Confident that it can, once again, breach the constitutional separation of powers and bypass Congress, this time, by recasting a complex multilateral environmental treaty as a simple executive agreement not requiring Senate approval, the Obama administration touted its climate change bona fides to the world this past week at the United Nations Climate Summit in New York. 

The President crowed about how the U.S. has significantly reduced its carbon emissions since 2006, and alluded to Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) automobile and power plant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions control regulations triggered by EPA’s controversial 2009 Clean Air Act GHG Endangerment Findings.

Apparently, the president had been misinformed about the legal soundness of those findings and the regulations they have spawned. Indeed, White House officials should have told him that many of the climate assessments cited as scientific support for such findings did not satisfy the strict scientific peer review standards imposed by the U.S. Information Quality Act (“IQA”).

Undoubtedly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”), the U.S. government’s lead climate change agency, like EPA, would prefer to bypass the IQA if possible. The IQA requires all federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of the scientific information that federal agencies rely upon as the basis for regulations.

As the Daily Caller and other media have reported, the nonprofit Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (“ITSSD”) has called upon EPAand NOAA, in new separately filed Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests, to produce records substantiating that the peer reviews performed of NOAA and other agency-developed climate assessments supporting EPA’s GHG Endangerment Findings had satisfied the IQA’s strict peer review standards. Neither agency has responded substantively to these requests, despite the EPA’s assessment of an estimated document search fee of more than USD $27,000.

All the way from the battery in a pocket to the LED TV on a wall, the colour blue is a problem: blue LEDs are less efficient than the reds or greens that make up the other two primary display colours, and that’s a problem for power consumption.

Researchers at the University of Michigan are now claiming as much as a fourfold improvement in blue OLED (organic LED) efficiency coupled with a tenfold improvement in lifetime. 

Engineering professor Stephen Forrest explains that while blue PHOLEDs have been around for a long time, they don’t live long enough for use alongside reds and greens in consumer devices. That means fluorescent OLEDs are used for the blues, and that in turn imposes a power consumption penalty.

According to Forrest, the higher energy needed to produce light at the blue end of the spectrum (compared to red or green) is the problem his research team has been working on since 2008. That higher energy can break down the molecules in the OLEDs, when enough is poured in to get light sufficiently intense to use in a display.

In a study lead-authored by Yifan Zhang with work from doctoral student Jae Sang Lee, the researchers worked to spread the light emitting energy across enough molecules to avoid individual molecules getting burned.

More than six months have elapsed since climate science data-fraudster Michael Mann’s multi-million dollar legal team bullishly announced the climate science trial of the century would be underway “shortly.” Oh, how the internet makes liars of them. What has transpired since?  Answer: Nothing. 

In February the world’s only truly independent science association dedicated to exposing government-funded junk research (Principia Scientific International) broke the news that the former golden boy of global warming “science” is down and out in a courtroom battle not seen since the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.

As our story went viral Mann’s legal team, led by top Canadian libel expert, Roger McConchie, swiftly counter-punched issuing their own press release retorting:

“The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application.”

We foretold Mann would either face bankruptcy upon Dr. Ball’s stunning victory, or his deep-pocketed backers (including David Suzuki) would be liable for costs in the millions. But weasel words from McConchie proclaimed:

“The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements…”

Our “preposterous statements” are backed by the shocking revelations in Dr. Ball’s astonishing publication, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ exposing the science fraud of the century. Literally hundreds of climate science papers are based on Mann’s fraudulent work. When Ball wins, all alarmist climate science loses. Game over.

But as we move deeper into the fourth year of this shameful attempt to misuse the courts to stifle public debate – while there has been no further global warming for 17 years despite relentless rises in atmospheric CO2 – the public sees clearly what “climate science” is really all about. 

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet. 

  Recent news stories underscore the tremendous benefits brought by America’s fracking revolution. 

* The shale oil production boom could boost US crude production to 9.5 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) next year, reducing America’s crude oil imports to 21{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of domestic demand, the lowest level since 1968. Output from fracked wells represents 43{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all US oil production and 67{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of natural gas production; “frack oil” could hit 10 million bopd by 2016, the Energy Information Administration says.

* The global economy saves $4.9 billion per day in oil spending because of the shale oil boom. Without it there would be a 3 million barrel per day shortfall and prices would likely be 55{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} higher: $150/barrel.

* Constantly improving hydraulic fracturing technologies continue to increase production. For example, Cabot Oil & Gasrefracked a 2013 Pennsylvania well, increasing its output to 30.3 million cubic feet of gas per day; that’s four times the output from the best well drilled in 2003. Fracking is even being used in decades-old onshore and offshore wells, to keep them producing for many more years.

* Rust Belt cities and industries – from manufacturing, real estate and law to hotels, restaurants and many others – are rebounding because of drilling, fracking and production in nearby shale areas. In Ohio unemployment fell to 5.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in July from 10.6{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} four years ago; oil output increased 26{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} just from the previous quarter, while gas production rose 31{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} – generating billions in state and local revenues.

* The US oil and natural gas boom means jobs and business for almost 30,000 companies within the industry’s vast and complex supply chain. Indeed, the petroleum industry accounts for nearly 10 million jobs and almost 8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all domestic economic activity, including states far from actual drilling activities.

A little known fact about trees is that 90 percent of the water they remove from the ground is released directly into the atmosphere as water vapour. Therefore the depletion of our forests impacts the hydrological cycle which, in turn, influences atmospheric temperature. 

FORESTS AIR CONDITION THE ENVIRONMENT

What are researchers discovering?

   “Trees can reduce air temperature by blocking sunlight. Further cooling occurs when water evaporates from the leaf surface. The conversion of water to air vapor — a chemical process — removes heat energy from the air.

• A tree can be a natural air conditioner. The evaporation from a single tree can produce the cooling effect of 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/benefits.htm 

“New research concludes that evaporated water helps cool the earth as a whole, not just the local area of evaporation, demonstrating that evaporation of water from trees and lakes could have a cooling effect on the entire atmosphere.”http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110914161729.htm

REDUCED CLOUD COVER AND PRECIPITATION EQUALS WARMING

   Naturally keeping a forested area means more water vapour and more clouds can form and cool the region by reducing the incoming sunlight.

   Therefore if you reverse the process and remove the trees there is less water vapour, fewer clouds, more shortwave radiation from sunlight-warmed Earth.

   Add to this reduced water vapour causing reduced precipitation, rainfall is well known to cool the climate, and you have deforestation as a significant factor in global warming. Large scale deforestation has been reported to cause between 30 to 80 percent reduction in precipitation to the local area. The definition of a DROUGHT is   ”A prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall” so it is accurate to state that deforestation is a cause of drought. 

   “Deforestation results increase temperatures due to the reduction in the cooling effects of evapotranspiration caused by loss of vegetation (Snyder, 2010). This also contributes towards reduced cloud formation (Castillo & Gurney, 2012)”.

Intact tropical

      “Models by Snyder (2010) indicate that deforestation in all three major tropical forest centres would cause increased air temperatures within the forest regions of 2- 3°C. For example,

the Amazon region is predicted to warm by 1.88°C between September and November.”

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/forests/2013/JN455-An-Impending-Storm.pdf

• NASA put it like this:                           

THE IPCC overlook the cooling effect of forests completely and put it like this:

IPCC AR5 findings with respect to tropical deforestation and land use change:

Net carbon emissions from land-use change during the past decade (mainly from deforestation) are estimated at 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2e[1] annually – around 10{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all human emissions. Carbon emissions derived from land use change continue to be a major contributor to global warming only superseded by the burning of fossil fuels.

It goes on to say “Tropical forests are some of world’s richest and most valuable forms of natural capital and are being degraded on an unprecedented scale due to an increasing population and changing patterns of consumption. They pump water around the planet, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, support the wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people and underpin the economies of entire regions.”

  http://www.globalcanopy.org/updates/blogs/global-canopy-programmes-reaction-todays-ipcc-report

THE BIOTIC PUMP

   Here highlighted is a reference in their own report that the cooling system described is a type of “pump”. It is in fact known as the “BIOTIC PUMP” and disturbance of this pump has been shown to cause significant warming and climate change. The introduction to a paper detailing some of these changes states.

Abstract: Intense condensation associated with high evaporation from natural forest cover maintains regions of low atmospheric pressure on land. This causes moist air to flow from ocean to land, which compensates the river runoff. Deforestation induces large-scale desiccation by disrupting this flow. Here we overview this theory and quantify the horizontal pressure gradients that govern the continental moisture supply. High evaporation and large extent of natural forests guarantee both a stable and high throughput hydrological cycle. Forests protect a continent against devastating floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Sustaining natural forests is a sound strategy for water security and climate stabilisation.

http://www.bioticregulation.ru/common/pdf/ijw10.pdf

 STATISTICS ON WORLDWIDE DEFORESTATION

   “Deforestation Statistics Worldwide

The statistics of deforestation reveal that seven countries of the world amount to around 60 percent of the total deforestation on the planet. These seven countries include Brazil in Latin America, Canada and the United States in North America, Indonesia and China in Asia, Russia in Europe and the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa.

The data compiled by the World Resources Institute reveals that the planet has already lost 80 percent of its forest cover to deforestation…”           Source: World Preservation Foundation.

   This figure of 80 percent includes all time loss due to the growth of civilisation. The estimate is of 1.9 billion hectares lost since the industrial revolution.  For a contemporary statistic we can look at deforestation annually.

   Taking the top 10 countries with highest deforestation and adding the tropical deforestation zones together totals 6,118,607 hectares lost annually. The boreal deforestation zones make up 747,400 hectares of this.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-deforestation-map.html

It is argued that the boreal deforestation has a net cooling effect due to snow being able to settle where the tree once was and increase albedo. But also the removal of the trees reduces water vapour which reduces clouds and rainfall which causes warming. Plus there is a recorded decrease in CCN (Cloud condensation Nuclei) related to deforesting the Boreal regions. So un-decided.

 But if you subtract the boreal forest with its possible cooling from the tropical letting some cooling cancel out warming this results in a net warming from 5,371,207 hectares of deforestation per year that has been falsely attributed purely to CO2.

CLOUD RELATED CLIMATE CHANGE

   This is an extra 5.37 million hectares annually which will then have reduced cooling from evaporation, reduced cloud cover and reduced precipitation with its related warming. 

   A variation of 4-5 percent of cloud cover worldwide results in a 1 C change in temperature so any variations must be taken into account.

    It appears the IPCC is overlooking a significant driver of global warming and falsely attributing warming in deforested zones just to the unproven CO2 theory. Disturbance of the “Biotic Pump” appears to be the major player in the deforestation, warming, climate change equation not CO2.

Read also: 

Forests as rainmakers: CIFOR scientist gains support for a controversial hypothesis

Infrasound and other wind farm problems recognized by scientists.In an interview published in Truthout, Dr Patricia Mora casts doubts about the way in which environmental studies are conducted. 

“What happens is absolute corruption. I have to admit that generally there are “agreements” behind closed doors between the consultants or research centers and the government offices before the studies are conducted. They fill out forms with copied information (and sometimes badly copied), lies or half truths in order to divert attention from the real project while at the same time complying with requirements on paper. Unfortunately, consultants sometimes take advantage of high unemployment and hire inexperienced people or unemployed career professionals without proper titles. Sometimes the consultants even coerce them into modifying the data.

“Research centers, pressured by a lack of funding, accept these studies. It is well known that scientists recognized by CONACYT (National Counsel on Science and Technology) accept gifts from these companies, given that they need money to buy equipment for their laboratories and to fill their pocketbooks to maintain their lifestyles. This is the extent of the corruption. Upon reviewing these studies, it is clear that the findings are trash, sometimes even directly copied from other sources online. These studies tend to focus on the “benefits of the project” and do not include rigorous analysis.

In Carbon, Leonardo DiCaprio’s new film about the “climate crisis,” we are told the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio insists. 

But he has identified the wrong monster. The real one is the climate scare – something DiCaprio promotes with his sensationalist, error-riddled movie. That is the real threat to civilization.

Carbon is the first of four films that DiCaprio planned to release in the weeks prior to the United Nations’Climate Summit 2014, to be held in New York City September 23. If Carbon is any indication of what the rest of the series will be like, the public needs to brace itself against still more mind-numbing global warming propaganda.

DiCaprio repeatedly uses the “carbon pollution” and “carbon poison” misnomers – when he’s really talking about carbon dioxide (CO₂), the plant-fertilizing gas that is essential for all life on Earth. But in addition to that deception, DiCaprio’s film is based on a myth: that CO₂ from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on this popular though misguided notion.

Oregon-based physicist Dr. Gordon Fulks explains that the climate scare has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus. CO₂ is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

The Sunday Times has reached a new height of incoherence with its science editor’s, (Jonathan Leake) column on Arctic ice cap in ‘death spiral.’  

Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist and it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity. Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in ‘shock’ from the find. 

Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died. During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation. But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn’t be able to form a black hole. If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong. [Editor’s note: finding confirms studies by Stephen J. Crothers]

When a huge star many times the mass of the sun comes to the end of its life it collapses in on itself and forms a singularity – creating a black hole where gravity is so strong that not even light itself can escape.

At least, that’s what we thought.

A scientist has sensationally said that it is impossible for black holes to exist – and she even has mathematical proof to back up her claims. If true, her research could force physicists to scrap their theories of how the universe began.

The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation – predicted by Professor Stephen Hawking.

“Greenhouse gases” have a profound effect on the climate as can be seen in every climate system that has a high concentration of water vapor (H₂O) and carbon dioxide (CO₂)—the two “most potent ‘greenhouse gases’”. Here are some photos:

The climate change that water vapor brings, far from being catastrophic, is quite the opposite. Water vapor brings an otherwise dead biosphere to life and makes it lush and green and, as we will see, even cools it down somewhat. What about carbon dioxide? Take a look:

 It is such a scientific certainty that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide promote robust plant growth that commercial gardeners pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses up to levels > 3 times higher than is currently present in the open atmosphere.

“In general, carbon dioxide supplementation of 1,000 ppm during the day when vents are closed is recommended [to bring the total concentration up to 1,300.]”Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

If we were to look at pictures that compare the Arabian Desert to Bangladesh or the Nairobi Desert to the Congo the result would be the same. It is incontrovertible that water vapor and carbon dioxide bring life into a climate system as can be seen in the lush eco-systems of New Zealand, Bangladesh and the Congo compared to the deserts in Nevada, Saudi Arabia and Nairobi and it is no mystery as to why.

Water vapor in high enough concentrations condenses into clouds, which produce rain that drenches the soil. Plants, using the sun’s energy, pull carbon dioxide out of the air and water out of the soil to create carbohydrates and oxygen—the food that animals eat and the air that they breathe.

Dear Professor Raupach,

On Thursday 4th September we attended an event hosted by the Fenner School of Environmental Science which was held in conjunction with the ANU Climate Change Institute. The title of the event was “Climate Change- Why facts and Opinion are both important”.  

This letter is to inform you of our concern regarding what the MP3 recording http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/news-events/event-recordings/climate-change-why-facts-and-opinions-are-both-important   evidences as an underlying political agenda directed against the Abbott Government.  Both the petition and invitation to join a protest march on the 21st September are clearly a political agenda and have no place in a science forum. 

As the recording evidences, the presentations by Professor Smithson, Ms Bruer and Dr Will Grant were littered with seemingly unfounded misrepresentations. The recording also evidences what appears to be an attempt to seize the high moral ground and use it to provoke antagonism against the Abbott Government amongst University and High School Students.  Let us remind you that the Abbott Government was overwhelmingly voted in and given a mandate to remove the carbon tax and all its dysfunctional hangers on.

Professor Raupach my question to you (1.06.33 on the recording)  quote“……when you talk about carbon pollution and carbon emissions you are, actually I think it was Will, referred to it as carbon dioxide, which is what the full word is. It is carbon-dioxide emissions.  Carbon dioxide has two states: its gaseous state and its solid state, which is dry ice. How can it be either a pollutant or a warming agent?”

To quote your response (1.07.23):- 

“It is not a pollutant any more than water is a pollutant…………”

Food allergies affect an estimated 15 million Americans, including one in 13 children. Statistics indicate something strange is afoot, as food allergies in children rose by 50 percent between 1997 and 2011 alone. 

Similarly, in Great Britain one in three people are allergic to something, be it pollen, dust mites, or food.1 Previous research has drawn parallels between the rise in allergies and increased antibiotic and antimicrobial use. One study2showed exposure to antibiotics early in life increased the risk of eczema in children by 40 percent.

Other research has shown how genetically engineered foods and the use of the agricultural herbicide glyphosate destroys gut bacteria, thereby promoting allergies.

According to one recent study3, 4 common gut bacteria called Clostridiaspecifically help prevent sensitization to food allergens. In short, by destroying gut bacteria and altering your microbiome, agricultural chemicals like glyphosate can play a significant role in creating food allergies.

Antibiotic Pesticides Can Cause Allergic Reactions

But glyphosate is not the only culprit. Part of what makes glyphosate so harmful is the fact that it has antibiotic action, and antibiotics are also part of other pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides.

Researchers now claim to have identified the first case in which a serious allergic reaction was traced to an antibiotic pesticide.5, 6 In this case, a 10-year old girl suffered a severe allergic reaction to blueberry pie.

The culprit turned out to be a streptomycin-containing pesticide that had been applied to the blueberries. According to lead author Dr. Anne Des Roches, this is “the first report that links an allergic reaction to fruits treated with antibiotic pesticides.”

<satire> Dear Uncle Siemens,

I am hearing a lot about you in the news lately. Somehow your offshore wind turbines in the German Bight can’t deliver any power.  ABB’s HVDC converter station seems to have a fever and the prognosis is not good. Some unkind folks claim that you could catch a cold because of that. Really?  I mean what’s €500 million between friends? Especially if you can charge it to the electricity consumer! 

Your plans for the Libya-sized solar panels in the Sahara desert also seem to be on hold. Well, after the fiasco in Mexico where they got sand-blasted into oblivion in short order, that’s not entirely surprising. I think you need to spend a few Euros to re-educate the public on the benefits of your technologies. As the old adage (attributed to Winston Churchill) goes: never let a good crisis go to waste!

Believe me, green (like in the dollar bill green) power is the way to go!

Green Power

In any event, the deniers of green and free solar and wind power are just envious of your successes. Who cares that electricity prices in Europe are sky-rocketing and big energy-sucking industry is leaving for greener, pardon me, I mean cheaper places. They should have known that we need to “de-energize” to the level of our ancestors, the Neanderthals. Isn’t that why the government is shutting down the nuclear power plants in Germany? Isn’t that why coal has become “dirty” there as well?

It’s all so obvious; have you ever seen a coal miner coming back from his shift without being black from head to toe? How disgusting; can’t they go about their business in well-ironed suits, ties and with CLEAN HANDS and FACES?
Back to the wind power turbines though (I really hate the people who call them bird shredders): Isn’t it about time the Europeans are “getting up to speed” as well? After all, why should there be 10,000-plus defunct turbines in the U.S. and none anywhere else? This is progress and it’s simply unstoppable.

New technology developed by scientists in China could lead to a super-fast submarine that can travel more than 3,000 miles per hour.

Scientists from China may have found a way to travel from Shanghai to San Francisco in less than two hours. Researchers from the Harbin Institute of Technology say that their method can exceed the speed of sound underwater at 3,600 miles per hour. The technology would be used in submarines and torpedoes. 

The idea was inspired by a Soviet concept called supercavitation. This means creating large air bubbles around individual objects to avoid facing friction, allowing objects to travel through water much faster.

When the submarine hits water, a mechanism continuously sprays what Professor Li Fengchen refers to as a “special liquid membrane” all over its surface. The liquid eventually washes off, but when the sub reaches 46 miles per hour, it is already going fast enough to enter a supercavitation state in which it generates an air bubble that helps it cover long distances.