Tag Archives: carbon

Climate Lawsuits Heading for Defeat Say Top Legal Experts

By: John O’Sullivan

Desperate greens file countless lawsuits in last gasp bid for climate regulations: experts, public and lawmakers unmoved.

May 2011 sees the Big Green litigation machine go into overdrive as it ignores Gallup Poll ratings showing Joe Public no longer believes it’s global warming propaganda. In a story that is going viral on the web, Matthew Brown (Associated Press) explains that, “The courtroom ploy was backed by activists looking for a legal soft spot to advance a cause that has stumbled in the face of stiff congressional opposition.”

In the United States environmentalists plummet new depths as gullible children are groomed to appear in courts to explore any legal loophole to squeeze through impose swinging climate regulations damaging to economic recovery. Meanwhile in Canada skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball rides a tide of popular support to fight back against well-funded climate doomsayer libel suits.

Greens Groom Kids with Crank Claims of Carbon Contamination

Matthew Brown’s report highlights how the idealism of children is cynically being exploited with this spate of lawsuits. Alec Loorz of Ventura, California, is one of many children indoctrinated into thinking our planet is doomed.

An Oregon-based nonprofit called Our Children’s Trust has been recruiting kids like Alec Loorz as plaintiffs for their speculative claims which are based on “common law” theories, not statutes adopted by state or federal lawmakers.

Loorz is an impressionable 16-year-old climate activist groomed as a plaintiff in one of the speculative U.S. cases. A worried Loorz said he latched onto the effort because he thought, “it would give us teeth, give us a bigger voice than just yelling and marching.”

Loorz was first groomed as an ‘eco-warrior’ at the tender age of 13 after seeing former Vice President Al Gore’s discredited movie, ‘Inconvenient Truth.’ A British High Court ruling in 2007 was that Gore’s film contained nine lies.The judge ruled that the film can only be shown to children with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. Sadly, Loorz’s green groomers omitted to pass on that vital piece of information.
Thus the deep-pockets of environmental ‘charities’ believed to be funding young activists, are still remorselessly insisting that human emissions of carbon dioxide that comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, is a dangerous ‘poison.’ But to biologists the benign trace gas is merely plant food and has long been pumped into Loorz’s sodas to give that bubbly fizz.

Lawmakers Condemn Green’s Misuse of Precious Court Time

Many legal analysts predict that this latest ruse by climate extremists will clog up the court system in all 50 U.S. states. Such lawsuits are already being frowned upon from an unlikely quarter: the Obama administration.

Already, the U.S. Supreme Court has disapproved of such “nuisance cases.” Environmental lawyer, Steven G. Jones correctly echoed the voice of the judiciary, “[t]he Supreme Court has long recognized that there are cases that raise political questions that should be reserved for the political branches of government.” [1.]

In his excellent legal analysis, ‘Republican Lawmakers Join Obama Administration in Urging Supreme Court to Overrule GHG Nuisance Case,’ Jones highlights the fact that the Obama administration agreed with Republicans that the U.S. Supreme Court was correct to overturn an appellate ruling that would have allowed environmental plaintiffs to sue sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under tort law. Thus even this ultra-green President who tried and failed to get Congress to pass climate laws frowns upon this new and ill-thought out legal gambit.
Harvard Law School professor Jody Freeman agrees with Columbia University law professor Michael Gerrard are among a host of experts advising that these frivolous lawsuits won’t save a moribund green cause. Freeman doubts a law court could ever be an appropriate forum for the issue.

“I am generally skeptical the plaintiffs will succeed in the courts pressing for common-law remedies from judges,” Freeman said. Another expert, Hans von Spakovsky, attorney and a former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), dismissed the lawsuits for being based on “a creative, made-up legal theory.”

However, to the far northwest in Vancouver, British Columbia, a far more compelling and ultimately decisive global warming legal battle is being fought in Canadian libel courts. Climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball and his legal team are confident they will deal their own fatal blow to two lawsuits filed by UN climate extremists, thus putting an end to any claims that man-made global warming has any scientific substance.

The omens are good, according to ‘Time’ magazine, which notes that Canadian voters, just like their U.S. cousins, have been voting down green policies in recent elections; so it will be hard to find any jury north or south of the 49th parallel eager to resurrect environmentalism’s lost cause.

[1.] Id. at 11 (citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) and Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 277 (2004)).

Source: John O’Sullivan


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, John O'Sullivan, Legal, Politics

Virgin Amazon? Think again


Yesterday I put up a post titled “Alarmist Whackjobism Continues?” where I chastised a recent alarmist report making claims the rainforests of the world are disappearing,which will increase CO2. I countered with a) the report only covers the period between 1980 and 2000, which seems a very dated and short time period, not to mention a seemingly convenient cutoff date, and b) because there is legitimate data showing that the regrowth ratio of the world’s rainforests is 50: 1, i.e., for every acre cut down, 50 acres are growing.

To pile some more fuel on the global warming isn’t anthropogenic fire, a friend tweeted me a URL this morning that leads to an article on Sott.net titled “Amazon was home to a large civilization, scientist says.” It is about a researcher who shows that much of the Amazon has been settled before by significant numbers of people. This means that a) much of it isn’t the “virgin” forest as the warmers and greens like to claim, and b) the jungle does reclaim what it had after man leaves.

This appears to be yet more evidence that condemns the claims in the study from Stanford University’s Holly Gibbs. More information to lead us in the direction that her study may just be last-minute alarmism and that perhaps the rainforests aren’t having the big problems the “warmer” crowd would like the public to believe.

Per the article you can see that Nigel Smith and others have discovered things long-buried in the jungle that seem to refute the claims that the rainforests are endangered. (Please note that this article originated from the Washington Post, which appears to be on the “warmer” side of the fence, which to me reinforces in my mind that the article isn’t just some “skeptic” BS).

To the untrained eye, all evidence here in the heart of the Amazon signals virgin forest, untouched by man for time immemorial – from the ubiquitous fruit palms to the cry of howler monkeys, from the air thick with mosquitoes to the unruly tangle of jungle vines.

Archaeologists, many of them Americans, say the opposite is true: This patch of forest, and many others across the Amazon, was instead home to an advanced, even spectacular civilization that managed the forest and enriched infertile soil to feed thousands.

What has been discovered is interesting. To make a long story short.

  • Man made indian mounts containing ceramic pieces and man-enrichened earth
  • huge swaths of terra preta, so-called Indian dark earth, land made fertile by mixing charcoal, human waste and other organic matter with soil
  • vast orchards of semi-domesticated fruit trees
  • moats, causeways, canals, the networks of a stratified civilization

Nigel Smith

It would seem to me that this research is another cog in the mounting evidence that is proving the global warming crowd is getting very over-heated about nothing. It appears to me that they’re on the defense after Climategate, and appear to be taking some great liberties with the way good science is done, as evidenced by some of the alarmist reports and articles we see. Lest you think not, you can go here and see a huge list of all the claims made by the “warmers,” many which appear contradictory.

They also appear rife to admit that perhaps Mother Nature takes care of herself and that what appears to be global warming to them is just part of a natural cycle, just like the rainforests rejuvenating themselves.

It appears to me that we have another nail in the CO2 Insanity coffin. I’d highly recommend you read the article from Sott.

Source: Sott.net

Comments Off on Virgin Amazon? Think again

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Science

Earth Burps

How do you spell relief?

Did the Earth need Alka Seltzer 18,000 years ago?  According to this article from Science Daily there might have been a need (snicker-snicker). Must have been a “plop plop fizz fizz” moment.

Scientists have found the possible source of a huge carbon dioxide ‘burp’ that happened some 18,000 years ago and which helped to end the last ice age.

Note the word “possible,” which always seems to be one of the key words in these scare-a-rama reports we get.

If there was a large carbon burp 18,00o years ago, I’d like to know where it is, because I sure don’t see one on the below graph of carbon and temperature taken from the Antarctic Ice Core. Sure there’s an increase in CO2,  but a burp? I think not. I see a gradual rise, not a sudden burp.

The results provide the first concrete evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) was more efficiently locked away in the deep ocean during the last ice age, turning the deep sea into a more ‘stagnant’ carbon repository — something scientists have long suspected but lacked data to support.

Yet, they tout “concrete evidence” as being in this alleged “proof” they’re providing.  So how did they arrive at this conclusion?

By measuring how much carbon-14 (14C) was in the bottom-dwelling forams’ shells, and comparing this with the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time, they were able to work out how long the CO2 had been locked in the ocean.

By linking their marine core to the Antarctic ice-cores using the temperature signal recorded in both archives, the team were also able compare their results directly with the ice-core record of past atmospheric CO2 variability.

Sorry but I still don’t see a burp in that graph of the Antarctic Ice Core sample. Here is further explanation from the article.

Throughout the past two million years (the Quaternary), the Earth has alternated between ice ages and warmer interglacials. These changes are mainly driven by alterations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (the Milankovic theory).

But changes in Earth’s orbit could only have acted as the ‘pace-maker of the ice ages’ with help from large, positive feedbacks that turned this solar ‘nudge’ into a significant global energy imbalance.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 were one of the most important of these positive feedbacks, but what drove these changes in CO2has remained uncertain.

Excuse me? “Uncertain?” I thought this was “CONCRETE?” Talk about bi-polar science. Note how they highlight the importance of CO2 and try to minimize the solar effect. Just couldn’t be some other reason, could there be? Has to be CO2.  They state “These changes are mainly driven by alterations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun” then turn around and claim CO2 was more of a cause and the orbit change was only a “pace-maker” more bi-polar science.

Let’s read some more and see what else they have to say.

Scientists think more CO2 was locked up in the deep ocean during ice ages, and that pulses or ‘burps’ of CO2 from the deep Southern Ocean helped trigger a global thaw every 100,000 years or so. The size of these pulses was roughly equivalent to the change in CO2 experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.

So they “think.”  I guess that’s “concrete” evidence, too. Note how they try and tie this in with the CO2 increase since the 1850’s. My how convenient is that?

I never would have guessed the Earth was a serial burper.  So, if we have a large burp every 100,000 years, and our last burp was 18,000 years ago, doesn’t that mean we won’t have another one for about 82,000 years? So why worry? (It’s their theory, not mine!)

Here’s some other comments on the subject, this one from this article on ABC Australia.

Geolgist Professor Mike Standiford, director of the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne says the result is “interesting but controversial.”

Recent radiocarbon analyses from Chilean sites failed to find evidence of the missing Southern Ocean CO2, he says.

This comment makes it rather obvious that only using the limited data they did and have doesn’t seem to really be “concrete evidence” does it? So why the “alarmist” scare again?  Sounds like more desperation to prove there’s anthropogenic global warming to me.

By measuring how much carbon-14 (14C) was in the bottom-dwelling forams’ shells, and comparing this with the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time, they were able to work out how long the CO2 had been locked in the ocean.

Sorry but I have to question this process because there are other sources of -14 such as soil and plants for example.  So how can one tell what the source is? It could have come from elsewhere. (If you can find the “burp” they refer to, sure isn’t in the graph!)

If this theory is correct, we would expect to see large transfers of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere at the end of each ice age. This should be most obvious in the relative concentrations of radiocarbon (14C) in the ocean and atmosphere; 14C decays over time and so the longer carbon is locked up in the deep sea, the less 14C it contains.

I find this interesting, too.  The highlighted above reads to me like the claim is that it only decays in the ocean, or perhaps infers that it decays faster in the ocean.  I can’t fathom either one because it’s going to decay at the same rate regardless of where it’s located.  I’ve seen information that environmental factors will cause 0.1% or less variation on decay rates.  So, what’s the deal?

Sounds like another episode of CO2 Insanity to me. That’s the deal.

Source:  Science Daily

Comments Off on Earth Burps

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

British CO2 Insanity (It's only money!)

1 TrillionThis is more of the insanity the site’s title refers to, only this is the colossal, beyond belief type of insanity.

I have to laugh at this article from Telegraph.co.uk.  The author matter-of-factly writes about the monumental quantities of various kinds of power generating equipment that will have to be installed and completely ignores the staggering costs of it all.

Britain has some very lofty goals when it comes to reducing their carbon footprint.  If they’re to achieve the goals they have set…

Every car on the road will need to be electric and there will be solar panels on every home, 10,000 wind turbines onshore and 40 new nuclear power stations if the Government is to stand a chance of meeting strict climate change targets, engineers have warned.

The report assumed that the maximum level of renewable electricity will be installed including 9,600 wind turbines on land and a further 10,000 turbines at sea.  The Severn Barrage will have to go ahead as will as 1,000 miles of wave machines and further installations for tidal power.  Most of the country’s 25 milliion households will have to install solar papenls and scrap boilers in favour of heat pumps that take heat of of the air or the ground.

I did a little research on the Internet and arrived at the following figures using US Dollars. Hopefully my math is correct…

  • The average cost of a nuclear power plant at $10 billion.  They want 40 of them, so that’s about $400 billion.
  • There are about 17 million cars on the road in the UK.  NADA puts the average cost of a car in the US at $28,400.  (Couldn’t find one for the UK).  Using this figure, replacing all 17 million cars at $28,400 that totals $482.8 billion.  Based on electric car prices (Chevy Volt for example), I’d say that’s a conservative figure.
  • A good solar panel system for a house will run about $20,000.  Take the 25  million households in the UK and that totals up to another $500 billion.
  • Replacing boilers with heat pumps seems to be going for about $5,000 per house x 25 million = $1.25 billion.
  • One commercial scale wind turbine runs about $3.5 million installed.  Take that times 20,000 and you get $70 billion.
  • $650,000 per generator to manufacture.   Per the article they’ll need 1,000 miles of wave machines.  I have no clue how many per mile will be installed (can’t find anyting online), but if we just put one per mile that would be 1,000 of them.  Let’s say $1 million per installed and you have another $1 billion.  (Sounds cheap to me but since I can’t find any more info we’ll go with that).
  • Now for the low power coal or nuclear power plants, lets take coal.  A coal plant is about $1.83 billion for a regular one.  Add carbon capture to it and I’ll take a wild guess and say $3 billion.  They will need 40 of those, so that is another $120 billion.

This totals to a staggering $1.58 trillion,  rounded off.  I don’t think that will be all that’s involved, either.

If you switch to all electric cars, you have to add in the  cost of putting plugs in for car charging stations all over the UK.  You will also have the cost of removing or altering 9,271 gas stations, and the cost of scrapping 17 million cars.  They will have to be scrapped because they’ll basically be useless unless someone comes out with a nifty kit to convert from petrol to electric.

The main goal of this is to reduce carbon, right?  Now can you imagine the carbon footprint of converting 25 million houses to solar, switching 25 million boilers t0 heat pumps, building 17 million electric cars, building 40 nuclear power plants, building 40 coal power plants, building and installing charging stations all over the country, scrapping 17 million cars, scrapping 9,271 gas stations and building and installing 1,000 or so wave generated power plants?

Can you imagine the eyesore of 20,000 wind turbines and 1,000 wave generators?  Can you imagine the noise created by 20,000 wind turbines?  Not to mention that with all those wind machines I wonder how much longer birds would be left in Britain, as they’d all be chopped to pieces. Is this really going to lower the carbon footprint?  I certainly have to wonder if after all is said and done, and you take all this into consideration, that it might not actually increase the carbon footprint?

Let’s go global now.  Say the UK is about an average size country.  (I have no clue and I’m not about to figure it out if you want to, be my guest), and that $1.58 trillion per country would be about average.

Depending upon the resource, there are about 195 independent countries in the world today. Now we have UK sized ones, huge ones like the United States,  China, Russia, and small ones like Monaco, Switzerland, etc.

Take that $1.58 trillion, multiply it by 195 and that my friends, totals to about $308 trillion dollars! Based on what I see, if a government gets involved (and I don’t care what one, they’re all alike on spending) you could probably be realistic by at least doubling that to $616 trillion dollars. An insane sum indeed.

Is there that much money in the world?

Source:  Telegraph.uk.co

Comments Off on British CO2 Insanity (It's only money!)

Filed under Editor, Financial, Politics