Pentagon’s climate warnings in 2003 turns out to be a bogus

The seemingly unusual heat in the Philippine capital, which has already claimed some lives, has prompted the government to issue warnings on the increasing risks of heat stroke.

And I’ve seen post hoc based comments associating high temperatures to “global warming”. This is a sign of how the public has been hardwired or brainwashed to view temperature changes as "global warming".

Unfortunately, the public doesn't realize it that the dogma of man made global warming continues to take a beating. 

The Washington Times points to a study commissioned by the Pentagon over a decade ago, which warned of the potential havoc that the world was faced from global warming. The prediction turned out to be blatantly inaccurate.

Here is the intro (ht Gary North)

Yet the 2003 report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is credited with kick-starting the movement that, to this day and perhaps with more vigor than ever, links climate change to national security.

The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.

The release of this report is what likely sparked the ‘modern era’ of security interest in climate affairs,” said Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that examines scientific issues that affect public policy.

“It was widely publicized and very much a tool of the political battles over climate raging at the time,” said Mr. Kueter, who sees as “tenuous” a link between U.S. security and climate change.

Prediction versus reality

Under the section “Warming up to 2010,” here are some of the report’s key scenarios, compared with what has transpired:

• By 2005, “more severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm surges and floods.”

Today: The most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said it has “low confidence” of an increase in hurricanes or tornadoes. The U.S. is likely experiencing fewer tornadoes compared with 50 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This year’s tornado season was historically low.

The U.N. report said: “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricane counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

In December, Roger Pielke, a scientist who has conducted extensive analysis of storm history, told a Senate panel: “There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”

The U.S. has not experienced a major hurricane in nearly 10 years.

• Global temperatures will increase by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and, in some areas, 0.5 degrees per year.

Today: Scientists skeptical of man-made climate change say satellite data show there has been no increase in 17 years. The Environmental Protection Agency, a strong climate change advocate, puts the decade increase at 0.3 degrees.

• There will be more floods, making coastal cities such as The Hague “unlivable” by 2007.

Today: The Hague is still livable.

The United Nations said this year: “There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

• “Floating ice in the northern polar seas is mostly gone during the summer by 2010.”

Today: Arctic sea ice remains. Warming in the polar region has reduced the ice extent, from 2.8 million square miles at its yearly summer minimum in 1979, when satellite measuring began, to 2.1 million square miles in 2013, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

• Sacramento River levees will fail, creating “an inland sea” in California that “disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water.”

Today: There are no inland seas in California.

Oh Professor North also provides as a link where 31,487 scientists from all over the US signed a petition (via PetitionProject.org) stating that…

“There is NO convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

The religion of climate change has been about promoting environmental scare stories to justify funding from the government, aimed at providing “scientific basis” for the political social engineer’s vision of expanding control over society...Or more economic and political repression in the name of environmentalism.

At the end of the day, these scare stories—backing populist politics—turn out to be a myth.

Chart of the Day: The Bursting of the Renewable Energy Bubble

Environmental politics expressed through “manmade global warming” or now revamped as “climate change” has basically the same intent: promote political favored energy, as well as, establish social controls to supposedly protect the climate.

Yet the public hardly realizes that when government intervenes the result has always been the same: imbalances emerge and the laws of economics ventilated through markets will correct them.  This is simply the law of unintended consequence.

The renewable energy industry, which has been the principal beneficiary from climate change policies, have been thrashed by marketplace. Moreover politicization has led to unethical practices or has exposed cronyism such as the Solyndra scandal.

The chart above consisting of the market cap of the 30 of the world’s largest renewable energy companies has plummeted by more than 90% since the 2008 peak. 

From oversupply or to a build up of high capacity, to high energy prices, to the realization of fiscal realities and the European debt crisis, and to the stalemate in global climate negotiations, as explained by the Washington Times (chart also from them, hat tip AEI’s Mark Perry), has brought such politically hyped-to-the-firmament expectations back to earth.

Such outcome has been diametric to the largely free market based Shale gas revolution.

Bottom line: the market eventually explodes the illusions brought upon by politically inflated bubbles.

Imploding Solar Energy Bubble Even in China

Government sponsored renewable “green” energy (predicated on climate change) has been imploding, not only in the US (e.g. Solyndra scandal) and Europe but in China as well.

From the New York Times (bold highlights)

China in recent years established global dominance in renewable energy, its solar panel and wind turbine factories forcing many foreign rivals out of business and its policy makers hailed by environmentalists around the world as visionaries.

But now China’s strategy is in disarray. Though worldwide demand for solar panels and wind turbines has grown rapidly over the last five years, China’s manufacturing capacity has soared even faster, creating enormous oversupply and a ferocious price war.

The result is a looming financial disaster, not only for manufacturers but for state-owned banks that financed factories with approximately $18 billion in low-rate loans and for municipal and provincial governments that provided loan guarantees and sold manufacturers valuable land at deeply discounted prices. 

China’s biggest solar panel makers are suffering losses of up to $1 for every $3 of sales this year, as panel prices have fallen by three-fourths since 2008. Even though the cost of solar power has fallen, it still remains triple the price of coal-generated power in China, requiring substantial subsidies through a tax imposed on industrial users of electricity to cover the higher cost of renewable energy.

The outcome has left even the architects of China’s renewable energy strategy feeling frustrated and eager to see many businesses shut down, so the most efficient companies may be salvageable financially.

$18 billion and counting of China’s taxpayers money now in jeopardy.

As always, eventually economic reality expressed through the markets upend governments’ grand delusions, more from the same article:

Chinese companies have struggled even though a dozen solar companies in the United States and another dozen in Europe have gone bankrupt or closed factories since the start of last year. The bankruptcies and closures have done little to ease the global glut and price war because China by itself represents more than two-thirds of the world’s capacity.

To reduce capacity, foreign rivals have clamored for China to subsidize the purchase of more solar panels at home, instead of having Chinese companies rely so heavily on exports. But the government here is worried about the cost of doing so, because the price of solar power remains far higher than for coal-generated power.

The average cost of electricity from solar panels in China works out to 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, said Mr. Li. That is three times the cost of coal-fired power. But it is a marked improvement from 63 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar power four years ago.

China’s official goal is to install 10 gigawatts of solar panels a year by 2015, using 20-year contracts to guarantee payment for electricity purchased from them. If costs stay where they are now, the subsidies would be $50 billion over 20 years for every 10 gigawatts of solar power installed, based on figures supplied by Mr. Li.

Even if solar power costs fall by a third, as the government hopes, he said, “it’s big money.”

China’s government’s goal may or may not be attained, but one thing is for sure: costs are not benefits. China’s force feeding of solar energy will come at a great costs to her taxpayers and to the development of other possible alternatives, most prominently shale gas.

Alternatively, the explosive global growth of free market based Shale gas will add to the economic and financial woes of the solar and other government sponsored renewable industry.

Global Warming in the Perspective of Social Science

Politics has mainly been about arousing emotions. In the debate over global warming, arguments have essentially been reduced to either black and white, or either “you are for are against us” (False choice).

Never mind if previous predictions has always failed due to misdiagnosis arising from blind spot-illusory superiority cognitive biases or the overestimation of one's assumptions (knowledge problem).

Professor Steve Horwitz puts the global warming-climate change issue into perspective with 8 highly relevant questions (from thefreemanonline.org) [Italics bold original]

1. Is the planet getting warmer?

2. If it’s getting warmer, is that warming caused by humans? Obviously this is a big question because if warming is not human-caused, then it’s not clear how much we can do to reduce it. What we might do about the consequences, however, remains an open question.

3. If it’s getting warmer, by what magnitude? If the magnitude is large, then there’s one set of implications. But if it’s small, then, as we’ll see, it might not be worth responding to. This is a good example of a scientific question with large implications for policy.

Matters of Science

All these questions are presumably matters of science. In principle we ought to be able to answer them using the tools of science, even if they are complex issues that involve competing interpretations and methods. Let’s assume the planet is in fact warming and that humans are the reason.

4. What are the costs of global warming? This question is frequently asked and answered.

5. What are the benefits of global warming? This question needs to be asked as well, as global warming might bring currently arctic areas into a more temperate climate that would enable them to become sources of food. Plus, a warmer planet might decrease the demand for fossil fuels for heating homes and businesses in those formerly colder places.

6. Do the benefits outweigh the costs or do the costs outweigh the benefits? This is also not frequently asked. Obviously, if the benefits outweigh the costs, then we shouldn’t be worrying about global warming. Two other points are worth considering. First, the benefits and costs are not questions of scientific fact because how we do the accounting depends on all kinds of value-laden questions. But that doesn’t mean the cost-benefit comparison isn’t important. Second, this question might depend greatly on the answers to the scientific questions above. In other words: All questions of public policy are ones that require both facts and values to answer. One cannot go directly from science to policy without asking the kinds of questions I’ve raised here.

7. If the costs outweigh the benefits, what sorts of policies are appropriate? There are many too many questions here to deal with in detail, but it should be noted that disagreements over what sorts of policies would best deal with the net costs of global warming are, again, matters of both fact and value, or science and social science.

8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of global warming? This question is not asked nearly enough. Even if we design policies on the blackboard that seem to mitigate the effects of global warming, we have to consider, first, whether those policies are even likely to be passed by politicians as we know them, and second, whether the policies might have associated costs that outweigh their benefits with respect to global warming. So if in our attempt to reduce the effects of global warming we slow economic growth so far as to impoverish more people, or we give powers to governments that are likely to be used in ways having little to do with global warming, we have to consider those results in the total costs and benefits of using policy to combat global warming. This is a question of social science that is no less important than the scientific questions I began with.

I could add more, but this is sufficient to make my key points.

Professor Horwitz’s striking conclusions:

First, it is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but reject the policies most often put forward to combat it. One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it.

Second, people who take that position and back it up with good arguments should not be called “deniers.” They are not denying the science; they are questioning its implications. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial – denial of the relevance of social science.

Global warming-climate change is as much about economics or social sciences than just an issue of environmental science. Don’t be misled.

US Spent $72 Billion for Climate Change Since 2008

Writes Professor Gary North at the LewRockwell.com,

Remember when global warming was called global warming? You know: back in 2001, before a decade elapsed in which there was no measurable global warming.

It’s not called global warming any longer. That was just too embarrassing, because there hasn’t any global warming for a decade. This stable temperature has taken place, despite the fact that worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide are higher.

“In light of the 2010 data, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by fully a third since the year 2001, yet global temperatureshave not risen during the past decade. Global warming activists argue that carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary factor in global temperature changes, yet global temperatures show no change despite a 33% increase in global carbon dioxide emissions.”

So, the anti-warmers changed tactics. They invented a new threat: climate change.

Mankind is responsible for climate change, we are told. Therefore, the U.S. government is required to spend money to combat it, all over the world. It has no jurisdiction outside the United States, but that has not dimmed the hopes and plans of warmers

The U.S. government has spent over $72 billion to combat climate change since 2008.

This has failed. The climate keeps changing. Sometimes it’s warmer. Sometimes it’s cooler. It it refuses to cease changing.

This means that taxpayers must still be compelled by the government to do their fair share.

This means $72 billion down the sinkhole (wasted productive capital), $72 billion added burden for US taxpayers, and $72 billion subsidies for the benefit of Obama’s green energy cronies.

Abetted by the constant barrage of propaganda by mainstream media aimed at convincing the median voter, vested interest groups, who benefit from political privileges, have been screaming for more.

Another US Government Sponsored ‘Earth Hour’ Company Goes Bust

First, mainstream environmental politics tell us of the need to become energy independent

Next, mainstream environmental politics tell us that people have been mainly responsible for the deterioration of the environment [based on computer models].

Third environmental politics tell us of the need to shift to green energy, by suggesting that prices of oil should rise to facilitate such a shift.

I may add this really serves as cover to promote the interest as well as to ensure the survival of welfare state nations, whom has depended on the sustainment of lofty oil prices to bribe their citizenry for them to stay in power.

Overall, mainstream environmental politics has been about promoting the privileges of a few entrenched vested interest groups through political privileges of social control by immersing the public with indoctrination based on tomfoolery and propaganda.

So how has the business of green energy fared?

Here is Zero Hedge, (bold emphasis mine)

Solyndra was just the appetizer. Earlier today, in what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world's largest solar power project, the hilariously named Solar Trust of America ("STA"), filed for bankruptcy. And while one could say that the company's epic collapse is more a function of alternative energy politics in Germany, where its 70% parent Solar Millennium AG filed for bankruptcy last December, what is relevant is that last April STA was the proud recipient of a $2.1 billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy, incidentally the second largest loan ever handed out by the DOE's Stephen Chu. That amount was supposed to fund the expansion of the company's 1000 MW Blythe Solar Power Project in Riverside, California. From the funding press release, "This project construction is expected to create over 1,000 direct jobs in Southern California, 7,500 indirect jobs in related industries throughout the United States, and more than 200 long-term operational jobs at the facility itself. It will play a key role in stimulating the American economy,”said Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America and Executive Chairman of project development subsidiary Solar Millennium, LLC." Instead, what Solar Trust will do is create lots of billable hours for bankruptcy attorneys (at $1,000/hour), and a good old equity extraction for the $22 million DIP lender, which just happens to be NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, another "alternative energy" company which last yearreceived a $935 million loan courtesy of the very same (and now $2.1 billion poorer) Department of Energy, which is also a subsidiary of public NextEra Energy (NEE), in the process ultimately resulting in yet another transfer of taxpayer cash to NEE's private shareholders.

As Bloomberg notes: "The company joins Energy Conversion Devices Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that suspended production last year; LSP Energy LP, the owner of a natural-gas-fired power plant in Mississippi; Ener1 Inc., maker of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in electric cars; solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC; and energy storage company Beacon Power Corp. (BCONQ) in bankruptcy."

And so central planning fails again, and again, and again, and again. But it sure will be better with the centrally planned monetary (and in the absence of a working Congress - also fiscal) policy. Because this time it really will be different.

US taxpayer's money down the drain again.

Politics based on social control, this time applied to environmentalism, fits very much into Ben Franklin/Albert Einstein’s description of insanity —doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different. [The insanity quote may have been misattributed to Mr. Franklin and to Mr. Einstein but the essence of the message holds. ]

The unsustainable political picking of winners and losers will work only for as long as the public remains dense to reality, and for as long there remains real savings from the private sector from which would be forcibly diverted into such wasteful political enterprises.

As the great Professor Ludwig von Mises warned,

An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.

CBS News: US Taxpayers Taking a Hit on Green-Renewable Energy Firms

Political supported green renewable energy companies have been sinking US taxpayer funds.


(hat tip: Mark Perry)

From CBS

It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. SunPower's role is to design, build and initially operate and maintain the California Valley Solar Ranch Project that's the subject of the loan guarantee.

First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose - even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans.

Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview. Last November at a hearing on Solyndra, Energy Secretary Steven Chu strongly defended the government's attempts to bolster America's clean energy prospects. "In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars," Chu said. "We are in a fierce global race to capture this market."

Economist Morici says even somebody as smart as Secretary Chu -- an award-winning scientist -- shouldn't be playing "venture capitalist" with tax dollars. "Tasking a Nobel Prize mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be general in charge of America's troops in Afghanistan," Morici said. "It's that absurd."

My comment:

This represents the political economy of anthropomorphic climate change. Argue about the validity of global warming then divert taxpayers money on money losing projects that benefits only politically allied cronies and their political wards.

This is further proof that even with subsidized money, green or renewable energy can hardly take off simply because consumers don't see them as reliable alternatives (in spite of the global warming bugaboo).

This also proves that government picking out of 'winners' is no guarantee of success.

Even more, the issue of moral hazard applies as cronies are hardly motivated to see the success of these companies since they know government will absorb the losses on their behalf and even perhaps knew or anticipated that these companies would eventually fail, hence, became milking cows.

And corruption will signify another aspect here, since public-private partnerships naturally leads to the prioritization of the whims of the political masters rather than of consumers.

Also one can pretend to know about the future (as the energy secretary) when we really don't.

End of the day what is unsustainable won't last. What is a fraud or unnatural will be exposed for what they are. That's how events have been playing out as shown above.

Jupiter: Giant Of The Solar System

Last year I noted that despite man's great leap in technological advancement, we are still NO match to the awesome powers of nature-the ultimate black swan.

This documentary video of the planet Jupiter presents a good example. (HT: Bob Murphy)

Jupiter has greatly contributed to life on earth by playing the role of an enormous vacuum cleaner through its massive gravity field (which serves as a defensive shield) that has, so far, kept us free from the risks of catastrophic impact from comets, asteroids and other space objects.

From this point of view, the idea that man is primarily responsible for nature's changes is a speck, irrelevant and represents fatal conceit or intellectual arrogance.

More Evidence On The Deflating Man Made Climate Change Bubble

The anthropomorphic climate change hysteria is fast proving to be a deflating bubble [see earlier post here Exposing The Fraud Behind Man Made Global Warming? ]

According to Sciencenews.org (bold highlights mine)

``A London newspaper reports today that the unsubstantiated Himalayan-glacier melt figures contained in a supposedly authoritative 2007 report on climate warming were used intentionally, despite the report’s lead author knowing there were no data to back them up.

``Until now, the organization that published the report – the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – had argued the exaggerated figures in that report were an accident: due to insufficient fact checking of the source material.

``Uh, no. It now appears the incident wasn’t quite that innocent.

``The Sunday Mail’s David Rose reached Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC report’s chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers – the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia – could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” In other words, Rose says, Lal “last night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

``A noble motive, perhaps, but totally inexcusable."

Uh.ummm. The Emperor [man made climate change religion] wears NO clothes!

Clean Air Basics: Carbon Capture and Storage

Learn Carbon Capture and Storage from this interactive presentation (McKinsey Quarterly)

First word from McKinsey, ``Climate change has businesses, governments, and nonprofits examining how to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gases while still maintaining economic growth. In plotting the course to a low-carbon economy, they will weigh a number of methods for addressing the various risks and opportunities. Carbon capture and storage (CCS)—or more accurately, the sequestration of carbon dioxide—is an important topic in the emerging field of climate change. It represents one possible approach for stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases—although there are many economic, technical, and legal barriers to its implementation. As background for informed discussion, we offer this interactive depiction of the technologies involved in CCS."

Press on image to redirect link...