Articles Tagged "James M. Taylor"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Friday, December 21st 2012, 6:10 AM EST
Michel Nasibu, an advisor in the International Development Advisory Section of KPMG East Africa, attempted this week to salvage his claims that global warming is devastating the African continent after I debunked his initial claims in an October Forbes.com article. As was the case with Nasibu’s October column, I empathize with his global warming fears, but once again the facts contradict his assertions.
In his October column, Nasibu asserted that global warming is drying up the African continent, causing expanding deserts and reduced crop production. In response, I presented powerful evidence that African deserts are actually shrinking, soil moisture is improving, and crop production is dramatically increasing.
Nasibu now follows up by citing three articles that he claims show “the continent is drying up at an alarming rate.” The three articles, however, show no such thing.
One of the articles describes how Darfur Lake is drying up. The article, however, does not even mention global warming. There is a good reason for this. Regional population growth and increasing water demands are the primary reasons the lake is drying up.
Saturday, December 15th 2012, 7:41 AM EST
The United Nations is doubling down on ignorance and bias for its upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, investigative journalist Donna Laframboise reported in a bombshell presentation earlier this month in Munich, Germany.
Laframboise created a sensation in global warming circles last year when she documented rampant IPCC misbehavior in her book, “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.” Laframboise showed IPCC officials appointed unqualified scientists and blatant global warming advocates as lead authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.
Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of their profession to oversee its reports, it appointed several people without Ph.D.’s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental activist group.
Wednesday, November 21st 2012, 1:18 PM EST
Al Gore’s credibility took yet another beating this week, as meteorologist Anthony Watts documented evidence that Gore lied through his teeth about the number of people allegedly watching the latest version of his 24 Hours of Climate Reality Internet television show. The question arises: If Al Gore so cavalierly lies about his viewership numbers because – in his eyes – the ends justify the means, then how can we take seriously his claims on other global warming-related topics?
On his “Watts Up With That?” webpage, Watts shows how Gore claimed there were more than 16 million viewers for his Climate Reality show last week. Take a moment and contemplate that number. Considering there are only about 500 million people in primarily English-speaking nations, that would mean fully 1 in 30 people in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, and Australia watched the show. Heck, I would bet all my material possessions, and lay 10-to-1 odds on top of that, that 1 in 30 people in these nations did not even KNOW about Gore’s show.
USTREAM tabulates the viewer numbers for Internet broadcasts such as Gore’s. Watts observed that USTREAM would have set a single-day viewership record had Gore actually generated the viewing audience he claimed. As Watts explained, “if USTREAM had a new record day with 16 million views, more than doubling their previous record traffic day of March 11, 2011, don’t you think they would be saying something about it? So far, not a peep.”
Friday, October 5th 2012, 4:33 AM EDT
So you thought Mitt Romney gave Barack Obama a good beating in last night’s debate? That is nothing compared to the beating climate realists have been inflicting on alarmists in the global warming debate.
Rarely will global warming alarmists step into the ring for a live debate that people can watch. There are good reasons for this. When you remove alarmists from the protection of a fawning liberal press and subject them to a debate on equal terms without media filters, embarrassing things tend to happen. Kind of like last night’s presidential debate.
But I digress.
Every now and then alarmists will kind of stick their toe in the water, afraid to have an actual live, unfiltered debate, but unable to refrain from using the print media to attack skeptics who make sound points.
For example, last week in this column I pointed out objective satellite measurements showing long-term growth in Antarctic sea ice and Antarctic continental ice. Alarmists immediately went into a frenzy of damage control. Some alarmists daringly stuck their toes into the water of print-media filtered debate.
Thursday, September 27th 2012, 3:54 PM EDT
It’s desperation time for global warming alarmists. Don’t believe me? Just look at what they’re parading as their best media story right now.
They’re in a frenzy this week, crying “The Sky Is Falling!” in light of predictions by a group called DARA that global warming will kill more than 100 million people during the next 18 years and destroy the global economy. Yes, you read that right – global warming will kill more than 100 million people during the next 18 years!
The predictions are laughable on their face. Perhaps if the head of some respected scientific organization made such claims, we would chalk up the ridiculous predictions as an early sign of dementia and mercifully decline to report the predictions so as not to embarrass the person as he or she checks out of the real world.
But this is not an accomplished scientist or a respected scientific organization making the ridiculous predictions. DARA is an obscure, heretofore irrelevant non-government organization dedicated to guilting people in wealthy nations into forking over money to the rest of the world due to a host of Western Democracy sins, and especially our climate change sins. The problem for DARA is that up until now, nobody has known or cared about the group’s existence. DARA has long been in the lower minor leagues of non-government organizations, assuming there is a lower minor league desperate enough to have them.
Wednesday, September 12th 2012, 6:00 PM EDT
As U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to decline, one would think global warming alarmists would celebrate the ongoing achievement. Instead, alarmists are ramping up their vitriol. The alarmists’ increasing vitriol reveals that for many alarmists, the true goal is not a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, but instead a transfer of wealth and power from individuals to government.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest since 1992. With more and more U.S. power plants switching from coal to natural gas, the decline is likely to continue and the reductions are likely to be permanent.
The decline in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions is striking when we compare U.S. emission trends to global emission trends.
In 2000, U.S. emissions totaled 5.9 billion metric tons, while global emissions totaled 23.7 billion metric tons. Accordingly, in 2000 the United States accounted for 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Friday, August 3rd 2012, 10:59 AM EDT
A reanalysis of U.S. temperature station data shows temperatures are rising only half as much as claimed by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and other government overseers of temperature data. The reanalysis is the first using the Siting Classification System devised by the MATEO-France French national meteorological service and recently approved by the World Meteorological Organization.
The new analysis, conducted by a team of scientists led by temperature station expert Anthony Watts, shows government overseers are improperly reporting double the temperature increase that is occurring in the real world. Fully 92 percent of the overstated temperature rise results from erroneous and scientifically unjustified government “adjustments” to the raw temperature data.
The new analysis shows U.S. temperatures rose only 0.155 degrees Celsius per decade from 1979 through 2008 according to high-quality surface temperature stations. The 0.155 degree increase is substantially less than is claimed by government temperature overseers, and it is sufficiently moderate to rebut fears of an imminent global warming crisis. The U.S. temperature increase from 1979 through 2008 is even less worrisome when considering that temperatures over the oceans are warming at a slower pace than temperatures over land, and that global temperatures cooled during the 30 years prior to 1979.
Monday, July 16th 2012, 9:39 AM EDT
Heartland Institute Senior Fellow for Environment Policy, James M. Taylor, was invited on the Laura Ingraham radio show the other day to debate Kert Davies of Greenpeace. You can listen to or download the MP3 of that debate below — prompted by the crazy weather we’ve experienced this summer: a freak storm from Illinois to the East Coast, wildfires in Colorado, heat waves, etc.
As expected, Davies was not so much interested in debating the facts — which are not on his side — as he was in engaging in ad hominem attacks against Heartland and James.
Listen to the 11-minute debate below.
Click source and scroll to bottom of page for MUST LISTEN debate between Heartland’s James M. Taylor vs. Kurt Davies of Greenpeace!
Result: Well done James!
Thursday, June 28th 2012, 3:30 AM EDT
Last month I received a worried telephone call from a government official in California. An Orange County government agency was holding a water summit, just days away, and one of the speakers was throwing a last-minute hissy fit about a fellow speaker scheduled for his panel. According to the official, the speaker throwing the hissy fit, Climategate central figure Michael Mann, was expressing indignation that the other speaker allegedly did not have the scientific credentials to share a stage with him. The official worried that Mann would back out of his speaking appearance, after Orange County had extensively advertised Mann’s appearance there, if they did not remove the scientist to whom Mann objected. As cameraman Larry exclaimed after a Phil Connors hissy fit in the movie Groundhog Day, “Prima Donna!”
The government official was hoping for some good scientific give and take on the panel. Accordingly, he asked me if I could identify highly qualified scientists who could give a different perspective on global warming than alarmist Mann, and at the same time match Mann’s inflated view of his own credentials.
The Michael Mann hissy fit, I advised the government official, likely had little to do with the other speaker’s credentials. From my own experience with Mann and other politically driven global warming alarmists, they will go to great lengths to avoid appearing on the public stage in a format that requires them to debate or defend their alarmist assertions in the presence of scientists who actually focus on facts rather than scare tactics. I nevertheless gave the government official a list of highly qualified skeptical scientists and wished him good luck with his upcoming conference. “Don’t be surprised, however, if Mann refuses to take the stage with any of these scientists, or anybody else who will ask him challenging questions on the panel,” I predicted. “I know that scientists are supposed to encourage and celebrate critical thinking and open debate, but alarmists like Mann are scientists in only the loosest sense of the term.”
Thursday, June 14th 2012, 7:53 AM EDT
“Americans just lived through the hottest 12 months ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Tuesday,” according to the May 15 Los Angeles Times.
Which begs the question, what does “recorded” mean?
To most people, the hottest temperatures ever “recorded” would imply that quality controlled thermometers registered higher readings during the past year than had ever occurred before. If you believe that this is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.
Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., “anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. If this shocks you, you are not alone.