An Open Letter to Sen. Tim Kaine

Dear Sen. Kaine,

You recently sent me an unsolicited email regarding transparency for oil and gas companies to which I feel obliged to respond. It starts,

Dear Friend,

Climate change is a pressing challenge for low-lying coastal areas of Virginia and for the world. We can discuss and debate the solutions…

We can debate the solutions, but not the evidence? This has become a hallmark of the agenda so aggressively pursued by you and the previous administration — not only a complete unwillingness to debate the evidence supporting or not supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but expending great effort to stifle any such debate, including the threat of prosecution for anyone who dares to suggest that the hypothesis of AGW is not well-supported by observations.

…but our country’s chief diplomat should be able to acknowledge the basic reality agreed upon by the world’s preeminent scientists, our country’s military leaders, and Pope Francis: climate change is real, it is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, and we must do something about it.

Yes, Sen. Kaine, climate change is real. The planet is subject to many periodic oscillations between warmer and cooler temperatures, ranging from decade-long to million-year long periods. But the basic reality that you and the previous administration have denied is that these oscillations and other mechanisms affecting changes in climate are only partially understood, and models predicting future climate change have not proven accurate. Many preeminent scientists do not support the hypothesis of AGW, and your refusal to accept any debate on the issue has led to policy-based science, rather than science-based policy.

When former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his confirmation hearing to be Secretary of State, I asked him point-blank whether his former company has funded or continues to fund climate denial efforts…

I’m going to assume that “climate denial efforts” is your shorthand for any research that doesn’t support the hypothesis of AGW. This is the real tragedy of the previous administration’s preoccupation with AGW for a political agenda — resources have been diverted away from legitimate climate research that could actually save lives.

…despite its own internal awareness of the reality of climate change, as numerous reports have described.

Mr. Tillerson refused to answer my question.

With rising sea levels threatening our military and communities in Hampton Roads…

I have a question for you, Sen. Kaine — what is the rate of sea level rise at Hampton Roads, and has that rate accelerated as atmospheric CO2 has increased? Sea level data at Baltimore MD shows mean sea level rising at a rate of one foot every 100 years, with no increase in that rate even as atmospheric CO2 has increased:

http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8574680

…and the President threatening to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, I was troubled by Mr. Tillerson’s refusal to answer my question or agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. For that reason and others, I voted against his confirmation on Wednesday.

Studies show that the US contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement would only result in a temperature reduction of 0.03 degrees Celsius, at a reported cost of up to 176 billion dollars annually. There is no overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of climate change, so what the Paris Climate Agreement really amounts to — an agreement which was not a treaty ratified by the US Senate, as you know — is a payment of billions of dollars from US taxpayers for no discernible benefit.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans voted to scrap a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that energy companies disclose their payments to foreign governments. I voted against this, and I was troubled by the appearance of confirming the world’s foremost oilman to our country’s top diplomatic position, then the very next day voting to make the oil and gas industry less transparent.

You can watch my speech opposing the elimination of the SEC transparency rule here.

Sincerely,

Senator Tim Kaine

The question over whether energy companies — or any other company — should disclose payments to foreign governments is a valid one, and I encourage debate on that policy issue. But linking that debate to “climate change” — and let’s be honest, that was the real intention behind your email, wasn’t it — is a disservice to your constituents.

Sincerely,

Dan Grogan

Money Well Spent?

Ever reliable in their bias, today’s Associated Press report says:

The Obama administration will set up 10 centers around the country to help farmers and ranchers…

This part is factual, although I have my doubts as to just how helpful they will be.

…adjust to the increasing frequency of severe weather…

This part is not supported by observations. Even the IPCC, in their latest Summary for Policymakers, backtracked on the effect a hypothetically warming world will have on extreme weather events.

…and other risks associated with climate change.

The article goes on to enumerate those risks — “extended fire seasons, invasive pests, flooding and drought” — along with, presumably, plagues of blood, frogs, hail and darkness.

Farmers and ranchers have been dealing with climate change for as long as mankind has been farming and ranching, and no one knows the risks of that livelihood better than the men and women working hard to put food on your table.

Officials had no precise price tag…The work will be in addition to $120 million set aside for climate-related research in the newly passed farm bill…(The Associated Press, 2014)

So there’s the real reason for promoting the myth. Government workers and contractors get hundreds of millions of dollars, while farmers and ranchers get a risk analysis. If the government is going to spend that kind of money, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

---

The Associated Press. (2014, February 06). USDA to set up ‘climate hubs’ to help farmers amid climate change. Bristol Herald Courier, p. A14.

A Catastrophe in the Making

In his State of the Union address, the President of the United States said that “We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.” But the reality is far different for people in New England, according to a recent New York Times article:

Electricity prices in New England have been four to eight times higher than normal in the last few weeks, as the region’s extreme reliance on natural gas for power supplies has collided with a surge in demand for heating. Frigid temperatures and the snowstorm that hammered parts of the Northeast last week have revived concerns about the lack of alternatives to natural gas. Many plants that ran on coal or oil have been shuttered, and the few that remain cannot be put into service quickly enough to meet spikes in demand. The price of electricity is determined by the price of gas. . . . “It is certainly true that a region like New England that relies on a single fuel source like natural gas for the bulk of its power does leave itself open for more disruptions than a region with a more diverse fuel mix,” said Jay Apt, executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “It’s not a knock against natural gas; it’s a knock against a single fuel source.”(Wald, 2013)

If you live in New England and you think you’re paying more than your fair share to save the planet, you’re half right. You are paying more — significantly more — as a result of energy policies that favor one fuel source (natural gas) and exclude another (coal), policies the current administration is trying to extend to the rest of the nation. But as far as saving the planet goes, the evidence is mounting that the models used to predict catastrophic man-made climate change just aren’t matching up with observations.

(Michaels, 2012)

I’ve said before that the price of natural gas will increase, and without coal-fired generating stations the cost of electricity will increase with it. The EPA is preparing to finalize regulations that will effectively prohibit the construction of any new coal-fired generating stations in the U.S., and when coal is no longer an option as a fuel source for U.S. energy producers the cost of energy will skyrocket. High energy prices, in the long term, will force manufacturers to relocate elsewhere. The wages those manufacturers paid will be gone, and that will devastate the communities where those wages were spent on food, gas, durable goods, and services. Misguided energy policies will result in a man-made economic catastrophe with no environmental benefit whatsoever.

---

Michaels, P. (2012, December 18). The UN’s global warming forecasts are performing very, very badly. Forbes, retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/12/18/the-uns-global-warming-forecasts-are-performing-very-very-badly/

Wald, M. (2013, February 16). The natural gas trap. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/electricity-costs-up-in-gas-dependent-new-england.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&

A War on Climate Science

Policymakers and the media tell us that extreme weather was worse in 2012. But according to the National Weather Service, tornado activity in 2012 was “among some of the least active years in the past 60 years.”(Carbin, 2012) Major hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin was less than normal, with no Category 4 or 5 hurricanes forming in 2012, according to the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University. And 2012 doesn’t even rank in the top ten for number of days above 100 degrees:

Image retrieved from Steven Goddard / Real Science. The CC license does not apply to this image.

Policymakers and the media tell us that increases in atmospheric CO₂ will lead to global warming, but a recent study highlighted by Watts Up With That concludes there is no statistical evidence this is happening. Policymakers and the media tell us that burning fossil fuels will lead to more and stronger hurricanes, but one of the leading researchers of tropical weather concludes otherwise:

Our hurricane research extending over many years indicates that Atlantic hurricane variability is driven almost exclusively by natural changes. The potential influence of human‐induced CO2 increase on Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity is likely to be negligible. As extensive and tragic as Sandy’s 2012 destruction has been, it and other destructive hurricanes in recent decades are not beyond the range of what is known to be the natural variability of the atmospheric‐ocean system. What is more amazing than Sandy’s tragic and extremely damaging flooding, at least from an intellectual point‐of‐view, is the number of knowledgeable people and prominent government and private citizens who have concluded that Sandy’s destruction was largely the result of human‐induced climate change resulting from our over‐abundant use of fossil fuels. Our analysis of Atlantic hurricane activity variations over the last century does not support such a conclusion.(Gray & Klotzbach, 2012)

And I’m wondering, why? What motivates policymakers, the media, and others to perpetuate the myth of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?

One motivation is certainly the advancement of an anti-coal agenda. If policymakers were serious about an AGW crisis, they would be proposing more stringent regulations for both agriculture and suburban development. Why is there no Federal outcry over these supposed contributors to global warming? Because solving a problem that doesn’t even exist has never been the goal. The goal has always been regulating the coal industry into oblivion. What’s so insidious about this is that they don’t even have to actually enact the regulations (which may not stand up under the scrutiny of the judicial system anyway). Just the threat of regulations is enough to keep utilities from investing in coal-fired electrical generation. Returns on investment in the utility industry aren’t high enough to support the added risk of potential cost escalation or out-and-out loss of investment.

A preoccupation with anthropogenic global warming for a political agenda, despite all evidence to the contrary, diverts resources — time and money — away from more important climate research. Improving both short-term weather and long-term climate prediction models would have great value, not only in dollars saved, but in lives saved. Current policymakers’ insistence on AGW as a call for alarm isn’t just a war on coal; it’s a war on legitimate climate science itself.

---

Carbin, G. NOAA, NWS. (2012). United States tornadoes of 2012. Retrieved from website: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/2012/2012-NOAA-NWS-tornado-facts.pdf

Gray, W., & Klotzbach, P. (2012). U.S. hurricane damage – can rising levels of CO₂ be associated with Sandy’s massive destruction? Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Retrieved from http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/grayklotzbach2012.pdf

Hottest Year?

Not Even Close: 2012 Was Hottest Ever in U.S.

— headline on page A1 of The New York Times printed January 9, 2013

Except it wasn’t. After 1999, the National Climatic Data Center “adjusted” historical observed temperatures, lowering observed temps in the early to mid-20th century while raising observed temps in the last few years. The graph below highlights the difference between reported and observed temperatures (thanks to Steven Goddard at Real Science):

Image retrieved from Steven Goddard / Real Science. The CC license does not apply to this image.

In other words, we don’t have a warming trend, we have a let’s-report-a-warming-trend trend. Current policy makers are trying to shape public perceptions, and public policy, by shamefully altering data to support their agenda.

Wikipedia says this about the fallacy of “proof by assertion”:

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies. This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of “talking points”, which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising. An example is a quote by Lenin “A Lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Strange that I would be quoting Lenin here, but there it is. For more detail about the alteration of historical temperatures, please see Steven Goddard’s excellent post NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1).

Media Bias

The media won’t allow for much dissent when it comes to viewpoints on global warming, or global warming causes, or global warming “solutions”, that depart from a narrow range of accepted dogma. News that supports this narrow viewpoint is featured prominently, while news that may be contrary or ambiguous is buried on the back pages or left out altogether.

1. For several years now, measurements of shrinking Arctic sea ice have been reported, but measurements of increasing ice in Antarctica were seldom if ever reported. In September 2012 the extent of Antarctic sea ice was greater than at any time since 1979 when satellite measurements began, but this went unreported by news outlets.
2. When the summer drought caused widespread crop loss in the Midwest, headlines blared; but when southwest Virginia experienced record rainfall in July (without flooding), and cotton crops in Tennessee produced record yields, there was barely a mention.
3. When a late season hurricane strikes the New Jersey coast, headlines in newspapers owned by overzealous politicians point the finger, but the fact that the last several hurricane seasons have been much less severe than normal goes mostly unreported (and as a colleague said, “If Hurricane Sandy had hit the Carolinas we wouldn’t be talking about global warming.”)
4. The recent climate change conference garnered much media attention, but never did the media point out that the country the conference was held in, Qatar, has the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions of any country — until it became an issue among the conference attendees themselves.
5. In a recent National Geographic, a writer stated that “In the U.S. the fossil fuel industry is the biggest emitter [of methane], surpassing livestock and manure.”(Lavelle, 2012) There was no data provided for this; however a graph was shown of global methane emissions, and this graph showed that coal mining accounts for just 5 percent of emissions, slightly less than the methane produced from growing rice (6 percent) and far less than the methane produced from the oil and gas industry (13 percent) and animal agriculture (21 percent). In media-bias-speak, whenever the facts don’t support a negative conclusion against coal itself, it’s lumped together with oil and gas.

Whether or not these facts help refute or support climate change models isn’t the point. When it comes to global warming, media bias paints the story in one color.

---

Lavelle, M. (2012, Dec). Good gas bad gas. National Geographic, 222(6), 98.

How Much CO2?

The effect of CO₂ in the atmosphere, especially CO₂ produced by U.S. coal-fired generating stations, has been greatly exaggerated by current policy makers to promote an anti-coal agenda. How much CO₂ is in the atmosphere? One of the best illustrations to answer this can be found in A Rational Look at Climate Change Concerns by Kimball Rasmussen, President and CEO of Deseret Power: if a football stadium of 90,000 spectators represents the atmosphere, 35 people equal the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. And how many of these 35 people represent CO₂ produced by U.S. coal-fired generating stations? One person. Calculations in that same paper show that even if all U.S. fossil-fueled generating stations were shut down, the 3° Celsius global temperature increase predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would still increase 2.93°C.

This image retrieved from Wikimedia Commons is licensed under CC BY 2.0

So if the contribution to atmospheric CO₂ from U.S. coal-fired generating stations is negligible, and the impact to global temperatures is negligible, what motivates current policy makers to pursue an anti-coal agenda anyway? Coal has been in the crosshairs of environmental groups since the 1970’s. Despite advances in reclamation and environmental quality at mine sites and advances in emissions controls at power plants, environmental groups consider coal mining and coal-fired electrical generation Public Enemy Number One.

Pat Parenteau, who teaches environmental policy at the Vermont Law School, said the U.S. industry is dying … “You can expect to see the noose tightening around its neck,” he said. “The law is finally catching up to coal.”(Owens, 2012)

Overzealous policy makers and “Death to Coal” chanters believe this is the best time to shut down the coal industry once and for all, regardless of the economic harm due to higher energy costs and the subsequent loss of manufacturing.

---

Owens, M. (2012, Nov 18). With election over, what’s next for coal?. Bristol Herald Courier, pp. A1,A7.

Terrible Trouble

Record heat searing the east and midwest. Windstorms resulting in power outages for millions of customers. Drought leading to economic disaster in the heartland and late season hurricanes striking the New Jersey coast. The weather this year has made a dramatic backdrop to the case for man-made global warming — “I told you so” has been a common refrain. Policy makers have been quick to point out the culprit, and just as quick to offer a solution. Coal-fired electrical generation is the culprit; eliminating coal-fired electrical generation is the solution. But such a simplistic view is not only wrong, it’s dangerously wrong; the consequences of such a policy will be disastrous for the American economy, workers, and families.

Do you remember The Music Man? Harold Hill is a traveling salesman of musical instruments, although more shyster than salesman, and he convinces the parents of River City to purchase his instruments to save the youth from the corruption of a pool hall. In one monologue preceding a musical number, Harold says,

Either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a pool table [coal-fired generating station] in your community.

Sound familiar? And what do the Harold Hills of today want to sell you to save ourselves from this terrible trouble? Natural gas. Although the spot price of natural gas is currently near historic lows (due to a surplus from increased production using hydraulic fracking, and reduced demand due to a mild winter), this price is below the cost of production and isn’t sustainable. The price of natural gas will increase — it has doubled in the last 6 months — and without coal-fired generating stations, the cost of electricity will increase with it.

Henry Hub Natural Gas Futures Settlement Price

courtesy of http://www.indexmundi.com