Showing posts with label Greenpeace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greenpeace. Show all posts

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Agri Econ 24, Greenpeace voodoo science vs GMOs

Greenpeace voodoo science was slam dunked last week by real scientists. GP do heavy political science then call it climate science, bio science. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. 


From the WaPo news last June 30, 2016: 

The letter campaign was organized by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and, with Phillip Sharp, the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns. The campaign has a website, supportprecisionagriculture.org, that includes a running list of the signatories, and the group plans to hold a news conference Thursday morning at the National Press Club in Washington.

“We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science," Roberts told The Washington Post. “Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause."

GP is wrong on perhaps 99% of their advocacies. Anti-coal, anti-nuke, anti-fossil fuels (yet their leaders proudly and braggingly announce that they jet set to this and that country and continent for various meetings, riding on planes that use 100% fossil fuel...), anti-GMO, anti-capitalism, etc. The 1% where they are correct is campaign against solid wastes that are thrown anywhere.

"From its early days of dodging harpoons and Japanese whalers in outboard motor boats, Greenpeace has parlayed media savvy, flagrant dishonesty and an ­aptitude for political theater into a $360 million-plus per year empire with offices in more than 40 countries." http://www.forbes.com/.../greenpeace-more-dishonest.../...

GMOs are safe. Most if not all the rice that I and millions of Filipinos have been eating since the 70s are GM rice. 4 decades or more have passed, none has become a frankenstein. And no food riots despite the population rising from around 40+ M in the 70s to 102 M now.

There are some scattered studies that perhaps were not peer reviewed or published in lesser known papers saying that GMOs are dangerous and scary. The 107 scientists who speak up here are top caliber ones, Nobel laureates. Between these 100% scientists and perhaps 100% non-scientist GP militants, the former has more credibility.

I think of more modernity, more prosperity, more food efficiency. The PH will soon have 200, then 300 M people and there will never be food riots. Thanks to modern science, thanks to GM science.

Our farm caretaker (now 62 yo) in Pangasinan told me few years ago that when he was young, he was helping his father in rice farming and the "good" quality rice then, non-GM (no IRRI perhaps yet), could be harvested after 6 months. So after 6 months, harvest was very small -- subjected to heavy rains, typhoons, flooding, rats, birds, wild ducks, kuhol, many other pests.

The key to good rice farming is to harvest the crop in a short period. The dominant varieties are still harvestable after 4 months, but there are many varieties now that are harvestable after 3 months, even 2 1/2 months. Plant quick, harvest quick, reduce exposure to various pests, and farmers' income will be higher, consumers' rice supply will be higher. Thanks to GM rice.
----------------

See also:
Agri Econ 18: Israel's Modern, High Tech Farming, March 17, 2015

Monday, February 01, 2016

Climate Tricks 51, The CCC, Greenpeace and fossil fuels

A friend, Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Commssioner Chito Gascon posted this status and photos last January 28.

On 27 January 2016, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), with the Climate Change Commission (CCC), organized a whole-day learning session on relevant environmental laws, national policies and international mechanisms on climate change. One of the objectives of this activity was to emphasize the interdependence between climate change and human rights. It was also a venue for both parties to keep each other updated on the existing programs and projects concerning mitigation, as implemented by CCC and other involved government agencies.


This initiative is part of CHR’s program of actions in response to the complaint filed by Green Peace and other environmental advocacy groups on 22 September 2015 that called for the investigation of big fossil fuel companies for violating human rights through environmental pollution. The said complaint is the first petition in the world against the so-called 50 “carbon majors.

I made the following comments:

Huh? Greenpeace people do not ride cars, buses, airplanes -- all that use fossil fuels? They only walk, ride bicycles and flying brooms that do not use fossil fuels? hehehe, double talk pa more.

And GP, the great campaigner against GMO. Ask the scientists from UP -- Diliman, Manila, Los Banos, etc. -- if GMOs like Bt eggplant are indeed that scary.

Here's what GP Founder, Patrick Moore, say about fossil fuels and CO2 emission, October 2015. Long, technical paper, but worth reading. http://wattsupwiththat.com/.../greenpeace-founder.../

Greenpeace founder delivers powerful annual lecture, praises carbon dioxide - full…
WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM

Hi CCC guys, GP, WWF, UN,... you have lots of climate meetings and conferences each year, jet setting from one big city to another, or some exotic resorts. All your plane rides, car or bus rides, use petroleum/fossil fuel 100%. In case you take airplanes that run on water, or you ride via flying brooms or kites or other flying objects that use zero fossil fuel, pls post immediately so I can help spread it out. That you guys walk the talk and not engage in double talk. cheers.
----------

More stories about Greenpeace here, from http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Greenpeace


And a few years ago, there was a proposal by the CCC of a climate or extreme weather index insurance for farmers and fisherfolks. When there are more rains and no rain for X number of days, where there are more floods or no flood for X number of days, farmers and other food producers will be paid. By whom? By private crop insurance firms, so farmers will pay a (bad) weather insurance fee.

Weird proposal because less flood and more flood, less rains and more rains, less storms and more storms, have been with us for decades, for centuries, even for millions of years.

Global Tropical Cyclone Frequency- 1971 to Present



source: http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png

Climate alarmists and religionists should study more data, hard scientific data, before they mouth "unprecedented" and "unequivocal" flooding/rains/drought/storms. These "extreme" events do have precedents, even before CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was below 350ppm, even before the UN was invented.
---------------

See also:

Sunday, November 01, 2015

Greenpeace is Blocking You

Some feature articles in http://wattsupwiththat.com/ about Greenpeace.


Below are some of my old articles about Greenpeace.

(1) I wrote on November 19, 2011:

Tonight, after being inactive in twitter the past few days, I checked my twitter account, checked Greenpeace Philippines twitter to reply to whatever alarmism they may be spreading.

Surprise, they are blocking me! Great guys, you look cute and beautiful.

I thought they were just plain cowards when you challenge them to a public debate on climate, and that's it. Then they can also be intolerant and block off those who question their religion. Halleluiah Al Gore and IPCC. Your devout followers (and dark lords, hehe) like Greenpeace are, well, your followers :-)

Cheers Greenpeace. Long live AGW religion and climate rent-seeking.

Enjoy big money and fame by fooling the public big time.


(2) I wrote on August 21, 2009:

Greenpeace Leader Admitted Exaggerating Loss of Sea Ice

Now the outgoing leader of Greenpeace admitted that they indeed exagerrated their claims of an "ice free" Arctic by 2030. The UN and Greenpeace (and also WWF, other environmentalist groups, big and small, national and international), live with this simple motto: "Be dishonest if you must, continue scaring the public, we get our hundreds of millions of dollars annual funding."

Below is a portion of the commentary made by Anthony Watts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

"The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”


(3) November 22, 2010:

Greenpeace Alarmism and Anti-Coal Hysteria

One adverse effect of climate alarmism is the implicit desire to fight high economic growth, to fight modernization. The militant environmental activists would rather see people riding bicycles and horses than ride more cars, buses and trucks because of the high carbon emission by the fossil fuel-powered vehicles.

If people ride bicycles or horses, they cannot transport several tons of farm output -- rice, corn, bananas, vegetables, chicken, swine, etc. -- in a short period. Farmers will experience huge farm losses as those agri crops, when not transported quickly to the consumers in the urban areas, will easily rot, or suffer quality deterioration, resulting to lower farm income if not losses.

Among the militant and notorious anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel, anti-carbon, anti-nuclear, anti-many things environmentalist groups is Greenpeace. The others are Oxfam and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Greenpeace helped agitate the folks of Maasim, Sarangani, a small town in southern Philippines, into opposing the construction of a coal power plant in the area. Their local partner group is the Maasim People’s Coalition on climate change (MP3C). See the report here today, Residents oppose coal-fired power plant project.

The Philippines is projected to experience significant power failures in the next six years or less because of not enough power plants to sustain increasing power demand by a growing economy of 94 million people (as of 2010). Thus, there is a pressing demand to put up more power plants now as it takes at least two to three years to build a new power plant to produce additional energy.

The proposed coal power plant is projected to produce 200 MW of power for Mindanao in two years. But the militants are opposing it and they are sometimes effective in launching idiotic campaigns.

Greenpeace campaign to kill coal and other non-renewable but cheaper power sources in order to "save the planet" and their new campaign to pressure the Philippine government to have at least 50 percent of power to come from renewables (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) by 2020 rests on the lousy "science" of AGW hypothesis.

Renewable power sources are fine. They expand the range of choices for the consumers. Rich and environmental do-gooder consumers can power their houses and farms with solar and wind if they wish to, fine, no problem. So long as they pay the market rate of such power sources. These are expensive power sources for now, and their power supply is not stable and not reliable. For instance, a supposedly 50 MW wind farm can actually produce only about 10 MW power on average as the 50 MW is the maximum power that it can produce -- if wind speed is at its optimum all the time, 24 hours a day.

To force the country and the private enterprises and households to rely on expensive and unstable power sources is asking the country to suffer more poverty, more power outages, more unemployment.

To Greenpeace and similar environmental activists, I have been challenging you to a public debate on the science of AGW. Global warming was true, and so was global cooling. The planet's climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling is mainly due to natural factors (the Sun, ocean, water vapor, clouds, volcanoes, GCRs, etc.) and not because of human CO2 emission.

Prove your voodoo science before you hostage this country with your alarmism.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Energy 46, Dominance of coal power worldwide

Double talk is a perennial practice and characteristic of the "kill fossil fuels, save the planet" movement. They frequently jet-set to many countries and continents yearly on airplanes that run 100% on petroleum then lambast petroleum; they stay in huge, glitzy and brightly-lighted cities and hotels that are often dependent on coal and natural gas then lambast coal, natural gas and fossil fuels. And so they actually contribute to more global dependence on  coal and natural gas.

The Washington Post ran a story last October 12, 2015, As appetite for electricity soars, the world keeps turning to coal. It is a climate alarmist story and yet the authors recognize that as of 2012, the world -- rich, middle income and poor countries combined -- was dependent on 68% fossil fuels (coal + natural gas + oil) for their electricity needs. The 21% renewables are largely "old renewables" like big hydro and geothermal. The "new renewables" like wind and solar should contribute something like 2-4% of total.


In terms of total global electricity output from 1980 to 2012 (32 years), the biggest increase in GWh are (1) coal with 6.1 M and (2) natural gas with 4.1 M. Percentage wise, biggest increase were recorded by nat gas and nuke.


So although it is a climate alarmism article, there is honesty in recognizing that if people want more and stable electricity, fossil fuels are inevitable and reliable energy sources.

From a nice US Chamber of Commerce article last October 16, 2015, There Are Gigawatts of Good Reasons to Still Mine Coal, this table is lifted from the World Coal Association.

Top 10 countries -- coal fired power station build


* Globally, there are 510 coal-fired power plants under construction, with a further 1,874 planned, a total of 2,384.
* China, India, Indonesia dominate making up 71% of the total
* Philippines, Vietnam, Turkey and Pakistan bring up the total up to 81% 
* Europe and America play a very small role.

source: World Coal Association

It is good that despite heavy lobbying by the "kill coal, save the planet" movement led by Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam, Sierra Club and other big environmental groups, with indirect (and sometimes direct) blessings and funding of the UN, ADB, WB, etc., the three big ASEAN countries Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam realize that it is not possible for them to grow fast if they will shun cheaper and stable energy sources like coal.

In the US, despite echo-pronouncements by the Obama administration, the biggest economy in the world is 70% dependent on coal and natural gas (35% each) for its electricity needs as of July 2015. This data is from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), October 07, 2015.


To glorify darkness -- like the "Earth Hour" annual campaign of the WWF -- is lousy.  Idiotic too. Where there are more dark streets because electricity prices are high and power sources are unstable, there are more crimes and road accidents that happen. And they normally victimize the poor. It is the poor who have no cars and must walk even  in dark streets at night. And thieves, rapists and murderers prefer darkness than lighted streets.

Where there are frequent brownouts due to insufficient baseload power plants (like coal, nat gas, nuke and big hydro), more people use candles. And there are more fires, more deaths and destruction of properties. Or there are more expensive and noisy generator sets that run on... fossil fuel diesel.

The climate alarmism, anti-coal, anti-fossil fuel movement is clearly an anti-poor, anti-development, pro-ecological socialism movement.
-----------

See also:

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Earth Hour 6: The WWF can Change Climate Change?

To celebrate darkness even for one hour is lousy. More, stable electricity at lower price gave us modern life, including the convenience of the web, blogger, facebook and youtube. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), instigator of "celebrate darkness", "use less energy and electricity" movement, along with the  UN and Greenpeace, should give special awards to North Korea.


The WWF says "change climate change". Huhhh? Climate change is natural and cyclical. Like day-night cycle, dry-wet season cycle, winter-spring-summer-fall cycle, water evaporation-condensation cycle, etc. They want to change that natural cycle?


The WWF, the UN and GP, the triumvirate for climate alarmism, should have offices in Pyongyang.  It's heaven on  earth there, they have little electricity, few power plants from non-renewables, and they use less energy.


The UN says we should send them more money, so they can have more and  endless climate junkets. As the UN and other climate alarmists cause more alarm and public scare, they get more funding, private and taxpayers money. Then use the money to scare and deceive the public more.


Greenpeace US says more lights and electricity creates "man-made" CC. Thus, the solution is to go dark, wow. The offices, the houses of officers and staff of WWF, UN and GP should go dark every night, 365 nights a year and not just one hour a year. That way, they can help save the planet and walk their talk.


Ok, what is the inconvenient truth in climate science? I am posting just four papers from four scientists from four different sources.


The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted their claim that the 20th century was the warmest ever.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) showed that the present warming trend began prior to the major impact of the Industrial Revolution. Significant production of CO2 by humans began only after World War II....

(2) From Dr. Roy Spencer, On Natural Climate Variability and Climate Models, February 27th, 2015.

Global average surface temperature changes (as James Hansen has also stated), can only be due to 3 processes: (1) radiative forcing, (2) radiative feedback, and (3) changes in ocean vertical circulation, all of which can be addressed with a 1D model like ours.


(3) From Dr. Murry Salby, Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths ofa degree, if at all', Hockey Schtick, March 24, 2015.

Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the "surface properties", do not have the anthropogenic emissions.

...The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.

Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share....

(4) From Drs. Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt, Solar Cycle Weakening…And: German Analysis Shows ClimateModels Do Overestimate CO2 Forcing, NTZ, March 05, 2015

Figure 1: Solar activity of the current Cycle No. 24 in red, the mean value for all previously observed cycles is shown in blue, and the up to now similar Cycle No. 1 in black.


Enjoy 6 other beautiful charts here.

Here in the Philippines, I think more people now realize that glorifying darkness, even for one hour, is a stupid act. Hence, few people turned off their lights last night. If people think having darkness is a good act, then they should have earth hour every night, 365 hours a year, not just one hour a year. 

A friend, Selwyn, also  observed:

If someone already knows that atmospheric CO2 is readily convertible to carbonic acid in water (H2CO3) which converts to Bicarbonate (HCO3-) which converts to either Sodium Bicarbonate or the Carbonate ion (CO3-2) which ends up as Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), also known as seashells, skeleton bones, coral reefs, chalk, and limestone, one would also know how quickly such a CO2 increase would quickly be absorbed by the environment. But since very few so-called "environmentalists" actually know science, it's very easy to make them panic. Boo!

Finally, here's a better celebration. More lights at night mean less road accidents, less crimes, less strained eyes by students and workers. The campaigners of "darkness to save the planet" do not realize the dangers to humanity of their advocacy. Or they realize it but they do not care. What is important for them is the advancement of their ecological central planning advocacy.
-------------

See also:
Earth Hour 1: Success in North Korea, March 28, 2010
Earth Hour 2: "Reduce Consumption of Power" -- WWF, March 18, 2011
Earth Hour 3: Letter to WWF-EH Campaign Leaders, March 21, 2011
Earth Hour 4: WWF-EH Censoring Critical Comments, March 30, 2011 

Earth Hour 5: Celebrating Darkness is not Wise, March 30, 2012

Climate Tricks 36: Avoid Looking at Data 450,000 Years Ago or Longer, December 29, 2014 
Climate Tricks 37: Climate Money and the Scientific Dishonesty Behind It, January 31, 2015

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

GMOs, Greenpeace and Public Health

Sometime in July 2013, I had a debate with some Greenpeace activists, about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I initially called them as “anti-CO2, anti-coal, anti-nat gas, anti-nuke, anti-GMO, anti-Bt corn, anti everything”.

The GP guy, Francis, replied that they are “against burning coal and fossil fuels, not only because doing so produces CO2 that causes global warming and nuclear power is beset with a lot of issues, esp. safety issues. but we are not "anti-everything" in fact, we are for other cleaner and safer sources of energy and energy efficiency. our stand against GMOs (e.g. Bt talong) is also a stand for sustainable agriculture. so hindi rin anti-everything.”

Here are the succeeding exchanges….

Nonoy 12 years ago, we have a loooong discourse and debate about GMOs, particularly Bt corn, a cousin of the Bt eggplant controversy. Bacillus thuringensis is a soil-dwellling bacteria, part of nature, that corn borers and other pests dislike and find so yucky. You put the Bt on corn, eggplant, your crop almost become organic -- no need for pesticide, insecticide, as the borers and other pests will simply not attack them. But Greenpeace priests hate natural pesticides, they want what?
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/08/pilipinas-forum-4-gmos-are-good.html

Meanwhile, lawyers and judges at the Court of Appeals (CA) can now decide with finality scientific debates that require deep sciientific expertise? You need molecular biologists, chemists, botanists, zoologists, physicians, and other scientists to make a ruling of "safe" or "non-safe".

Greenpeace hates modern science and products of molecular biology. If GM feeds for chicken and hogs were not developed because Greenpeace opposed them and got Court ruling, the price of chicken and hogs could be P200 a kilo or more. Mass production is the clear solution to drastically raise food output and avoid hyper food inflation and food riots. We are thankful that Greenpeace fanaticism against modern science has not reached this far yet. But who knows, maybe tomorrow or next year.

That is why people should not support Greenpeace. The money you donate will be used to further stupefy and idiotize the public -- from GMOs to "man-made" warming to coal to natural gas and nuke. Nothing personal but the ideology of ecological socialism, of anti-capitalism, is what makes Greenpeace and allies become dogmatic in their environmental nirvana

Ipat commented,
“Brilliant PR work. Step 1: hide the multinational giants behind "FIlipino scientists". Step 2: Hide the multinational billions and highlight Greenpeace's money sourced ONLY from individuals, no corporations, Step 3: Make it a nationalist issue, as if the Pinoy scientists have no other backing and invented the GMO technology themselves (heck they're only testing it and if they think it's okay, farmers would have to keep paying for the intellectual property rights!) But with that, I have to tune out also, I've heard Mr. Oplas on this before and ne'er the twain shall meet.”

Monday, August 13, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 20: Flooding and Global Cooling

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/40229/fat-free-economics-flooding-and-global-cooling
----------

More rains and floods are indicators of global cooling, not warming. Many campaigners of anthropogenic global warming or its cousin, the man-made climate change, argue however that less rain and more drought is an indicator of AGW, even as they claim that more rain and flooding is also an indicator of AGW.

It is irrational to argue that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less typhoon and more typhoon, less snow and more snow, are all indicators of AGW and CC. The argument given by the AGW campaigners is that with a warming world, there is more drought and less rain. Fine. But they later added that a warming planet causes more water evaporation from the oceans, in turn forming more rain clouds that cause heavy rains.

Before probing deeper into the inconsistency and dishonesty of the above claims, let us briefly review the flooding that hit Metro Manila and many other provinces of the country early this week. Interaksyon.com reported that more than 540,000 families or more than two million people have been affected and some 60 people have died of drowning, landslides and related catastrophe.

Below are two charts of the sea surface temperature or SST anomaly, a “deviation from the normal” temperature, as of this week (upper image) and last week (lower image). The Philippines as of August 9, 2012 had a temperature anomaly or divergence of between -0.5 and -1.5 degrees centigrade, meaning colder than normal. This weather pattern also affected many Northeast and Southeast Asian countries, down to northern Australia. El Nino has actually resumed since around June this year after almost two years of La Nina, yet many parts of the Pacific Ocean still have colder than normal conditions.

The lower image shows SST anomaly from another source, as of August 1, 2012 or last week. The Philippines had between 0.5 and 1.0 degrees centigrade colder than normal temperature that time, especially the northern and eastern parts of Luzon. A big part of the Indian Ocean had between zero and 1.0 degree centigrade warmer than normal temperature, or the average SST from 1971 to 2000.

Sources: Upper image: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif, Lower image: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif

Determining whether the planet is entering a La Nina or El Nino condition is based on the SST anomaly in Pacific Ocean’s Nino region 3.4 shown in upper left photo below. It comprises the biggest and central part of the Pacific Ocean, which comprises about a third of the planet’s total surface area, and larger than all landmass and continents combined.

Images from upper right clockwise represent the SST anomaly for Nino 3.4 over (a) last five years, (b) last 12 years, and (c) last 62 years. It is clear here that there is no such thing as “unprecedented warming” in the world’s biggest ocean, that it was a natural cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, each phase lasting for a few years. So the statement of AGW campaigners like the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and many other groups and institutions, of “unprecedented warming” or “unequivocal warming” is simply not true, that they have been dishonest to the public.


Source: WUWT’s ENSO Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/

Let us review air temperature, particularly the troposphere, the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere, and the stratosphere, the second layer after the troposphere. From satellite data interpreted separately by the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the Remote Sensing System, global troposphere temperature anomaly, or divergence from the normal temperature, was generally rising from 1979 when satellite data was first gathered. But if one will plot a linear trend starting from around 2000 up to the present, a flat-lining, if not decline in global temperature can be observed.

In the stratosphere though, the trend over the past few decades has been a temperature fall or global cooling at the second layer of the planet’s atmosphere.


Sources (from top left, clockwise): UAH, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif, RSS data, WUWT’s Atmospheric Page, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/

In combined land surface plus sea surface temperature anomalies as gathered by HadCRUT data sets, the trend from 2000 to the present is flat, or slightly declining or cooling.


Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2012/trend

Finally, let us compare the climate projections by the UN IPCC vis-a-vis actual temperature anomaly. Below, the upper photo shows a huge divergence between the two as the global air temperature has started to flatten, then descend in the middle of the last decade.

Lower photo shows a disconnect or absence of “causality” between carbon dioxide emission and global air temperature. As the former keeps rising to nearly 400 parts per million, the global air temperature from January 2002 to July 2012 was declining or cooling by around 0.03 degrees centigrade per decade.


Sources: Upper graph: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/joe-bastardi-weighs-in-on-the-watts-muller-scuffle/, Lower graph: http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

Thus, there is dishonesty on the part of the UN and its climate and environmental bodies – IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, WMO, among the major ones, along with Al Gore, the big environmental NGOs like WWF and Greenpeace.

Before, they were telling the public to prepare for more drought and rising ocean due to the “alarming ice melt/loss” in both the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica. Recently they reversed gear and now say that the public should prepare for more rains. There are many negative implications for the lousy analysis and projections by the warming camp. Among them are the following:

- One, creation of carbon taxes, stricter environmental and energy regulations regarding the use and consumption of fossil fuel and other carbon-emitting vehicles and power plants;

- Two, creation of many new climate bureaucracies. Here in the Philippines, among those newly created bodies purportedly to “fight climate change” aside from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources are the Climate Change Commission, National Renewable Energy Board, NDRRMC, and many other climate offices and bureaucracies at the local government levels;

- Three, contracting billions of dollars of climate and energy loans from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to help “save the planet.” At a time when our public debt is already at a high level, about 40 percent of GDP, expanding the government debt for some phony and unnecessary program is bad public policy.

The government should instead use more money to dredge creeks, rivers and lakes, as we expect more rains and more floods, in fact worse than what we have experienced so far. Global warming and cooling phases last for several decades, not just a few years. Let the strong flood and rain water move faster to the ocean so that flooding of many streets and residential areas in the country will be significantly controlled and minimized.

Lastly, let us build more dams. Projections like lack of water that can trigger future conflict between and among countries and people are unrealistic. What we experience is too much water with more frequent heavy rains. Government need not build more dams. Let private corporations, real estate developers build more dams, small to medium size ones to minimize dislodging upland dwellers and cultural minorities. More dams will impound more floodwater while ensuring steady flow of water for the public, from ordinary households to rice farmers needing more irrigation, or small hydro power plants.

Global cooling will spawn more flooding, possibly more severe and more catastrophic than what we have experienced so far. Let climate realism reverse the damage and uncover the intellectual dishonesty of climate alarmist groups.
----------

See also:
Climate Tricks 11: Coal and James Hansen, RE Law and the WWF, July 18, 2012
Climate Tricks 12: More Flooding is Caused by Warming, July 21, 2012
Climate Tricks 13: Block Skeptics and Keep Fooling the Public, July 25, 2012
Climate Tricks 14: Flooding, El Nino and Arctic Ice, August 08, 2012
Climate Tricks 15: AGW Fiction, Avoiding Natural Climate Drivers, August 12, 2012



Fat-Free Econ 18: Healthcare Corruption and Physician Entanglement, July 30, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 19: Population Decontrol, Not RH Bill, August 06, 2012

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Climate Tricks 13: Block Skeptics and Keep Fooling the Public

One common practice of the man-made warming leaders and campaigners is to block off people who often question their religion. I have confirmed that once more two days ago when I checked my twitter account. I have observed earlier that after questioning several tweets by Greenpeace Philippines, they blocked me from following them, I posted it here, Greenpeace is Blocking You, November 19, 2011.

When I checked again last Monday, this is the result.


Cowards, as usual. They only need people who will pat them in the back as "planet saviors". Well, at least I sent them this tweet, "cowards in debates..."

Another cousin or sibling in cowardice but sibling in climate alarmism and noise is the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), their WWF-Philippine office also blocked me. No tears guys, sorry.


Oh, the perennial Philippine "climate negotiator" for two decades or more, Dean of the Ateneo School of Government (ASoG), Atty. Tony La Vina, also do not like me questioning his "save the planet" mantra. But at least I sent this tweet to him, "Warming fanatics blocking me..."


Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Climate Stupidity 24: Environmental NGOs as Climate Saviours

The UN FCCC meeting in Durban ended last week. Here's my article yesterday:

http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/1250-environmental-ngos-and-the-climate-racket

Environmental NGOs and the Climate Racket
Many environmental NGOs are in the frontline of climate alarmism and scaremongering and in the process, they earn oodles of money from various donors, private and government. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam and Greenpeace are clearly the top three of these NGOs.

I was scandalized by this analysis of the number of participants in the on-going UN climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Out of the 14,500+ registered participants to the two-weeks meeting, nearly 6,000 were from NGOs, nearly 5,000 from governments or country delegations, 1,400+ from media, 1,100+ from different UN agencies, 486 from different international organizations (WB, ADB, etc.), 327 from UN Secretariat, and 278 from “unknown” or non-registered groups. See the chart and longer discussion by Willis Essenbach here,, NGOs: It’s Worse Than We Thought.
Willis exposed that nominally, there were plentier country delegations than from NGOs. But many NGO leaders – at least 14 from WWF, 9 from Oxfam, and from various country-based NGOs – were masquerading as government and country delegates. So that when he reclassified them to where they really belonged, the number of “climate-saviour” NGO leaders is plentier than delegates from country governments. Woe unto the taxpayers of those countries. I will not be surprised if many “Philippine delegates” are actually from NGOs and not from the government. But the list of Philippine delegation to Durban can be a mystery, it’s not even in the website of the Climate Change Commission.
While in Durban, the WWF and Oxfam  have conspired to propose a new international tax, a fuel levy of $25/ton, raising bunker fuel prices by 10 percent. Now see how they will indirectly benefit from it, via the so-called “Climate Green Fund”. This chart below and a longer discussion about this new rent-seeking scheme is discussed here,  WWF and Oxfam pushing for a shipping tax at Durban COP17 – since when do NGO’s get to write tax laws?
The WWF is making hundreds of millions of dollars per year from donations from different sources. All they do is keep scaring the world, and those gullible enough, rich and poor alike, give them money. Coca Cola for instance, gave WWF $1.64 M last year, and will give a separate $2 M for “polar bear conservation projects”. So next time you drink Coke, you are indirectly giving money to the WWF.

If you withraw money from Banco de Oro (BDO, Sy group), the ATM automatically asks you to donate P5 to WWF or not. If you buy a plane ticket from Cebu Pacific (Gokongwei group), they ask you to donate several hundred pesos to WWF to offset for your “carbon footprint” or not. If you are not careful, you will be hoodwinked and fooled to donating money to the WWF, and this NGO will use the money to further scare you that the end of the world is near, unless you give them more money. The WWF is also among the strong lobbyists for the enactment of the renewable energy (RE) law where one of its goal is to make the already most expensive power rates in Asia become even more expensive, see earlier discussion here   Climate Alarm vs. Expensive Electricity.
Meanwhile, here is the temperature anomaly (or “deviation from average temperature”) for all Novembers over the past 10 years. Graphs is from RSS : Coldest November Of The Millennium










Global warming is indeed getting more scary. This early part of December 2011 here in Metro Manila and other provinces is wet-wet. Rainy season is supposed to be from June to October only each year. Now we have rains until December, and most likely until early next year as the current La Nina -- started in May 2010, briefly ended but re-emerged again -- is projected to last until end of 2012, or even longer.

And we need those environmental NGOs to further scare us with their stupid and idiotic formulation that “man-made warming causes less rain and more rain, less snow and more snow, warming causes cooling”.
---------

Meanwhile, just how much extortion do the climate party-goers from NGOs and poorer governments want from rich governments? I thought it was on the several hundred billion dollars only. I was wrong, see this report from WUWT.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/latest-extortion-attempt-from-durban-1-6-trillion/
Latest extortion attempt from Durban COP17: $1.6 Trillion






Gosh. Who knew that a massive tax could solve all imagined climate problems?
David L. Hagen writes:
The UN is demanding control over $1.6 trillion per year to control climate. See Section 47 in draft # FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/CRP.39 9 December 2011 #GE.11-71576 at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/awglca14/eng/crp39.pdf
47.  The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developing country Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend ondefence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties;
---------

Update: One shocker news to the warmists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310


13 December 2011 Last updated at 12:01 GMT
Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol


Environment Minister Peter Kent: ''Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution for climate change''


Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the minister of the environment has said.
Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.
The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.
The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming.
"Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past, and as such we are invoking our legal right to withdraw from Kyoto," Mr Kent said in Toronto.
He said he would be formally advising the United Nations of his country's intention to pull out.
'Impediment'
He said meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): "That's $1,600 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government".
He said that despite this cost, greenhouse emissions would continue to rise as two of the world's largest polluters - the US and China - were not covered by the Kyoto agreement.
"We believe that a new agreement that will allow us to generate jobs and economic growth represents the way forward," he said....
------------

See also:

Little Ice Age for the Next 300 Years?, July 07, 2009
Sunspotless Days, Cooling and Bureaucracy, July 21, 2009
Politics and Money in Climate Hysteria, July 24, 2009
Scientists Speak: No "Consensus" on AGW, July 31, 2009
Sunspotless Days, Cooling and Bureaucracy, August 12, 2009
Sunspots and Politics, August 15, 2009
Solar Minimum and Copenhagen, September 12, 2009