EPA’s McCarthy: ‘Every voice needs to be in this discussion’

Of course, we only listen to normal people

h/t Richard Cumming. When he pointed to Jamie Glazov’s article I discovered the McCarthy outrage.

Lots of people have stopped listening to climate science, which observes no warming for 20 years. They are now being exhorted to stop listening to ‘climate deniers’.

US EPA chief Gina McCarthy is spouting insidious totalitarian doctrine hidden beneath a pretended admiration of democracy and camouflaged by appeals to the good of the majority. So she prepares the ground for legal restraints against honest free speech, and someone must point it out.

From Jamie Glazov at FrontPage Mag comes this lament that the US is falling into oppression of the same stripe her Russian family fled in the 1980s.

Gina McCarthy’s totalitarian attitude toward global warming sceptics parallels, of course, the Soviet mindset that forced Soviet dissidents into psychiatric hospitals to be force-fed drugs. McCarthy and her superiors in the Obama administration do not, at this point, have the power to put the sceptics they are labelling into asylums, to be administered “tranquilising” injections and immersed in ice baths, but it is clear from their own words what their desires are—and what path they are clearing for the brave new world.

Of her family’s ordeal and the modern lesson for the rest of us:

My family escaped a totalitarian hell to come to a free country to now face, in the most tragic and bizarre sense, the ideological cousins of our tormentors. The Left and its totalitarian gate-keepers are now in solid power here, slowly but surely building the prison walls and “psychiatric” spaces designed for the treatment of abnormal skeptics. Gina McCarthy and her ilk must be called out for exactly who they are — and for what they are intending to do.

Where are our journalists?

After years of battling disgusting “hate speech”, with resultant new legal restraints applied to free speech in many free countries, it’s easy now for some to say that objections to action against climate change must similarly be prevented (as though they’re just as morally repugnant), since lack of action threatens everyone’s safety. Allegedly—but never mind the logic, feel the hate.

Free speech loses again, so it’s astonishing to see in New Zealand only your humble correspondent taking up an inky cudgel against this latest outrage.

This YouTube video starts at McCarthy’s “normal people” admission at the end of her address.

[2:14:01] When I put a report out on acting on climate, like we did yesterday, that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do, I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.

But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day; it is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake in to politics above science; it’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing—and we will if you help us. Thank you. [2:14:45]

Gina McCarthy

Gina McCarthy, US EPA Administrator. Demonising dissidents.

In the video of McCarthy’s address to the summit, I discovered that, just seconds before she asserted ‘climate deniers’ were not ‘normal’ and shouldn’t participate in the discussion, she had surprisingly said just the reverse: that everyone should be allowed in.

[2:12:36] But as always in a democracy, every voice is supposed to count, but every voice needs to be in this discussion.[2:12:44]

Among normal people, saying one thing and immediately contradicting oneself is generally seen as abnormal.

Climate rights denier

She knows the principle of free speech very well, but she’s denying it for the sake of her personal agenda. She’s a climate rights denier.

The Public Health and Climate Change Summit meeting was streamed live on June 23, 2015. This is how the White House promoted it:

On June 23, the White House will convene a summit on Public Health and Climate Change. The event will bring together health and medical professionals, academics, and other stakeholders to empower people and communities with the science-based information and tools they need to protect public health in the face of climate change. The discussion will focus on the impacts of climate change and underscoring the important role the public health community can play in communicating and preventing these impacts.

So they filled a room with health and public administration leaders all keen as mustard to hear how to stay plugged in to the public teat and secure their precious funding. In what was not the surprise of the year, not a dissenting murmur was heard.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/23/White-House-hosts-climate-summit.html:

People seeking to change the world filled the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University on Tuesday. Concerned about climate change, they came together for the White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, with scientists and public-health officials participating in panel discussions about how climate change impacts health.

http://www.publichealthnewswire.org/?p=13330:

“We are not here today to debate whether climate change is real. We are not here to debate whether or not human activity is contributing to that. These questions have been settled by scientists,” said Surgeon General Vivek Murthy during his remarks. “But we are here today as public health leaders, as policy makers and as citizens of the planet to figure out what we are in fact going to do about climate change.”

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy underscored the importance of action calling climate change the biggest challenge of our time. She said it’s also the biggest health challenge of our time.

Also reported here and here.

68 Thoughts on “EPA’s McCarthy: ‘Every voice needs to be in this discussion’

  1. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 5:29 pm said:

    [McCarthy] – “if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

    Actually, the science has changed the mind of at least one scientist. Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland, N.Z., and a former supporter of Kyoto, wrote:

    “At first I accepted that increases in human-caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would … lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ but with … the results of research, I formed the view that … it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation….

    … the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying … could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people.”

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/papal-nonsense.html

    Plenty of others who have had to change their mind after delving into the science (rather than take the pronouncements at face value) but not in the direction McCarthy thinks. Classic instances are David Evans and Joanne Nova.

    Rather less classic, but in the same direction, is me.

  2. Richard Treadgold on June 30, 2015 at 5:38 pm said:

    Moi aussi.

  3. Mike Jowsey on June 30, 2015 at 6:30 pm said:

    But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day; it is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake in to politics above science

    Pot meet kettle. Tis her methinks who has driven her stake in to politics above science. Which is precisely why nobody there wanted to discuss science – it was all about politics.

  4. Richard Treadgold on June 30, 2015 at 6:49 pm said:

    Yes. They all want to connect with the subsidies that are coming down the line.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 7:42 pm said:

    >‘Every voice needs to be in this discussion’

    One voice that needs to be in this discussion, even though deceased, is Ernst Georg Beck’s.

    Hard to know where to start with this. Dr Tim Ball perhaps:
    *************************************************
    ‘Create The Facts You Want’ – Opinion by Dr. Tim Ball

    Two critical situations were central to control of atmospheric CO2 levels. We know Guy Stewart Callendar, A British steam engineer, cherry-picked the low readings from 90,000 19th century atmospheric CO2 measures. This not only established a low pre-industrial level, but also altered the trend of atmospheric levels. (Figure 1)

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image0021.jpg

    Beck was the first to analyze in detail the 19th century data. It was data collected for scientific attempts to measure precisely the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It began in 1812, triggered by Priestly’s work on atmospheric oxygen, and was part of the scientific effort to quantify all atmospheric gases. There was no immediate political motive. Beck did not cherry-pick the results, but examined the method, location and as much detail as possible for each measure, in complete contrast to what Callendar and Wigley did.

    The IPCC had to show that,

    · Increases in atmospheric CO2 caused temperature increase in the historic record.

    · Current levels are unusually high relative to the historic record.

    · Current levels are much higher than pre-industrial levels.

    · The differences between pre-industrial and current atmospheric levels are due to human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

    Beck’s work showed the fallacy of these claims and in so doing put a big target on his back.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/05/co2-data-might-fit-the-ipcc-hypothesis-but-it-doesnt-fit-reality/
    **************************************************************************************

    Lots to read on Beck’s work (atmospheric CO2) but for a start this German site has some English quotes and graphs in one place (scroll down to Beck):

    http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/themen/klima/einfuehrung.php

    The graphs tell the story but here’s a quote from Beck that throws the whole pre-1950s ice core-based CO2 record out the window:

    “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.” – Ernst Georg Beck

    I remember someone asking over and over at Hop Topic for the faithful there to address Beck’s data – nothing doing.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 8:01 pm said:

    180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS

    by Ernst-Georg Beck (2007)

    ABSTRACT
    More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level
    maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

  7. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 8:48 pm said:

    CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time

    by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

    Spring/Summer 2007 21st CENTURY Science & Technology

    Figure 4 [page 7]
    MOTHER OF ALL CO2 HOCKEY CURVES
    Concentration of CO2 in air bubbles from the pre-industrial ice from Siple, Antarctica (open squares), and in the 1958-1986 atmosphere at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (solid line). In (a), the original Siple data are given without assuming an 83-year younger age of air than the age of the enclosing ice. In (b), the same data are shown after an arbitrary correction of the age of air.
    Source: Adapted from Friedli et al. 1986 and Neftel et al. 1985

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

    From Friends of Science
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=200

  8. I saw that article too RT and it’s bang on. It’s not all doom and gloom on the EPA front though, the US Supreme Court has just thrown a major spanner in their works:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/29/supreme-court-slows-obama-war-on-coal/

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/29/scotus-epa-you-unreasonably-interpreted-the-clean-air-act-n2018820

  9. McCarthy talks as if she knows the science. She has shown herself to be very ignorant in front of congressional hearings. In one instance, when she was making a case for carbon dioxide emission controls she was asked how much CO2 was already present in the air. She confessed that she did not know that number. At that time it was about 390ppm. And as far as I was aware anybody interested in global warming would have known that. But Gina McCarthy did not. At that time Jackson was the boss and McCarthy head of air quality.

    Later when Jackson moved on and McCarthy was made boss she was making a case for increased funding for climate change work. She was asked if she was aware that the climate models were tracking a lot hotter than recorded temperature measurements. Once again she confessed that she wasn’t aware of that.

  10. This is McCarthy being questioned by Sessions in a hearing. She is requesting a budget increase and Sessions questions her understanding of global warming etc.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=24DP1uG-MEM

  11. Andy on July 1, 2015 at 7:06 am said:

    This argument is just an extension of the modern meaning of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness”

    I.e we will tolerate you as long as your views are in line with the current dogma

    Incidentally, from today we need to be careful we don’t upset anyone as the Harmful Digital communications bill has just passed in Nz

    This means any of us could be taken to court for upsetting anyone in blog posts or comments.

    Of course, this will likely be a one way street. Anyone can insult “deniers” with anything they like, including outright lies, because “deniers” are not normal people.

    As you were….

  12. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 8:29 am said:

    [Beck] = “A major issue regarding the IPCC approach to linking climate and CO2 is the assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the level of atmospheric CO2 was in an equilibrium state of about 280 ppm, around which little or no variation occurred.”

    Hence the need to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” (Jonathan Overpeck).

  13. Andy. Re: the Harmful Digital communications bill. I wonder if we’re still allowed to call the EPA’s climate change policies McCarthyism.

  14. Andy on July 1, 2015 at 10:28 am said:

    That video Robin posted is an eye-opener. She doesn’t know whether the models are right or wrong, but apparently that is irrelevant.

    The “science” is clear.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 11:05 am said:

    Jaworowski on the Malthusians behind the formation of anti-CO2 ideology:

    • Maurice Strong, elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliberate “quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control.”

    • Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    • Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

    # # #

    1) I don’t think humanity has ever been or ever will be on a “quest of poverty”.

    2) These guys are/were crooks.

    3) McCarthy is just following form.

  16. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 11:18 am said:

    Jaworowski:

    Direct CO2 Measurements in the Atmosphere

    “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.”

    # # #

    Perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time but we need to “move along” of course, “nothing to see here” (Gary Larsen), “we have not got time for a meeting of the flat earth society” (Barack Obama).

  17. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 11:41 am said:

    >”That video Robin posted is an eye-opener”

    We can look into her mind. Breitbart has the video and full transcript:

    ‘Jeff Sessions Leaves EPA Chief Unable to Justify Money Grab’

    At a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) grilled EPA chief Gina McCarthy and left her unable to justify her money grab, showing that she could not explain whether climate change models were correct or not.

    The full transcript of the amazing exchange follows:

    SESSIONS: I think EPA this year should be flat spending, or at least no more than 2.5 percent increase, you’re proposing a 6 percent increase. I mean, where does the money come from? Are you proposing to break the limitations?

    McCARTHY: It is part of the president’s proposal, which is not going to buy into the bad policy of sequestration, but he’s designed the budget that can accommodate this. Senator, the one thing I want to say—

    SESSIONS: Inflation rate in the United States is about 2 percent, so you want to have a three times the inflation rate increase in spending. I would suggest that when we go to our states, the group we have the most complaints about from our constituencies, whether it’s highway people, farmers, whether its energy people, is the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s an extraordinary overreach. You are apparently unaware of the pushback that’s occurring in the real world. I just want to tell you, I’m not inclined to increase your funding 6 percent above. So now you say that we’ve got a crisis and there are dangers out there. Let me ask you this: There was an article by Mr. Lomborg, who testified before the Budget Committee, from the Copenhagen Institute, and he quotes along with Dr. Pielke, from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?

    McCARTHY: I don’t know in what context he’s making statements like that but I certainly can tell you about the droughts that are happening today.

    SESSIONS: No, no, no, no. You can’t – I’m not arguing to you today that you are wrong about global warming because we have a cold spell. I’m asking you what are the data, don’t you know the worldwide data about whether or not we are having fewer or less droughts?

    McCARTHY: I’m happy to provide it, but I certainly am aware that droughts are becoming more extreme and frequent.

    SESSIONS: Are you aware that the IPCC has found that moisture content of the soil is, if anything, slightly greater than it has been over the last decades in their report? Are you aware of that?

    McCARTHY: I don’t know what you’re referring to Senator, but I’m happy to respond—

    SESSIONS: You need to know, because you’re asking this economy to sustain tremendous cost and you don’t know whether or not the soil worldwide is more moist or less moist?

    McCARTHY: I don’t know, I don’t know where your cost figures are coming from, but if you take a look at—

    SESSIONS: The IPCC. Second: what about hurricanes? We had more or less hurricanes in the last decade?

    McCARTHY: There have been more frequent hurricanes and more intense. In terms of landing— those hurricanes on land, I cannot answer that question; it’s a very complicated issue.

    SESSIONS: It’s not complicated about how many have landed; we’ve had a dramatic reduction in the number. We’ve had a decade without a hurricane class three or above.

    McCARTHY: But sir, the scientists are not really considering that number to be significant. The subset is so small that you’re looking at, that you’re taking issues in science out of context. It’s not my job to be—

    SESSIONS: Are you asserting that you have evidence that we have greater hurricanes around the world in the last decade than the previous decade?

    McCARTHY: I am asserting that I have plenty of evidence, factual evidence from scientists who know this issue, that climate change is happening, it’s real, it’s happening now, and we need to take action to address it.

    SESSIONS: Well, of course the climate is changing, Ms. McCarthy. I just asked you—you have been saying that there are more storms. Will you submit within a few days, it shouldn’t take long, to show we’ve had more storms in the last decade?

    McCARTHY: I am able to submit all the science that we have. When you say we, what are you talking about? The U.S.?

    SESSIONS: The world. The world.

    McCARTHY: I am happy to submit the full breadth of science that we have behind climate; we’ve submitted it on many occasions, we’ll do it again.

    SESSIONS: The full breadth of science? I’d just like some numbers. Would you acknowledge that over the last eighteen years, that the increase in temperature has been very little and that it is well below, as a matter of fact, ninety percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?

    McCARTHY: No, I would not agree with that, sir. A one-degree temperature is significant. I don’t know what you’re looking at.

    SESSIONS: No, no, no, no. I am asking you, is it below the models, or above the models?

    McCARTHY: I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you’re referring to. There are many models.

    SESSIONS: The head of the environmental—

    McCARTHY: And sometimes it’s going faster, and sometimes slightly slower than the model predicts, but on the whole it makes no difference to the validity and the robustness of climate science that is telling us that we are facing an absolute challenge that we must address both environmentally, economically from a national security perspective, and for EPA, from a public health perspective.

    SESSIONS: All right. Carbon pollution is CO2, and that’s really not a pollutant; that’s a plant food, and it doesn’t harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases. Let me ask you one more time: Are you asserting, just give me this answer; if you take the average of the models predicting how fast the temperature would increase, is the temperature in fact increasing less than that or more than that?

    McCARTHY: I cannot answer that question specifically.

    SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I would just say, this is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who should know more than anybody else in the world, who’s proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to prevent this climate and temperature increases, doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/06/jeff-sessions-leaves-epa-chief-unable-to-justify-money-grab/

    # # #

    “I don’t know, I don’t know” “I cannot answer”. I suspect this would be the response to a grilling (as if) of top NZ MfE bureaucrats and their governmental heads (as if), particularly our Minister of Climate Change, Tim Groser.

    McCarthy was supposed to submit an EPA graph of models vs observations to EPW back in April. I’ve never heard what happened with that.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 12:02 pm said:

    [McCarthy] – “But as always in a democracy, every voice is supposed to count, but every voice needs to be in this discussion”

    [The voice of McCarthy] = “I don’t know, I don’t know” “I cannot answer”

  19. HemiMck on July 1, 2015 at 12:09 pm said:

    “Perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time ”

    That paper is dated 2007. How have we not seen this before. It has to be a game changer. How many times have we seem “pre- industrial 280” quoted. This kicks a leg of the stool away.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 12:49 pm said:

    >”That paper is dated 2007. How have we not seen this before. It has to be a game changer”

    Yes it is a game changer and it was at the time too. I read all this when it came out but remember this was at the time of AR4 so it was somewhat gazumped, then there was ClimateGate, then there was Copenhagen. But this had been building up for some years (not just Beck), it was one of the things that turned me into an ultra-MMCC sceptic by then. I managed to catch the zeitgeist as it was forming then and I’m certainly not going to let it rest now.

    Beck has been the topic of heated debate in blogs. You will find of course, that he has been pre, de, and post bunked on manic blogs like Deltoid. Someone tried to get debate on Beck going at Hot Topic and got “talk to the hand” treatment from what I remember. Heated debate among sceptics too on this blog (me vs someone I can’t remember) around the passage of CO2 molecules through the ice matrix and aging, although we were arguing from the same basic point of view i.e. ice core CO2 data is not to be relied upon.

    Even intuitively though, the notion that CO2 levels were stable prior to Mauna Loa is absurd.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 2:15 pm said:

    “You will find of course, that he [Beck] has been pre, de, and post bunked on manic blogs like Deltoid”

    They in turn will inevitably point to the likes of Rabett Run where Eli Rabett has comprehensively whack-a-moled Beck (so he thinks) viz.:

    “Beck is seriously overoptimistic about the accuracy and precision of the methods used before CD Keeling’s introduction of the IR absorption method to quantify CO2 in the atmosphere. The best of the older methods in the 1950s could barely discern the seasonal cycle.”

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.nz/2006/10/amateur-night.html

    Baloney when you look at the cycles in Beck. There’s even a monthly cycle. Rabett ends with:

    “I am simply going to quote Keeling’s Epilog which explains why Beck’s analysis is wrong.” [see quote]

    The quote includes “discrepancies between ground-level and aircraft sampling” and praise for “new manometric and infrared studies” i.e. Keeling’s Mauna Loa – his own work. Well, now there’s the OCO-2 satellite too:

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/19dec_oco/

    “Where OCO-2 really excels is the sheer amount of data being collected within a day, about one million measurements across a narrow swath”

    Clearly Mauna Loa (one spot on the globe) is not representative of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (see graph). There was also an aircraft-borne study that called in to New Zealand a short time ago (can’t remember what it is called), we don’t have the results from that yet. Information on all this work here:

    ‘Greenhouse gases in the Earth system: setting the agenda to 2030’
    Andrew C. Manning, Euan G. Nisbet, Ralph F. Keeling, Peter S. Liss
    Published 18 April 2011
    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1943/1885

    Figure 2 is interesting:

    Three-dimensional representation of the latitudinal distribution of (a) atmospheric CO2 and (b) atmospheric CH4 in the marine boundary layer,
    http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/369/1943/1885/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

    Methane (CH4) in the Southern Hemisphere is way behind the Northern Hemisphere and doesn’t look like catching up for a very long time, if ever. Our cows and sheep are no problem at all.

    And CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing at TOA (the critical criteria) anyway.

  22. HemiMck on July 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm said:

    Yes if it shows nothing else it certainly demonstrates that ice numbers are unreliable in the extreme.

    I note the 1922 to 1932 saw a medium rate rise in CO2 ; 1932 to 1942 showed a rapid rise to a plus 400 peak followed by a steep decline to the early Mauna levels.

    This has to suggest that we see a similar a repeat in the cycle within the next decade or so. That would surely have to be the end scam. I live in hope.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 2:26 pm said:

    I should point out that Eli Rabett neglects the real issue – ice core CO2 vs atmospheric CO2.

    He is merely making a case (such as it is) in terms of two different techniques of atm CO2 measurement.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 2:43 pm said:

    More recently Rabett has posted ‘Eli Thanks Ernst Beck (Shock! Horror!)’

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/eli-thanks-ernst-beck-shock-horror.html

    Basically, a CO2 researcher was unaware of the historical measurements that could have been referenced in “CO2 Megaparis: An intensive study of CO2 emissions from Paris megacity (in collaboration with the EU project MEGAPOLI),”

    Paris CO2 examples:

    # Jardin Luxembourg (major but still tiny green spot in the center of Paris) 425ppm
    # Place de la Bastille: 430ppm
    # Place de l’Etoile (the crazy huge roundabout around the Arc de Triomphe): 508ppm
    # And the winner was Place de la Nation: 542ppm (ie 160ppm over background!).

    None of this makes a jot of difference at TOA, CO2 has overshot by over a factor of 2 (0.6 vs 1.5+ W.m-2).

  25. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 3:15 pm said:

    >”None of this [Paris CO2] makes a jot of difference at TOA”

    Neither does it even show up in OCO-2:

    Click to embiggen
    http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/mainco2mappia18934.jpg

    The only indication of elevated levels of CO2 in Europe, at all, are east of the Adriatic. And then only minor in comparison to say, Southern Africa.

    And yet the the Paris levels are described as “CO2 pollution”. What a fraud.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 3:29 pm said:

    >”There was also an aircraft-borne study that called in to New Zealand a short time ago”

    No that was gravity waves or something – no CO2 sampling.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 4:57 pm said:

    This is the CO2 graph from Beck that, in particular, ruffles feathers at Deltoid (“dodgy” apparently):

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-ee24549320f0431f76b817189dfd4164-beckco2.png

    Obviously chemical measurement on regional scale should have been continued in conjunction with IR-Spect for some time rather than just dropped by climate science (it was used by hundreds of scientists world-wide) or at least the regional studies overlapped with IR-Spect to gain some comparison. Either that or there is actually an overlap in studies and we’re not told about it (lost in the mists of time).

    Industry uses IR-Spect CO2 analyzers everywhere. This instrument for example from Quantek:

    Model 908 Portable CO2 Analyzer for Spot Checks
    http://www.quantekinstruments.com/model-908-portable-co2-analyzer-for-process-research/

    Basically, what OCO-2 is “seeing” is Beck’s “local effective concentration”, a “spot check” which is nothing like Mauna Loa (as elegant as that is). Moot now given the lack of CO2 climate forcing at TOA.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm said:

    >”Obviously chemical measurement on regional scale should have been continued in conjunction with IR-Spect for some time rather than just dropped by climate science (it was used by hundreds of scientists world-wide) or at least the regional studies overlapped with IR-Spect to gain some comparison. Either that or there is actually an overlap in studies and we’re not told about it (lost in the mists of time).”

    I stand corrected – by Beck (2008)

    ’50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF CO2 ON MAUNA LOA’

    by Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl.Biol. (2008)

    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/08_Beck-2.pdf

    5. KEELING, CALLENDAR AND HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS [page 1025]

    As a consequence of his rejection of the old chemical methods there is no
    comparative measurement against the old measuring standards known by Keeling. But
    this is not standard practice in a period introducing a new technology. Figure 7
    displays the directly measured CO2 data of the northern hemisphere in the transition
    period 1940–1975 [25]. In red we see the historical measurements prior to Keeling
    using the wet chemical procedures. A sharp drop up to 1950 can be seen. The blue line
    represents the continuous data from Mauna Loa with the modern physical method.

    There exist measurements in parallel with the old chemical and new physical NDIR
    method, even though C. Keeling argued that the old wet chemical CO2 measurements
    in the 20th century are all erroneous. In 1957/58 in Vienna, Ferdinand Steinhauser
    made CO2 measurements in parallel to Mauna Loa using the gas analyser according to
    A. Krogh and in 1967 we have measurements on a ship with the modern NDIR method
    travelling the same route which the famous oceanographer K. Buch had chosen in
    1935, crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Helsinki to New York. Buch also used the gas
    analyser according to Krogh. Both measurements show identical results for the old and
    new method within error range. Fig. 7 shows the transition time for the old and new
    method of gas analysis as yearly averages [25]. During time after the 1942 CO2 peak
    the CO2 concentration dropped down in the 50s to values around 320 ppm. Keeling’s
    values measured on Mauna Loa are roughly lower by 12 ppm as the corresponding
    data measured with the old chemical method without using latitude and other error
    correction. This is within the error range of both methods but also shows the lower
    concentration on Mauna Loa at a height of 3400 m, compared to the continental
    concentration.

    Today the accuracy in modern laboratories is about 0.1 ppm in analysing air
    concerning CO2 (WMO-Report 148 2003) [9]. The modern NDIR spectroscopic
    procedure is a relative method using calibrated reference gases and an absolute
    calibration with e.g. a manometric system used in the Scripps Institute until 2005.

    The early NDIR analysers had produced several systematic errors mostly due to
    calibration gases [19, 23, and 25]. When Keeling started on Mauna Loa in 1958 a
    systematic error of 4 ppm has been documented [12, 33]. Up to about 1964 the
    accuracy was not as good as the best old analyses before the World War II using the
    chemical method.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 5:41 pm said:

    >”this [no overlap] is not standard practice in a period introducing a new technology”

    An indictment but hey! – this IS climate science.

  30. HemiMck on July 1, 2015 at 6:23 pm said:

    What is absolutely clear is that IPCC’s smoothed curve from 280 pre-industrial clipped on to the Mauna data has to be the most scientifically dodgy – and also most unlikely – historical CO2 curve.

    That in turn means that alternative hypothesis that temperature drives CO2, rather than CO2 driving temperature, as you would expect from Henry’s law, is back on the table.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 7:05 pm said:

    >”What is absolutely clear is that IPCC’s smoothed curve from 280 pre-industrial clipped on to the Mauna data has to be the most scientifically dodgy – and also most unlikely – historical CO2 curve.”

    Dead right Hemi. I’ve been saying this for years except I use the word “bogus”. Glad you see it now too.

    My view is that it is only the very early part of the Mauna Loa Keeling curve that is not to be relied upon (and forget the bogus 83 yr ice core fudge fit), this is over the time before NDIR (IR-Spect) technology matured. The Chemical-NDIR transition period is all important as Beck highlights but climate science is not concerned with best practice as we all know.

    Beck states of this period “Keeling’s values measured on Mauna Loa are roughly lower by 12 ppm as the corresponding data measured with the old chemical method without using latitude and other error correction”

    You need a decent graph of the Keeling curve with grid lines to see this. Most graphs neglect the grid lines. Here’s a good graph:

    http://www.planetforlife.com/images/keeling2.gif

    At 1960 the datapoint on the trend line is 316 ppm. 316 + 12 = 328. On the graph 328 is at the “=” sign in “Slope=0.71”.

    In other words, there really is no slope at 1960 because 1960 is probably the bottom of a curve (0 slope at tangent) if the Chemical-NDIR measurement transition had been managed properly.

  32. HemiMck on July 1, 2015 at 7:31 pm said:

    Leaving aside the absolute vales of CO2 according to Beck, and how they tie to Mauna, the turning points using same technology should be reliable. The three 20th century turning points are pretty dramatic.

    I’m looking for any flattening in Mauna numbers, which after nearly two decades of nil temperature change should not be a surprise. That would be a real reason for panic amongst the congregation of the church of climatology.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 7:42 pm said:

    [Me] >”and forget the bogus 83 yr ice core fudge fit”

    [Hemi] >”That in turn means that alternative hypothesis that temperature drives CO2, rather than CO2 driving temperature, as you would expect from Henry’s law, is back on the table.”

    From Google Books (link too long – just search the title below):

    ‘Magic Universe: A Grand Tour of Modern Science’
    Carbon Cycle – Exactly how does it interact with the global climate?
    By Nigel Calder

    Can’t copy but the following sections are a MUST READ:

    Bubbles in the polar ice.

    The leaves of Big Betty [Beck-type atm CO2 fluctuations that ice cores don’t identify – see below]

    Which drives which?

    For the lazy, I’ve transcribed a very important section from the birch leaves section.

    “In 1999 Wagner and her colleagues declared that, in a warm spell around 9500 years ago, the level of carbon dioxide experienced by the birch leaves was about 350 parts per million—-the same as measured at Mauna Loa in 1987, and much higher than the 260 parts per million or so reported from the ice core. Moreover the birch leaves indicated an increase of 65 parts per million in less than a century, from a previous cool period. This is comparable to the rate of increase seen during the 20th century at Mauna Loa.”

  34. Richard C (NZ) on July 1, 2015 at 8:50 pm said:

    >”I’m looking for any flattening in Mauna numbers, which after nearly two decades of nil temperature change should not be a surprise.”

    Yes, to be expected in fact.

    But I’m not going to start looking until after 2020 (maybe it will be sooner but I don’t think so). The current nil atm temperature change is due to the oscillatory component in temperature. The secular trend in atm temperature has only just undergone a negative inflexion (Macias et al 2014) but it is still in positive phase i.e. still plenty of ocean heat keeping the secular trend in atm temperature rising and still plenty of solar energy (including ENSO activity) to keep ocean heat rising. That atm secular trend should peak sometime after 2020 when the solar deficit starts to kick in but ocean temperature is also a factor i.e. ocean heat and temperature MUST peak BEFORE atm temperature peaks and both BEFORE CO2 peaks.

    Because of this reason I watch OHC numbers for a leading indicator – not atm temperature or Mauna Loa CO2 numbers. The OHC metric is skewed by the Indian ocean, The Pacific is cooling.

    At peak atm temperature and peak sea temperature a Beck-type CO2 turning point is to be expected once both of those metrics go into negative phase. But we’re not there yet because the oscillation in atm temperature is obscuring the underlying ocean-atm dynamic even though we are looking at “nil [atm] temperature change” on the face of it.

    Having said all that, I do think the dissipation of accumulated ocean heat has already begun even though the NOAA shows continual rise:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    The El Nino’s of 2010 and 2015 are/were solar-fueled so there will be a boost to OHC and it shows. But remember that NOAA OHC data is heavily “adjusted”. If the current El Nino does not produce a pronounced atm temperature rise then it stands to reason that OHC accumulation is nearing an end or already ended (peaked) i.e. there’s considerable overall ocean heat dissipation already going through the atmosphere that the El Nino ocean heat accumulation-dissipation doesn’t add to much.

    Woolly reasoning for this last bit I know, more hunch than anything. Time will tell.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 8:03 am said:

    >”looking for any flattening in Mauna numbers”

    First thing to look for IMO is just an inflexion similar to what has appeared in the atm secular trend (Macias et al). Possibly show up in the next 5-10 yrs or so, maybe sooner but I don’t think so.

    A flattening is a long way off IMO and far too soon to be looking for that. Could be wrong of course given the turns in the Beck data but they were not at a major peak in ocean and atmosphere heat. Which is what we are looking for too but not there yet either.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 8:34 am said:

    Why didn’t we read this in Laudato Si?

    “Everyone knows that many opinions today considered ‘scientific’ are not irrefutable or incontrovertible”

    – Bishop Mario Toso, who co-wrote the first draft of the papal encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si’

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/30/encyclical-ghostwriter-pope-francis-did-not-intend-to-canonize-scientific-theories/

  37. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 8:47 am said:

    >”Why didn’t we read this in Laudato Si?”

    Perhaps this is the reason:

    ‘Schellnhuber Boasts Of Having Skeptics Excluded From Participating In Drafting “Laudato Si” Encyclical’

    – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/27/schellnhuber-boasts-of-having-skeptics-excluded-from-participating-in-drafting-laudato-si-encyclical/#sthash.Td06CK7g.dpuf

  38. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 9:16 am said:

    ‘Pope Francis’ Encyclical on Global Warming Fails’

    by James H. Rust, June 23, 2015

    [Excerpt] Paragraphs listed under the sub-heading “Climate as a common good”.

    Paragraph 23 is written as follows:

    “The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes.”

    Paragraph 23 is given in entirety due to many errors in statements. The constant rise in sea level has been constant across the planet for more than a century as shown by tidal gauge measurements posted on the Internet by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The rate of rise averages about 8 inches per century. For many weather events, rates of occurrences have declined in recent decades. The U. S. government provides data on various climate events Pope Francis claims are increasing—heat waves, record high temperatures, flooding, drought, wildfires, reduced snowfall, tornadoes,hurricanes, sea level rise, and Arctic ice melting. Paragraph 23 states recent warming is mostly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide which “do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space”. Greenhouse gases don’t influence the sun’s rays because they are transparent to high wavelength energy from the sun. The scientific community acknowledges increased global warming due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use has only been a factor since 1950 when carbon dioxide was 310 parts per million (ppm) and rising to 400 ppm by 2015. The alleged dangers from global warming cited by Pope Francis have not occurred.

    Paragraph 23 demonstrates Pope Francis did not have expert advice in writing about climate change.

    http://blog.heartland.org/2015/06/pope-francis-encyclical-on-global-warming-fails/

  39. Alexander K on July 2, 2015 at 9:30 am said:

    It is worrying that the USA, which promotes itself as the favoured residence of democracy, bravery and freedom for all people, when it is becoming patently obvious that extreme ideologues are rampant there. Political correctness and other dangerous silliness seems to be fully entrenched in the Obama administration and is being pushed relentlessly. I would suggest that this woman should have visible health warnings attached to her person, but that would make me guilty of things I see her as being guilty of.
    The retreat into God-centered medieval thought patterns by the current Papal administration is equally worrying – it’s not too much of a mental leap for them to return to the burning of heretics.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 9:33 am said:

    ‘The Pope’s Climate Letter Urges ‘Dialogue with Everyone,’ So Why Did Vatican Single Out and Harass Us?’

    Read how the words coming from the Vatican are the exact opposite of their deeds.

    By Tom Harris

    An encyclical letter is considered to be the most significant form of papal teaching for the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics. Tragically, the June 18 encyclical letter on the environment from Pope Francis is riddled with contradictions and mistakes.

    In the letter, “On Care for a Common Home,” Francis emphasized the importance of considering “a variety of opinions” about the problems we face:

    “Given the complexity of the ecological crisis and its multiple causes, we need to realize that the solutions will not emerge from just one way of interpreting and transforming reality. … No branch of the sciences and no form of wisdom can be left out … this Encyclical welcomes dialogue with everyone.”

    Nice sentiment.

    But not only has the Vatican failed to meet this standard, the members of the Heartland Institute delegation that traveled to Rome to urge the Vatican to reconsider its position on climate change and sustainable development in fact received the polar opposite of the encyclical letter’s recommended treatment.

    Says international child’s rights attorney Elizabeth Yore, a participant in the April 28 Heartland outreach:

    “Our opinions were not only ignored, but we were scoffed at and demeaned by high-level Vatican officials who called us deniers, Tea Partiers, and funded by oil interests.”

    More>>>>>
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-popes-climate-letter-urges-dialogue-with-everyone-so-why-did-vatican-single-out-and-harass-us/

  41. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 9:43 am said:

    Alexander, there’s nothing “God-centered” in Laudato Si which actually means “Praise be to you” – not God. This is the Socialist/Marxist vein but without the industry (eco-socialism). I suggest that rather than God-centred or even Man-centred (“you”) it is actually Gaia-centred or just neo-paganism. This requires a small modification to your statement (if I may):

    “The retreat into [Gaia]-centered medieval thought patterns by the current Papal administration is equally worrying”

  42. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 9:59 am said:

    The Pope now has Naomi Klein as an adviser. I can’t see this working out well

  43. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 10:13 am said:

    >”The Pope now has Naomi Klein as an adviser. I can’t see this working out well”

    Neither can I but this changes everything (heh).

    Talk about mixed messages, backpedaling and weaseling from one voice and science-is-settled change-the-world from another.

  44. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 10:15 am said:

    We can just watch the atheist left with all their rainbow flags cozing up to the Catholic Church and stock up on popcorn.

    Should be fun.

  45. Alexander K on July 2, 2015 at 10:22 am said:

    Richard C:
    I agree with you, but to explain my ‘God-centered’ comment:
    Pre-scientific thinking was ‘God-centred’ in that, without any notions of science, all that happened in life was pre-determined by whatever gods controlled individual or group life. This includes pantheistic cultures which explained all phenomena, seen and unseen, as being in the control of various specific gods, which is true of pre-European Maori and other Polynesian cultures.
    Man’s need for religion is almost universal and may explain the success of the global warming/climate change scam.
    It’s bloody scary to watch the current Pope dial the clock back so far and so abruptly!
    Andy,
    Neither can I!!!

  46. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 10:27 am said:

    Melanie Philips wrote in her book “The World Turned Upside Down” that the world has become more irrational and fearsome than during the heyday of Judeo-Christian cultures, contrary to what the secularists would have us believe

    It’s a good book though she does get a bit bogged down in the religion towards the end of the book.

    “Climate Change” gets covered in this book too,

  47. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 11:35 am said:

    Nice explanation Alexander. Except Roman Catholicism usurped pantheism, it’s centred on one god only (actually the trinity) and every other is/was subjugated.

    So because of this, prior to the Enlightenment the RC church and Pope assumed superior knowledge and made pronouncements on subjects that they really didn’t know anything about but could impose by force.

    Basically the European/Near East historical sequence was: pantheism => pre-Enlightenment Christian God + Papal pronouncements to Roman Catholicism (imposed by force on everyone) => post-Enlightenment science + RC pronouncements to Catholicism.

    The RC church could no longer impose their pronouncements on everyone by force and still can’t. So now the Vatican is reduced to making an appeal to all people and religions, including atheistic Greens, in an effort to widen their base and standing. The Popes encyclical is addressed to EVERYONE, not just Roman Catholics and not just the Christian Catholic (“Catholic” is the entire Christian church, not just Roman).

    Schellnhuber is atheist. There is no god in his thinking except Gaia.

    Therefore the current Papal appeal (Laudato Si) cannot be a “retreat into God-centered medieval thought patterns”. Yes it is based (extremely loosely) on biblical instruction but it actually aligns with atheism and takes instruction from it e.g. Schellnhuber.

    But I agree it is a retreat to the notion of a non-industrial medieval life-style. How this is supposed to elevate the poor is beyond me. It’s just the opposite – taking down wealth to the level of the poor.

    I can’t imagine how the poor could be delighted with this ideal.

    Meanwhile Bergoglio, Schellnhuber, Klein et al will continue jetting around the world, skiing excursions included for one, palace living for another.

  48. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 12:07 pm said:

    ‘Climate Marchers Gather to Show Rousing Support for Pope’

    By ELISABETTA POVOLEDOJUNE 28, 2015 NYT

    VATICAN CITY — When Pope Francis appeared on the balcony of the Apostolic Palace, where he delivers an address each Sunday, he was met by the usual cheers and by an unusual forest of bright green oversized paper leaves.

    Had he been able to read what was written on the leaves — which he could not because he was too far away — the pope would have found quotes from “Laudato Si’,” or “Praise Be to You,” his encyclical on the environment published this month.

    The leaves were among the colorful props carried by a hodgepodge of organizations — mostly religious or environmental — that marched to the Vatican on Sunday to thank the pope for his forceful message on climate change, and to demand that world leaders heed his call for environmental justice and climate action.

    “We want the pope to know we’re behind him 100 percent,” said Tafara Dandadzi, a student in environmental law and governance at North-West University in South Africa, who came to Rome for the march and to take part in a seminar convened in part to bring together emerging leaders from various religious and geographic backgrounds to coordinate on climate action.

    “There are people here from different backgrounds with a common purpose,” Mr. Dandadzi added. “I hope the pope knows that, and I hope that the political leaders meeting in Paris later this year know that too.”

    World leaders will meet in Paris in December for a United Nations summit meeting on climate change that aims to arrive at a comprehensive global accord binding nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The pope’s encyclical, which links the environmental crisis to economics and poverty, has been widely read as a call for political action in support of an accord.

    The encyclical is hardly the first foray of a religious leader in the realm of the environment, but it comes at a time when there is greater consciousness — as well as division and debate — on what to do about climate change.

    “Around the world the spirit of humanity is rising to recognize that we have to care for the earth, that there is a deep moral obligation,” said the Rev. Fletcher Harper, an American Episcopal priest and the coordinator of Our Voices, an interreligious campaign for climate action, which organized the march with an Italian Catholic development nonprofit organization, Focsiv.

    Dozens of Italian and international organizations also took part in the demonstration, which brought hundreds of people to St. Peter’s Square.

    “This pope is giving voice to a sentiment that is growing in all faiths around the world,” Father Harper said. “We need all people in leadership positions to go decisively on the record about the need for deep change.”

    The encyclical is by far the most forceful contribution on the topic by a pope, who has the ear of more than one billion Roman Catholics. Francis’ personal warmth has endeared him to many outside his faith.

    “It’s an amazing document that brings together environmental science, social justice and religious teaching and asks us to think about economic policies,” said Samantha Smith, the leader of the Global Climate and Energy Initiative at World Wildlife Fund International. At the heart of the encyclical is a powerful message “that the way we are living on the planet is not sustainable or equitable,” she said. “But it is also hopeful because it urges global mobilization.”

    Sunday’s march reprised the spirit, albeit on a much smaller scale, of the People’s Climate March that brought 300,000 people to the streets of New York in September. And indeed, though Sunday’s march was staged at St. Peter’s Square, its message seemed to resonate beyond the Roman Catholic Church. Alongside nuns and priests and other Catholics were Buddhists and Hindus. Only Rome’s residents were conspicuously absent.

    “I encourage the collaboration between people and associations of different religions for the promotion of an integral ecology,” Francis said, acknowledging the marchers and reprising some of his considerations in the paper.

    Rabbi Lawrence Troster, from Teaneck, N.J., one of the organizers of the march, also underscored the universality of the pope’s message. “ ‘Laudato Si’ ’ is addressed to everyone,” he said. “It is trying to create a consensus among all people, and not leave such an important issues to a small group of policy makers, leaders or diplomats.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/29/world/europe/climate-marchers-gather-to-show-rousing-support-for-pope.html

    # # #

    “There are people here from different backgrounds with a common purpose,”

    “Only Rome’s residents were conspicuously absent.”

    Apparently Rome’s residents do not have the same “common purpose”. Except for the common sense aspect of care for the environment and fellow man, neither do I.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 12:26 pm said:

    >”the spirit of humanity is rising to recognize that we have to care for the earth”

    In biblical teaching, the “spirit of humanity” is “enmity” to the spirit of God, the creator of the universe.

    That is not to say that someone who seeks the spirit of God, rather than the carnal human spirit, should not care for the environment (or that care regards CO2 is “pollution”). However that care includes “dominion over it [the earth]” i.e. it’s resources are for our use. But in the end (the Revelation), the creator does as he chooses with it eventually anyway – and it’s not pretty.

    Greenies flocking to the Vatican might not be so enthusiastic after reading the biblical book of Revelation I suspect.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm said:

    >”Sunday’s march [Vatican City] reprised the spirit, albeit on a much smaller scale, of the People’s Climate March that brought 300,000 people to the streets of New York in September.”

    Some spirit:

    ‘The #PeoplesClimate March exposes the Climate Campaign for the Socialists they are’

    “For those of us opposed to the climate campaign, it should come as no surprise that the movement is full of avowed Marxists. Pushing policies to deal with “climate change” is yet another way of trying to control “the masses”, while the elites hypocritically live the good life and jet around the world to inform us of “our” duty to make sacrifices to save out planet. It’s the same with any Marxist movement.”

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/09/24/peoplesclimate-march-exposes-climate-campaign-socialists/

  51. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 2:03 pm said:

    “>We want the pope to know we’re behind him 100 percent,” said Tafara Dandadzi, a student in environmental law and governance at North-West University in South Africa

    Although he might not like “law and governance” of any sort by the Pope if history is anything to go by.

    But I’m wondering, was the Pope Tafara’s leader before Laudato Si? At that time was he behind him 0%? 30%? 60%? 100%?

    And is he REALLY behind the Pope 100% now? Which implies being behind the Roman Catholic church 100% too of course and everything it teaches, preaches, demands and does e.g. worship God. All the doctrine, services, ceremonies and sacraments? Case in point: the Eucharist.

    I doubt it. Unless he was RC to start with I don’t think Tafara has thought this through.

  52. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 2:23 pm said:

    Questions for all these hangers on to the new Roman Catholic Church:

    Do you support the RC positions on abortion, contraception and homosexuality?

    No, thought not.

    It’s just like “pick n mix” lollies. Just choose the bits you like

  53. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 3:08 pm said:

    Just choose the bits you like……….and be behind them 100%.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 3:14 pm said:

    Correction. A better generalization might be:

    >”Basically the European/Near East historical sequence was: pantheism [& paganism] =>”

    Those two are not one and the same. Schellnhuber would be comfortable in one but not the other.

  55. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 3:27 pm said:

    Ironically, James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, wrote of wind turbines as “monuments to a failed civilisation”

    I think he wrote this in a letter to a local paper so I don’t have a link.

    [You have good recall, Andy. Lovelock’s letter is dated 12 December, 2012, and was submitted in connection with a planning application to the Torridge District Council for a wind turbine. It was publicised by Heartland, shortly afterwards by Bishop Hill, then many others. – RT]

  56. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 4:24 pm said:

    Note that Marx wasn’t against exploitation of natural resources, he thought that the Earth’s resources should be used to empower people.

    True communism also didn’t imply the overpowering state ruling our lives, more an idea that property was shared and available to all.

    So his utopian ideas are slightly different to the environmentalists ideas. The “Cultural Marxist” is another beast too.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 4:52 pm said:

    Exactly Andy, that is why I refer to eco-Socialism as Marxism without the industry. Maybe Stalinism or Maoism would be better in respect to an overpowering state but those still had an industrial base symbolised by the hammer.

    And the idea of property being shared by all is why there’s the attempted affinity with Christianity. The early Jewish Christians shared and gave liberally in accordance with doctrine but among themselves – not everyone else. They were also aided from afar by other new non-Jewish Christians e.g. Macedonia, but mainly due to their hardship and persecution by the Jews. Eventually many forced to live in exile in Cappadocian caves and suchlike.

    Close to the environment, actually right inside it, but I don’t think it would have been thought of as utopia by the inhabitants..

  58. Andy on July 2, 2015 at 5:04 pm said:

    We live in interesting times. The online magazine Spiked-Online was formed from an old rag called “Living Marxism” and is staffed by former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party of GB, such as Brendan O’Neill and Mick Hume.

    It is a million miles away from mainstream leftism. To me, it reads like a conservative rag, but very much based around the sanctity of free speech.

    Spiked is very much a favorite of mine

  59. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 5:34 pm said:

    The symbolism of Roman Catholicism is telling. For example why are there two obelisks at St Peter’s, a large one in the square and the other small one inside the basilica?

    If you read the background on those obelisk’s, or obelisks anywhere whatever their origin, it’s very clear they have no place in Christianity, so what are they doing there?

    Similar with the huge obelisk in Washington DC, USA (“one country under God”). Note the Abraham Lincoln monument is placed facing it even though he didn’t adopt the Free Masonry that put it there. So is the White House, So is the Senate. City ordinances restrict building height so that no building is higher than the obelisk. If you go to Washington there’s no skyscrapers there, it’s weird after visiting New York or Chicago.

    An obelisk in the middle of the City of London too, and New York’s Central park. In terms of sovereignty, Vatican City, Washington DC, and City of London are on a par, New York State has a different legal system to anywhere else in the US. All have centrally placed obelisks in common. These jurisdictions either obtained the monoliths from elsewhere and transported them over great distance i.e. made a lot of effort for a specific aim, or constructed one from scratch with highly defined precision.

    The Pope also faces an obelisk whether inside the Basilica or addressing the crowd in the square. Why all the obsession with obelisks and why in the supposed “seat” of the Christian church in particular?

    This obsession alone arouses my suspicions of anything emanating from these enclaves.

  60. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 6:16 pm said:

    >”This [obelisk] obsession alone arouses my suspicions of anything emanating from these enclaves.”

    Environmental Protection Agency
    1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20460

    Washington DC is a Federally owned District. The EPA is a Federal agency. Obama is bypassing the US Congress of State representatives via the EPA. Because of the EPA overreach, States, which have a degree of independent sovereignty, are suing the EPA:

    12 States Sue Obama Administration for Regulatory ‘Overreach’
    http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/07/twelve-states-sue-epa-destructive-regulations/

    This is not the one that was recently successful. These 12 are effectively “United States” against the Federation. It really is bizarre the way all this is going in the USA.

  61. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 7:20 pm said:

    The recently successful Supreme Court ruling was Michigan and 22 other states.

    ‘Supreme Court: EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act’
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/29/politics/supreme-court-epa-emissions/

    So 23 “United” States in this court action and 12 in another. The following is the States independent reactions in terms of their respective lawmaking:

    ‘States’ Reactions to Proposed EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards’
    Melanie Condon and Jocelyn Durkay 6/30/2015
    http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/states-reactions-to-proposed-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards635333237.aspx

    Regulatory Authority

    While there are currently emission limits on power plants for mercury and arsenic, there are no limits on carbon dioxide. In a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the court determined that the agency could regulate carbon dioxide emissions if it was able to conclude that the gas endangered public health or the environment. In 2009 EPA issued this “endangerment finding” for carbon dioxide.

    2015 State Action

    So far in the 2015 session, legislatures in 31 states introduced 89 bills or resolutions related to the Clean Power Plan and power plants carbon dioxide emissions regulations. Specifically, 24 states have introduced 60 bills and seven states have enacted legislation (see chart below). An additional 18 states have introduced 29 nonbinding resolutions and 11 of these states have adopted resolutions (see chart below).

    In regards to executive action, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin issued Executive Order 2015-22 in April 2015 barring the state from submitting a 111(d) state plan and Indiana Governor Mike Pence sent a letter to President Obama stating Indiana would not comply with EPA’s regulations as they stand.

    Legislation

    This session, a number of state legislatures are looking to establish their role before the release of final regulations. Legislation introduced in 14 states, for example, would require the legislature’s approval of a state plan prior to its submission to EPA; legislation has been enacted in several states. Additionally, legislation introduced in nine of these states would completely restrict a state agency’s authority to submit a plan without legislative approval. Legislation proposed in six states would require a state plan to be submitted to the legislature, but not require legislative approval. Legislation in three states would require the state public utility commission to approve a state plan before submitting it to EPA.

    Another area being addressed by legislation would require an entity such as an environmental regulator, legislature, committee or task force to develop an impact report or to study the regulations impact on affordable power, reliability, and consumers as well as the feasibility of compliance. Of these 19 states considering this requirement, legislation has been enacted in at least five states. Proposed legislation in five states would prohibit state plan development until legal challenges to the regulations are resolved, while legislation in one state would encourage a legislative committee to employ legal counsel to litigate EPA. Legislation in six states, including a bill enacted in Arkansas, proposes creating a reliability safety valve against early power plant retirements. Proposed legislation in four states seeks to cap rate increases. Introduced legislation in an additional four states would require state public utility commission and FERC certification of state plans to ensure reliability. Legislation in several states would require public hearings on proposed state plans and a bill introduced in one state would bar the state from complying with implementation. Introduced legislation in two states would establish market-based compliance options, including cap-and-invest and carbon credit systems.

    Table 1 below displays summaries of enacted legislation. Table 2 displays summaries of introduced resolutions.

    Additional Legislation of Interest

    Supporting Fossil Fuels: In 2015, legislatures in Kentucky and Montana have adopted resolutions supporting coal, coal-fired power plants and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Legislation introduced in Montana would support coal-fired power plants while legislation enacted in Montana and Wyoming encourages enhanced oil and gas recovery.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/states-reactions-to-proposed-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards635333237.aspx

    # # #

    Check out all the different Bills, whether Adopted, Pending, or Failed.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2015 at 8:26 pm said:

    Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency

    Linked with:

    Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
    American Chemistry Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Southeastern Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Environmental Protection Agency

    Judgment: Affirmed in part and reversed in part

    SCOTUSblog Coverage
    Opinion analysis: EPA mostly wins, but with criticism

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/utility-air-regulatory-group-v-environmental-protection-agency/

    15 “United” States supported the EPA. This was a narrow squeak, PR was very important:

    ‘Supreme Court to consider EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases’

    Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA , which deals with “stationary sources” such as power plants and factories, could end up being more about PR than CO2.

    Both sides agree that the outcome will not affect the agency’s rules governing emissions from motor vehicles or plans underway to control new power plants. And a victory could be seen as an affirmation of Obama’s authority to move boldly on environmental regulations in the midst of a gridlocked Congress.

    But here’s another area of agreement: Even a narrow defeat for the agency would resound.

    “Politics are important,” said Richard Lazarus, a Harvard University law professor who is an expert on environmental law. If the EPA loses, “you can be sure the court’s decision will be read as a repudiation of what Obama’s doing.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-consider-epas-authority-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases/2014/02/23/ec5d4f88-9af4-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html

    # # #

    >”Even a narrow defeat for the agency would resound”

    Well, the EPA squeaked though Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA so minimal PR damage. Not so in this most recent Michigan v. EPA. This is one of the PR headlines:

    ‘Supremes knock down crippling regulations in Michigan v. EPA’
    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/29/supremes-knock-down-crippling-regulations-in-michigan-v-epa/

    Not good PR obviously. This was more than a narrow defeat, it will resound but I don’t think it will be read as a repudiation of what Obama’s doing. What it isn’t is a ringing endorsement.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 9:12 am said:

    Interesting post at Junk Science on the role of judges in determining the course of EPA reach cases:

    ‘ATTENTION, Phillip Hamburger says I am wrong about Michigan v EPA–Chevron may be in danger’

    Posted on July 2, 2015 by john1282

    http://junkscience.com/2015/07/02/attention-phillip-hamburger-says-i-am-wrong-about-michigan-v-epa-chevron-may-be-in-danger/

    We complain here at JS that judicial deference to agency interpretive discretion under the jurisprudence of Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) gives agencies waaaaaayyyy too much power, actually making them a legislative player.

    Last year I got all excited when Phillip Hamburger, Professor of Law at Columbia, agreed with us that administrative law use of Chevron to allow agency hegemony was a bad deal in a book titled Is Administrative Law Unlawful?. Hamburger said it is because it violates the proper delineation of legislative power under Article I of the US Constitution. It gives an article II agency article I powers. That violates the constitutional seperation of powers intent.

    Now Hamburger (I think too optimistically) thinks the SCOTUS opinion in Michigan v EPA and also King V Burwell are signs that the SCOTUS will diminish Chevron as controlling on agency activities and rule making. I sure hope Hamburger’s right but the judicial restraint theory of Scalia works against us.

    Judges are instinctively oligarchs–they like big gov. Big gov is powerful and dominated by executive agency activity–autocratic if you will.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/philip-hamburger-chevrons-last-days.php

    Robert Nagel, Prof of Con Law at U of Colorado articulated the problem very well a long time ago–judges are too much into exerting themselves to impose their preferences and finding ways to justify their actions and lack of restraint. Right now we need some lack of restraint to stop EPA and other exec agency overreach.

    The Nagel essay on Judges are Lawyers, they can’t help themselves, and want to be in charge.

    I treat the matter here, borrowing from Nagel and Judge William Posner:

    http://junkscience.com/2015/04/05/why-are-judges-natural-born-intellectual-tyrants/

    # # #

    >”Judges are instinctively oligarchs–they like big gov”

    >”Judges are too much into exerting themselves to impose their preferences and finding ways to justify their actions and lack of restraint”

    >”Judges are Lawyers, they can’t help themselves, and want to be in charge”

    >”Why are judges natural born intellectual tyrants?”

    Not very reassuring when massive economic upheaval is a consequence.

  64. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 9:23 am said:

    Why are judges natural born intellectual tyrants? [Junk Science post]

    ‘The Closing of the Judicial Mind’

    2 book reviews By: David F. Forte

    Posted: August 11, 2009 Claremont Review of Books
    This article appeared in: Vol. IX, Number 3 – Summer 2009

    The link is at:
    http://www.claremont.org/article/the-closing-of-the-judicial-mind/#.VSE6l1VdX7Y

    A review of:

    Unrestrained: Judicial Excess and the Mind of the American Lawyer, by Robert F. Nagel
    and
    How Judges Think, by Richard A. Posner

    Reviews follow here>>>>>>
    http://junkscience.com/2015/04/05/why-are-judges-natural-born-intellectual-tyrants/

  65. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 9:50 am said:

    ”Why are judges natural born intellectual tyrants?”

    This is what I find interesting about the recent SCOTUS ruling on marriage. 9 judges with a majority of 5 to 4 changed the definition of marriage in the USA and overruled the democratic rights of all 51 states to determine the outcome in their own jurisdiction.

    Whatever you think of the merits of the case, it hardly seems a victory for “liberty”. It seems that US judges can interpret the constitution and makes up laws on a whim.

    On a separate note, RC’s comments about the “obelisks” in the Catholic Church reminds me of Ian Wishart’s book Totalitaria. I am in danger of entering tin foil hat territory here, as this book has references to devil worship in the UN, and “obelisks”.

    Presumably, one can assume that having read the book I don’t necessary subscribe to the views, although I thought his book AirCon is fairly on the money, so who knows?

  66. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 11:44 am said:

    >”RC’s comments about the “obelisks” in the Catholic Church reminds me of Ian Wishart’s book Totalitaria. I am in danger of entering tin foil hat territory here”

    No danger I don’t think because there’s been no satisfactory resolution. Plenty of discussion, photos, background research on this over the years by many people from all walks including secular i.e. it’s not just from a religious perspective. Ian Wishart is proof of that.

    The response to accusations of irrational thoughts of totalitarian conspiracy in respect to obelisks is:

    Simply explain –

    Why erect obelisks in these 3 (4) locations in particular?
    Why obelisks?
    Why go out of the way to obtain them from antiquity or great lengths to construct one?
    Why give prominence and even protect that by ordinance in one case?

    Why the symbolism?
    What is it all about?
    What does the symbolism actually mean to the people who erected the obelisks?
    What did they want to achieve?

    To date, no simple explanations forthcoming hence the speculation and theories naturally.

    In Washington DC the explanation (sort of) is a memorial column:

    Washington Monument
    “The Washington Monument is an obelisk on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., built to commemorate George Washington, once commander-in-chief of the Continental Army and the first American president. Standing almost due east of the Reflecting Pool and the Lincoln Memorial,[1] the monument, made of marble, granite, and bluestone gneiss,[2] is both the world’s tallest stone structure and the world’s tallest obelisk, standing 554 feet 7 11⁄32 inches (169.046 m) tall.[n 1] It is the tallest monumental column in the world if all are measured above their pedestrian entrances, but two are taller when measured above ground, although the latter are neither all stone nor true obelisks.[n 2]”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument

    It’s gigantic, I’ve seen it close up and the Lincoln Memorial too. Lincoln got a large statue (and his writings chiseled in stone) but of rather smaller proportion relative to Washington’s. Unless you’re told, there’s no indication from a distance that the column has any relevance to a man – but what is the relevance?

    Basically the How-Why-What-Where approach to investigation. This is one of those hiding-in-plain-sight situations. These things are in-your-face but most people seem oblivious to them and unquestioning of them, especially Roman Catholics. Surely they must be uncomfortable that these things, two of them, have been introduced to the most central positions in the “seat” of their religion, or are they really what their religion is all about at the root given their prominence at the “seat”?

    Similar could be said of Washington DC and City of London.

  67. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 11:52 am said:

    >”It seems that US judges can interpret the constitution and makes up laws on a whim.”

    Yes, this is what Forte goes into (puts it better than I could:

    “After World War II, the judiciary’s moralistic pretensions were enhanced by a widespread increase in the use of the injunctive power, allowing courts to become an administrative regulator of American life. Courts today write opinions in code and indulge myths that their decisions have brought about inestimable goods, such as an end to segregation. (Nagel points out it was the Congress—and the states, one might add—that legislated the end of segregation and state discrimination.) The result has been judicial sovereignty. The Court’s actions, Nagel proclaims, have been a body blow to civic republicanism, eroding the people’s self-respect and self-confidence as political actors.”

    Actually – “The result has been [Federal] judicial sovereignty”

  68. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 1:05 pm said:

    Prominence of the St Peter’s outdoor obelisk in the setting of surrounding structures:

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics8/Vatican-City.jpg

    Obviously this was intentional from inception.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation