be possible to accomplish.

I believed that the legislators should know what was needed to be done, how long it would take, and what would be the costs of these actions.  In my years in the business world, that information was a requirement if I expected to get the money needed to achieve some results at the end point. 

The Study was adopted and the over the years, coal plants have been shut down, subsidies paid to renewable energy producers, and the State eventually joined a cap and trade organization.

The public has been made to pay for some crony capitalism in the form of fuel cell production. More crony capitalism was in play when the State offered incentives in the form of loans to have in-state manufacturing of a hybrid plugin automobile named the Fisker Karma.  The project fell through because of battery fires and an incident of flooding followed by fires of Karmas when tropical storm Sandy hit a New Jersey Port.  The State got some of their money back. The big loser were the Feds who had loaned Fisker $529 million.  I believe that the Feds  only got back $25 million when it auctioned off Fisker to a Chinese company.

The State has installed a small number of wind turbines and solar cells.  Fortunately, their plan to set up the first East Coast Off Shore Wind Farm was aborted.

All of this has had no perceptible impact on the global climate nor will it ever.  It has made the State’s residential electric rates to the 14th highest in the contiguous US.  No long-term plan; no real vision of where the State was being led.

This story is a microcosm of what has happened globally.  The Paris Accord, that  Obama signed and provided $500 million in his last days in office, is clearly unworkable. As the dimensions of the required cuts in CO2 are at last becoming clear, the task is so enormous that it is almost beyond comprehension.  It will not be implemented as the task is so far from anything the human population will accept either financially or from the suffering it will cause.  And is it really necessary to cut CO2?   The next blog will look at what has been proposed as the action plan to prevent a  global temperature rise  of 2°C.


Cap And Trade Group (RGGI) Overstates Its Accomplishments

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, aka Reggie) has posted “New Study: Carbon Cap and Trade Has Saved Lives”.  (The  RGGI posting can be seen at the end of this posting.).  RGGI has a membership of nine states, that have collectively set caps on greenhouse gas emissions.    RGGI states that they have cut emissions by 37%, lowered electricity prices, saved lives and improved the health of vast number of people.  Actually the emission cut is essentially too tiny to measure in the big picture.   Data from the US Department of Energy makes the claim of lower electricity prices questionable and the improved health unsubstantiated.  Let’s examine RGGI’s  claims.

The following chart has been prepared using data from  the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).

CO2 Emission in millions of metric tons.   Data from Department of Energy,      
State 2008 2014               %                delta, metric tons
Connecticut 37.7 35.1 -7 -2.6
Delaware 16.2 13.3 -18 -2.9
Maine 19.1 16.6 -13 -2.5
Maryland 73.8 61.5 -17 -12.8
Massachusetts 76.7 63.9 -17 -13.1
New Hampshire 18.7 15 -20 -3.7
New York 190 169.7 -11 -20.3
Rhode Island 10.7 10.6 -1 -0.1
Vermont 5.9 5.9 0 0
RGGI CO2 EMISSIONS 448.8 391.6 -12.3 -58
US CO2 EMISSIONS** 6022 5489 -8.9 -533
GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS** 29728 33355 12.2 3627
** 2007 rather than 2008

The nine States that make up the RGGI are listed.  RGGI’s stated goal  is to reduce emissions from fossil fuel powered electrical generation facilities.  The numbers in the above chart are for the all sources of CO2 emissions in each state. The period from 2008 to 2014 is used because that is the range used in the current (September 2016) RGGI report: “The Investment of RGGI Proceeds Through

The total reduction of CO2 emissions for the RGGI group States for the period from 2008 to 2014 are 58 million metric tons.  That looks impressive but in the big picture, it is a drop in vast atmospheric ocean.  During the time that these 58 million metric tons were not emitted, the global addition was estimated at somewhere around 210,ooo million metric tons.  The net effect is too small to  measure.  The EIA estimates that China and India will emit 11,460 million metric tons of CO2 in 2017 and they are forecast at 11,705 million in 2018.  And former President Obama signed a pact with China that allows them to continue increasing their emissions until 2030 while the US is to reduce its emissions some twenty percent.  Isn’t that a “great” deal?

The RGGI is a “cap and trade” program.  When the US Congress rejected a “cap and trade” program sponsored by ex President Obama, these States developed the RGGI program which was fully operable by 2008.  They reduce the amount of CO2 each year that these power plants can emit.  The reduction has varied but is nominally about 3% per year. If other facilities in their States have a CO2 baseline than exceeds their needs, they can sell it through RGGI to the highest bidder.   These “CO2 allowance”  sold last year at about $3.30/ton.   The income from these sales so far is about $2.5billion. Obviously, this is a State revenue scheme.  RGGI uses this money to insulate homes, put in renewable energy systems, help some people pay their power bills among other things.  In 2014, paying the bills of low income families was nearly non-existent except in Vermont where 98% of their share of the income from sales of CO2 Allowances was used to help single family homes with bills and home efficiency improvements.  It appears that RGGI’s installation of renewable energy systems are a major user of the funds from sales of CO2 Allowances.  So, they probably off-set the cost of installation of solar cells., for example.  One of the States has just set up a deal with Solar One to install these systems. Most of the installations of roof top solar systems that I have  seen are made in communities where affluent people live.  Are the wealthy benefiting the most from RGGI’s programs?

The RGGI posting also said that “Recent assessments of the program have shown none of the negative economic impacts that some feared at the outset.  In contrast, economies in RGGI states have actually grown faster than in other states. Electricity costs have declined by a few percent, on average .”

Using the EIA data for the Average Price Electricity to Ultimate Customer by End Use Sectors for the YEAR 2015—Cents per Kilowatt-hour we constructed this chart:

STATE Residential* Commercial Industrial Transport
Connecticut 20.94 15.97 12.95 13.18
Massachusetts 19.83 15.79 13.54 7.76
Rhode Island 19.29 15.78 13.76 18.54
New York 18.54 15.31 6.31 12.95
New Hampshire 18.50 14.96 12.74 —–
Vermont 17.09 14.54 10.27 —–
California 16.99 15.73 12.17 8.99
New Jersey 15.81 12.79 10.64 10.25
Maine 15.61 12.47 9.05 ——
Michigan 14.42 10.55 7.02 11.44
Wisconsin 14.11 10.89 7.58 14.66
Maryland 13.82 11.00 8.53 8.34
Pennsylvania 13.64 9.60 7.20 7.28
Delaware 13.42 10.25 8.28 —–

In Bold are the 9 RGGI States. 

New Jersey, once in the RGGI, dropped out.

(*Beginning with Connecticut, these 14 States have the highest residential rates in the continental US.  (Hawaii and Alaska are the only other States with higher residential rates.)

There must be other things going on to make the statement that the RGGI States “economies are growing faster than in other states.”  It does not look like the electricity prices would be favorable.  I am surprised that the prices for 6 of the RGGI States are higher than those in California.

Another part of the posting by RGGI alleged health benefits.

The following are the health benefits that RGGI lists in their posting:

“Abt Associates used mathematical models to estimate the scale of such health benefits, and found that RGGI has averted:

  • 300 – 830 premature adult deaths
  • 35 – 390 heart attacks
  • 8,200 – 9,900 asthma exacerbations
  • 13,000 – 16,000 respiratory illnesses”


Models!!  UGH!   Anyway, the EPA has a model based upon some secret science that generates these figures. It is 2.5 micron particles that are inhaled that are supposed to cause these health issues.  The EPA is using this secret science to try to put out of existence, all fossil fuel generated electricity.  The EPA has issued regulations that are called the Clean Power Plan. These regulations have been  stayed by several courts.   The Courts along with President Trump’s support, may withdraw the Clean Power Plan.

Before delving into the secret science, let’s lok at what a stretch RGGI is making.  The atmosphere is well mixed and CO2 and these 2.5 micron particles are pretty much in the same amounts in most places around the world. So, it is unlikely that the atmosphere in the RGGI regions is any different from any place else. Nothing the RGGI is doing can be having a measurable effect on the air the people breath, hence the claim is not viable. Remember how small the actual RGGI emission reduction is.

I have made two postings on the Clean Power Plan.  The EPA claims  mercury and 2.5 micron particles are dangerous .  Thus they must be removed from the emissions by fossil fuel (particularily coal) electrical generating plants.  The EPA limit on mercury lacks a good scientific basis.  Click here to review my posting on mercury.   The following is from one of my  posting on the 2.5-micron particle which discusses the secret science the EPA is using.  Cllick here to read it in its entiretly.


In this case the toxins are particulate matter—2.5microns (PM2.5) or smaller in diameter.   For perspective, how big is a 2.5micron particle? 2.5 microns are equal to 0.00025 centimeters or 0.000099 inches. Yes, you are right, you can’t see them.

The EPA touts a study that says PM2.5 is dangerous, but they won’t share all the study data with anyone. Thus, no other science body can confirm or deny the studies results.  Secret Science. We are told we must take their word for it.

The EPA found it necessary to get a friendly team to do this study because other work, including some of their own, shows no harm. This particular study group has done “friendly” work for the EPA and the American Lung Association. One of principal authors has received over $31 million in payments from the EPA for his studies.   (No energy company can match the EPA and other government bodies when it comes to paying for studies.) The study is called the Harvard 6 Cities Study and this is what Dr Battig** said about it in his posting on WUWT titled “A Physician’s Perspective on the EPA’s “Data Derangement Syndrome”:

“The Harvard Six Cities Study (Laden et al 2006) forms the scientific basis for much of the EPA claims regarding PM toxicology. Yet examination of the data shows that the statistical relative risk (RR) for total mortality claims range from below one to barely above one and a fraction. They do not meet the minimum legal standard of a RR of 2 to identify a significant population risk. In addition, these Harvard studies have walled-off their raw clinical data from independent investigators by claiming patient confidentiality, thereby preventing duplication of results by others. Independent reproducibility and verification of test results are the traditional hallmarks of scientific research. Invoking patient confidentiality to block access to raw data casts doubt on the entire process since providing such patient protection is not particularly difficult.”

Not only will they not allow examination of all the data, the study’s RR does not meet minimum legal standards and yet they want to impose it on us.

Dr Battig adds this:

“The EPA has been conducting controlled human exposure studies to air pollutants on the University of North Carolina campus for more than thirty years. During that time more than six-thousand volunteers have been studied without a single serious adverse event being observed…so is there a health problem to investigate or not? How much more testing looking to define a disease? It looks more like a disease concept in search of a susceptible victim”.

At the 10th International Conference on Climate Change, Dr Battig; Scientific Integrity Institute President James Enstrom; and S. Stanley Young, a fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science did an outstanding panel discussion on this topic. posted “Conference Panelists Criticize EPA Health Scares” written by ALYSSA CARDUCCI carried this insight from S Stanley Young:

“After examining reams of data, Young concluded the threats of air pollution, PM2.5, and ozone contributing to deaths are “imaginary”.

Young received “the biggest data sets on the planet” to study the effects of air pollution on human health in California. The dataset included 13 years of data on eight California air basins and daily electronic death certificates equaling more than two million certificates and a total of 37,000 days of exposure.

Using standard statistical techniques, Young and two other statisticians found there were “no acute or chronic effect on deaths in California.”

“I call this a fact,” Young said. “We have the biggest data set on the planet for looking at this, and there is no effect.

“If air pollution was a killer, it would be killing everywhere, and the fact that we’ve established that it’s not killing in California puts every other paper at risk for the claims that they have made,” Young said.

Dr Battig adds:

“In view of EPA PM2.5 mortality claims at 35µg/m3, why are airport smokers and the Shanghai population not dropping dead on the spot? Airport smoker lounges have ambient levels of 600µg to 10,000µg PM2.5. A single draw on a cigarette floods a smoker’s lungs with 10,000µg to 40,000µg. The Shanghai press reports PM outdoor levels of 600µg/m3. It also reports that the average life expectancy there is 82.5 years…a life expectancy greater than any major U.S. city. Where are the overflowing emergency rooms and mortuaries?”

It’s clear that the EPA doesn’t have science to support this bill. Extensive testing by the EPA and in California for just two examples, show no correlation between PM2.5 and “premature death” or apparently, any deaths. The study they are using is by scientists that seem to be bought by the EPA. And obviously, they know that the study data cannot stand the light of day, hence it becomes another use of SECRET SCIENCE.

My take on RGGI is that it really has not done much for what they set out to do, and that was to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Perhaps they recognized the futility of that objective and decided that the tax would work out just fine.  One more bureaucracy taxing and regulating.  Would it not have been better to just lower the price of electricity and rather than collecting money and trying to pick winners and losers?

The thrust of the posting by RGGI (see it in its entirety below)  was that they were saving lives.  Firstly, the basis for the saving lives is some secret science that would not need to be secret if was actually verifiable.  Secondly, the actual reduction of CO2 and related emissions is too small to have any effect what so ever.  Thirdly, because the atmosphere is well mixed, there never will be a pocket of significantly cleaner air just over the RGGI States.


** Dr Charles Battig resume

Charles Battig

Charles Battig is a retired physician with a postgraduate degree in electrical engineering. In the 1960s he served as principal scientist in bio-medical monitoring systems at North American Aviation Los Angeles in support of the Apollo Moon Mission. From 1967 to 1969, he held the rank of senior surgeon/commander in the U.S. Public Health Service at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, in the biomedical engineering branch. Following teaching appointments in anesthesiology at UCLA and Mt. Sinai,New York, he entered the private practice of anesthesiology until retirement. After re-settling in the Charlottesville, Virginia area, he undertook to provide an alternate voice on climate change issues in the backyard of the University of Virginia, the former home of both Patrick Michaels and Michael Mann.


New Study: Carbon Cap And Trade Has Saved Lives


Living Lab on The Point



A new study this week finds that a regional carbon cap and trade system has saved hundreds of lives and billions of dollars for New Englanders. Officials from the nine participating states are currently working out the future of the program.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced Reggie, for short) began in 2009. There are nine member states – all six New England states, plus New York, Delaware, and Maryland – that collectively set caps on greenhouse gas emissions, and then auctions off allowances for power plants to produce such carbon emissions. To date, participating states have cut emissions by 37% – two and a half times more than non-RGGI states.

Recent assessments of the program have shown none of the negative economic impacts that some feared at the outset. In contrast, economies in RGGI states have actually grown faster than in other states. Electricity costs have declined by a few percent, on average. And, the cap and trade program has generated $2.5 billion in revenue for participating states.

Now, a new study says it has also produced health benefits. It’s a logical conclusion; power plants that emit greenhouse gases also produce particulate air pollution that is linked to adverse health effects, such as asthma, respiratory illnesses, and heart attacks. Conversely, limits on greenhouse gas emissions would be expected to reduce air pollution and their related health impacts.

Abt Associates used mathematical models to estimate the scale of such health benefits, and found that RGGI has averted:

  • 300 – 830 premature adult deaths
  • 35 – 390 heart attacks
  • 8,200 – 9,900 asthma exacerbations
  • 13,000 – 16,000 respiratory illnesses

Since people who are sick (or worse, dead) can’t work, these health benefits also have ramifications for workforce productivity. Abt Associates estimates that the avoided health problems resulted in somewhere between 39,000 and 47,000 regained work days.

Between the savings in health care costs and the restored productivity, Abt Associates says RGGI has saved participating states some $5.7 billion.

That’s one more piece of information RGGI supporters hope officials will factor in as they decide the future of the program. Current emissions caps expire in 2020, and the participating states are currently working to set new caps for 2021-2030. It had been hoped that a new plan, or at least proposal, would be in place by the end of 2016. The process has been delayed by a few months, in part to allow participating states to explore options if President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is struck down in the courts or abandoned by the incoming Trump administration.

Still, RGGI hasn’t fallen off the radar. Earlier this week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo pledged to cut the RGGI carbon cap 30 percent by 2030. That would be roughly 3 percent per year between 2021 and 2030. That’s less than the 5 percent annual reduction RGGI states have been averaging since 2005.

Last fall, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker called for maintaining the annual 5 percent reductions through 2030. This week, Peter Lorenz, a spokesperson for the Baker administration, said they remain committed to RGGI and the “objective of reducing carbon emissions while stabilizing energy bills, preserving electricity system reliability, and creating local jobs and economic growth.”

Drain The EPA Swamp—Part 3- Endangerment Finding


The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress.  Good things were accomplished by the EPA.  But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:

The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:

  • Social Cost of Carbon
  • Secret Science
  • Peer Reviewed Studies
  • Friendly Law Suits
  • The Endangerment Finding
  • Research Grants
  • Last Minute Regulation

Of all the items listed above the most significant is the Endangerment Finding.  The Endangerment Finding was prepared by the EPA at the request of the US Supreme Court.  The EPA was being sued by the State of Massachusetts who alleged that the CO2 should be regulated as part of the Clean Air Act passed years before by Congress.   Documentation showed that the Congress had considered regulation of CO2, but had rejected inclusion of CO2 in the Clean Air Act.  In 2007, The Supreme Court ruled, even though CO2 regulation was rejected by Congress, that if the EPA could show CO2 was endangering the people and Earth, then the Court would rule that it could be regulated. The EPA clobbered together IPCC data and announced, to no one’s surprise, that it was endangering everything.   The Clean Air Act had given the EPA nearly free reign to regulate designated pollutants.  Making CO2 part of that Act, now gave them power to regulate CO2 emissions.

Continue reading

Hillary Clinton Will Not Stop The UN Acting On The Bogus Theory Of Catastrophic Global Warming


We need to stop the UN and their IPCC from carrying out the Paris Accord.  The pact maybe unenforceable but a lot of damage will be done to the US economy and the rest of the world’s economy in its name.    The Chinese are lobbying against Donald Trump—where are those voices that say the Russians should not be poking their nose into the Presidential election.  Why are the Chinese lobbying?  Because they say we need to reduce our CO2 emissions.  This is the nation that President Obama negotiated a pact with where we reduce our emissions but the Chinese do not have to do that until 2030.  During which time we will be putting the brakes on our economy while they are rapidly expanding theirs.  If Trump ever had a target pact that the US  has been badly out foxed, this is it.    It will not be changed if, tomorrow Hilliary Clinton wins the Presidency, nor will the bad deal we got from the Paris Accord. 

Oh yes,  the Chinese CO2 emissions are already the largest in the world at about twice ours.  When 2030 arrives the Chinese emissions should be three times those of the US.

UPDATE   From Watts  UP With That is a posting that elaborates my point about China and their plans for coal burning.  Read this   “China Announces a Massive 20% Increase in Coal – by 2020”.


Read the NBC News posting  “Prospect of President Trump Casts Clouds Over COP22 Climate Conference”


Bjorn Lomborg Says Global Warming Is A Poor Place To Spend $

Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish economist, joins the “consensus” supporting the theory of man-made global warming (AGW), but not catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). He is disliked intensely by the wamers but not because he doesn’t believe in CAGW. He gets this lack of love because he believes that the money spent in the name of global warming is largely misspent. He says the money would be better spent to reduce malnutrition, make immunizations available, better education, prevention of AIDs, providing electrical power to reduce air pollution, etc. These beliefs are laid out in the TED talk video below.

This a fascinating talk.  He shows how much improved Earth has become from 1900 to 2013 and projects changes to 2050.

Continue reading

Pope Francis Is Poorly Informed About Global Warming

For centuries, the “consensus science” stated the Earth was the center of the universe. In 1610 the skeptic, Galileo Galilei, publicly disagreed saying the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the other way. The Catholic Church leaders called this a fallacy.  Galileo published his theory in 1632 and was found guilty of heresy and placed under house arrest where he remained until his death 9 years later. It now looks like the Church is about to make the same mistake of picking sides concerning the controversial scientific theory of catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW). It is said that Pope Francis will issue an Encyclical saying that World should support the United Nations plan to eliminate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It doesn’t make sense.

Continue reading

Shutting Down U.S. Coal Based Power Plants Will Not Lower Global Temperatures

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a new set of proposed regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing U. S. power plants. The premise for this EPA action is that unless CO2 emissions are reduce global temperatures would rise by the end of this century to levels that would cause catastrophic climate change damage. But the basis for such action is not science but rather politics. In our previous posting, it was shown that climate models that predict global temperature are not skilled and have not predicted actual measured global temperatures. Using these models to base legislation is playing Russian Roulette with the US economy.

Knappenberger and Michaels (K&M) posted on 12 June in WUWT “EPA leaves out the most vital number in their fact sheet”. They show that this initiative will not have any measureable effect on global temperatures. K&M summarize the “regulation”:

“The EPA’s regulations seek to limit carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production in the year 2030 to a level 30 percent below what they were in 2005. It is worth noting that power plant CO2 emissions already dropped by about 15% from 2005 to2012, largely, because of market forces which favor less-CO2-emitting natural gas over coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity.”


“For some reason, they left off their Fact Sheet how much climate change would be averted by the plan. Seems like a strange omission since, after all, without the threat of climate change, there would be no one thinking about the forced abridgement of our primary source of power production in the first place, and the Administration’s new emissions restriction scheme wouldn’t even be a gleam in this or any other president’s eye.”

“But no worries.  What the EPA left out, we’ll fill in.

“Using a simple, publically-available, climate model emulator called MAGICC that was in part developed through support of the EPA, we ran the numbers as to how much future temperature rise would be averted by a complete adoption and adherence to the EPA’s new carbon dioxide restrictions*.”

The answer? Less than two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius by the year 2100.   0.018°C to be exact. 

Well how did they come up with that number?

  • They used the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)— to examine the climate impact of proposed regulations.They used the three IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). RCP4.5=low-end emissions, RCP6.0=middle of the road and RCP8.5=high emissions.
  • They estimated the US power plant CO2 emissions.

KMcarbonemissionscenariosgsr_061114_fig1Figure 1. Carbon dioxide emissions pathways defined in, or derived from, the original set of Representative Concentration pathways (RCPs), for the global total carbon dioxide emissions as well as for the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to U.S. electricity production.

“We then used MAGICC to calculate the rise in global temperature projected to occur between now and the year 2100 when with the original RCPs as well as with the RCPs modified to reflect the EPA proposed regulations (we used the MAGICC default value for the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (3.0°C)).”

KMglobalavgsurfacetempgsr_061114_fig2Figure 2. Global average surface temperature anomalies, 2000-2100, as projected by MAGICC run with the original RCPs as well as with the set of RCPs modified to reflect the EPA 30% emissions reductions from U.S power plants.

Because the difference between lines is so small, the authors added two tables for the data illustrated in figure 2.



Yes,  this posting says that the computer models are not suitable to make policy decisions and yet the K & M posting is predicated on a computer model. Two things here. First, in the course of making this new policy the EPA climate model must have been run by the EPA. They did not list a drop in global temperatures so they know it is devastating.   Second, the EPA is not likely to claim the K & M work is invalid because EPA must use this model in their other pronouncements about climate .


The K& M posting should be read in its entirety.


















Reposting: “Didn’t Our Media Tell Us That Snow Was A Thing Of the Past?

Some of you may have noticed that I  have not posted since the middle of  November.  This is because I am tied up in a project that should be completed by the end of February.   Even so, I do occasionally find posting that I would normally have posted with comments.   The following is a posting by 21th Century Wire that I believe should be read.
Andrew McKillop
21st Century WireIt’s like we’re living in ancient pagan Greece or something.Only yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that the storms and floods causing havoc across his countrywere because climate change. Yes, that old chestnut.It’s one things for politicians to try and leverage public approval by flying the flimsy climate banner. You expect that. But no such leeway should be given to the media, as it is supposedly their job to inform the masses of facts, not mythologies.

Politically Correct ScienceLet’s trace this tragic tale to the beginning. Seemingly decades ago, not 13 years, the UK Independent newspaper started the new century with the goal of becoming a world leader in government-approved, corporate-friendly global warming propaganda. Its chief warmist and green scribe, Charles Onians, fired the first climate salvo in a March 20, 2000, in this leading article:“Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture”.The Independent was soon followed by other UK papers, US papers, and European papers, and their broadcast media, in a permanent propaganda blitz to take “the warming thing” to the ultimate limits of childlike hysteria and stark distortion using the uncertain science of “the CO2 hypothesis”. The propaganda onslaught was stamped with the “warmist” hallmark of elite condescension and smug conviction that ordinary mortals are much too stupid to understand this “scientifically proven” crisis.In what would become a typical example of “warmist” genre material, Charles Onians in 2000 cited David Viner, a researcher at the later-infamous climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia – the Home of the Hockey Stick – who told the unscientific masses that very soon “winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event”. And as for homeless sleeping in the gutter, not so many would die in the night – posing an existential crisis for English Middle Class Morality! By 2006, the UK Independent was regularly carrying junk science hysteria from ‘Gaia” author James Lovelock, a key example being his claim that “Billions of persons will die before the end of the century from global warming”. Since 2012, ‘Jim’ Lovelock has completely retracted and denied his warmist convictions, and tiptoed away from the train wreck of elite propaganda.Always Go FurtherAl Gore, chief promoter of the global warming scam with Rajendra Pachauri, always went further. Their propaganda onslaught mixed and mingled pure egoism with a frenetic drive to make millions for themselves and enrich their fellow conspirators, through an ultra-tenacious promotion of  any “carbon-linked” cash-grubbing scheme. Showing what the business press calls “initiative and drive”, they promoted anything ranging from investment and trading scams, through government tax and corporate subsidy scams, to lurid books, films and TV documentaries.THE CHURCH OF CLIMATE CHANGE: Gore and Pachauri guide the mass cult off their intellectual cliff.

Al Gore repeatedly said, in print, “the Arctic will be ice free by 2013”. Gore made this claim in print in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

And it didn’t happen. In fact the Arctic ice cap’s surface area increased by more than 25% in 2012-2013. The much-larger Antarctic ice cap also increased, by about 5% using NASA data. NASA, which is a fully warmist institution peddling the “CO2 hypothesis”, has been forced to admit the Antarctic ice sheet is now at its largest since it started regular satellite monitoring in 1979.

Media spending on the permanent propaganda campaign has been massive, and a fantastic misappropriation of public money where this concerns state-owned media. Obsessionally and expensively filmed summertime-only shots of polar ice melting – which the “climate correct” media has stuffed down our throats for a decade – are however now likely to be retreating to where they belong. To the trashcan of history and to empty film theaters, and late night TV doc boredom for the almost-asleep.

The warmists set up and tirelessly milked the global warming cash cow for all it could yield, but now it is Game Over time. Their great scientific scam may now be what it always scientifically was, a Cuckoo Theory which evicted all other possible theories of why the climate changes.

The Latecomers and Still Hopefuls

As plenty of writers including myself have explained plenty of times, the “CO2 theory” is scientific folk history and was junkscience from the moment it started – in about 1795 with Joseph Priestley and his lurid vision of Phlogiston Terror. To him worse than Al-Qaeda or mustard gas in the trenches of World War I, Priestley thought “phlogiston” could cause a mass dieoff of English industrial workers exposed to woodburning and coalburning fumes!  But nobody had to believe it.

Today, only the most primitive minded and witless “warmists” soldier along, spouting idiocies in the hope the under-informed and the lazyminded will continue to buy their junkscience.

If all goes according to plan, Hollywood icon Leonardo DiCaprio will blast into space on the maiden voyage of Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic “spaceship” this year. Incredibly enough, Messrs. Branson and DiCaprio style themselves as environmentalist celebrities with the elite mission of warning us there is a “coming ecological catastrophe” if we fail to address the carbon crisis.

Simply because they have garnered a large amount of money over the years, one way and another, their “commitment to fighting climate change” is called praiseworthy by brain-dead media, committed to “celeb worship” even as it backs off and away from the Global Warming scam. Richard Branson, despite all his attempts, is still far behind Al Gore in “warmist” cash-grubbing so he is active wherever that might turn a penny.

Branson claims he was “turned on” to Global Warming by ‘Jim’ Lovelock in person – the same Lovelock who has abandoned the scam. Branson is the founder and CEO of the “Carbon War Room”, an outfit advocating punitive-high energy taxes, which therefore has fawning support from Big Energy and Big Government, but his big hope is that “low carbon space travel” can become his new profit center. His one-liner to critics that space travel and carbon hysteria do not seem to mix, is that his brand of space travel is (very) Low Carbon. Cited by Wall Street Journal, 7 January, he has claimed: “We have reduced the [carbon emission] cost of somebody going into space from something like two weeks of New York’s electricity supply to less than the cost of an economy round-trip from Singapore to London”.

As we know, this concerns low-orbital short-period flight in the upper atmosphere, and nothing to do with real space travel, but coming from a “Global Warming ikon” we must accept there is always massive exaggeration and distortion. It is New Normal. On the other hand, we do not need to accept the plain, straight lying.

According to the US FAA-Federal Aviation Administration, also cited by Wall Street Journal, its own environmental assessment of the launch and re-entry of Virgin Galactic’s spacecraft says that one launch-land cycle will emit about 30 tons of carbon dioxide, or about five tons per passenger. That is around five times more than the carbon footprint of a round-trip flight from Singapore to London. When the support and infrastructure energy costs of the entire Virgin Galactic operation are added, including high-atmosphere flights by tracker and support aircraft, the total carbon emissions rise to about seven times more than an average round-trip flight from Singapore to London. The FAA says that for each passenger on a single trip using Virgin Galactic their total energy burn will be at least twice the energy an average American consumes in a year.

When or if Branson’s tacky low-orbital “space” flights backed by the United Arab Emirates and their “low carbon” petrodollars ever get their celebrity cargoes out of the Earth’s gravity field, a trip to Mars will be obligatory.  Here, they will find an atmosphere that is about 96% carbon dioxide (or 960 000 parts per million), and they will be able to smugly gurgle, for the short time they can still breathe: “We told you so!”. Back on Earth however, a little modesty, or at least the prospect of lawsuits for open lying – which is cited by observers as one reason ‘Jim’ Lovelock and his namesake James Hansen have backed away from the Warming scam – call on them to give us a rest and to please pipe down.

Keeping The Baboons Warm

Keeping the warmist gravy train rolling – whatever happens in the real world – is rapidly reverting to whence it came.  Big Government, the UN system, the nuclear power and alternate energy industry, and financial opportunists always looking for a new scam. To this motley crew, we have two major bit-part players – government-friendly media and Mr and Mrs Average Informed Citizen – so well-informed they are both easy prey for the lying propaganda from the Carbon Purists. But neither, in fact, can be counted on by the warmists, as they will soon find out.

Baboons in an English wildlfe park searching hot potatoes (Source/ Guardian)

Any kind of historical perspective on atmospheric science and the origins of the “CO2 hypothesis” was until recently deliberately kept out of the media. Any reference to “alternate theories” was trashed by the media as negative, anti-science, badly-intentioned and probably corrupt. Global Warming of the Al Gore variety was to  the west what Lysenko was to the USSR of Stalin. Any mention of the relatively large, sometimes outright large changes of world average temperatures over the last 1500 years was derided by warmists  – because there was warming in 1980-2000, by a few fractions of 1 degree celsius, we have a crisis. Only “carbon effluent” in the atmosphere could have caused this! What else?

The media, like public opinion is doing what it always does – it moves slowly but surely like a Titanic-crushing iceberg, breaking up as it goes. The media at this moment is packed with scientifically flaky, superficially plausible stories about how global warming causes record cold and massive snowstorms in New York, but also that until the magic date of 2065 global warming will be “net positive” for human beings, while Mr Obama has told us (although we don’t have to believe him) 97 percent of scientists still think crisis-style warming is a reality.

In a late 2013 report, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said that most media coverage of climate change now emphasises uncertainty, and an increasing number (25%) focus on the “positive opportunities” global warming could or might bring.  Global cooling, however, remains completely banned from mainstream media, except as  freaky tidbit, despite it being at least as possible that we have cooling, as warming, in a time frame stretching to 2065.

Keeping The Baboons Stupid

Admitting that we don’t know what happens in the Earth’s atmosphere, therefore we can’t know how climate changes is affecting global temperature – is the ultimate blog-material. It is the no-no option and “just in case”, or “simply by precaution”, so we have to reject that possibility. Time is limited and Al Gore needs cash. Propaganda overkill arrived. Now Gore’s pews are empty, and we’re left with hit-and-run street preachers.

One key benefit of the comeuppance for global warming, losing its status of “unquestionable” except by misfits, psychotics and the badly-motivated, is that climate change will be able to emerge as the real subject of interest.

We are likely near the point, now, when the blindest and most faithful cult followers of global warming and the “CO2 hypothesis” will have to admit they’ve been sold a pup. The computer-modeled, science-correct, politically-correct theory of man-made CO2 causing global warming, or its second-best rebranded title of “climate change”, or its third-best of “extreme weather”, was a 10-year trip to oblivion along the well-trod path of Dumbing Down. Global Warming was Dumb with a capital D.

Gore-theory proved nothing at all. The sole benefit of the waltz down Propaganda Lane is that we know climate is changing but we don’t know why. Being able to admit that is difficult for high intellect baboons.

Baboons are in fact a lot more results-oriented, and have much less time to waste on trivial pursuits than human beings. For that reason they do not invent new enemies and they make do with ones they always have had and know well. Who are real. The Global Warming crisis movement – an example of mass hysteria – invented an all-new enemy for Mankind, called Mankind.

Also called misanthropy and being more than a little dated, the warmists pushed the misanthropy button so hard we were asked to think “we” are destroying our planet – unlike Al Gore with his personal Gulfstream 5 jet, his expanding waistline and penchant for fillet mignon and massage parlors with happy endings – and unlike Richard Branson and his Virgin jetliners, because average humans use far too much fossil energy, but Branson and his Hollywood playboy pal are apparently “saving the planet” for those of us who don’t own our own island in the Caribbean.

This mental constipation only has one logical readout – that human beings should operate a mass cull or Die Off, to prevent us from killing the planet – which belongs to very nice persons like Gore and Branson. Even low-IQ baboons would reject the embarked logic inside this mental masturbation. They would much prefer serious endeavors like looking for rapidly-cooling potatoes in the snow.

It’s officially an evolutionary crisis when the feral monkeys start looking smarter than our jet-setting monkeys in suits. Maybe it’s time to put the feral baboons in suits and ties, and let them realize their true Darwinian potential in Westminster, Brussels and Washington.

President Obama Is Prevaricating Again

The President in his weekly address did it again. He  said things that are demonstrably untrue and in other cases terribly misleading.  This comes after the debacle resulting from his lying when he made assurances about keeping your medical policy under Obamacare, period!!!!  Why is he doing it again?  Because he knows, with the compliance of the Main Stream Media (MSM),  he can mislead the low information voters.  And he is happy to be doing that. See the video of the address by clicking here.

He takes credit for the increase in oil production in the US.  He has had nothing to do with it.  And he knows that.   The oil boom comes from private landowners operating on non-federal land.(See chart below.)  He cannot prevent exploitation of those reserves.


Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration based on DrillingInfo and LCI Energy Insight

Continue reading