Articles Tagged "James M. Taylor"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Thursday, June 7th 2012, 2:14 AM EDT
Somehow, on her way to Iowa, Kansas, Florida, and the Bronx Zoo, Hillary’s travel agent sent her on a wild goose chase to Greenland, of all places.
Our Secretary of State said she was on a mission to see for herself the impacts of global warming. That being the case, she should have started her trip in Iowa, in the heart of the World’s Breadbasket. Why Iowa? Because as the world has warmed, crops have responded with ever-improving yields. Nearly every year, important crops set yield-per-acre records in the United States and elsewhere. This is consistent with the basic science that carbon dioxide is aerial fertilizer. It is also consistent with longer growing seasons and the improvement in soil moisture that accompanied warmer temperatures. Want to see for yourself the impacts of global warming, Secretary Clinton? Start in Iowa.
Next, and while she was in Iowa, Hillary should have visited nearby Kansas. Why Kansas? Because Kansas is in the heart of Tornado Alley. As National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records show, strong tornadoes have become rarer as global temperatures have warmed. This is consistent with the basic science that as winter cold masses become more moderate, their springtime clashes with warm, moist air masses become less severe. Want to see for yourself more beneficial results of global warming? Check out the moderation of tornadoes in Kansas and Tornado Alley.
Thursday, May 10th 2012, 7:21 AM EDT
David Roberts, a blogger for the environmental activist website Grist.org, has inadvertently delivered a hammer blow against the scientific expertise at the very top of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In an interview on KUOW radio in Seattle yesterday, Roberts attempted to minimize the scientific expertise of scientists who have spoken at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change by saying there are “only a few scattered scientists, but mostly meteorologists or engineers or political figures.”
We’ll come back to the qualifications of those who have actually spoken at the climate change conferences in a moment. Now, however, let’s analyze Roberts’ assertion that meteorologists and engineers do not qualify as scientific experts regarding global warming.
Roberts does not believe engineers are scientists qualified to weigh in on global warming? I am glad you feel that way, David. David Roberts, meet Raj Pachauri.
Thursday, April 19th 2012, 5:24 AM EDT
How do global warming alarmists divert attention away from the fact that temperatures have risen much more slowly than their computer models have predicted? In last week’s column we saw how alarmists claim we should trust their computer models even after the models have been proven inaccurate when measured against real-world data. As shocking as that assertion is, it pales in comparison to another common tactic employed by global warming alarmists: doctoring the real-world temperature data.
NASA satellite instruments have been measuring temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere since 1979. The satellite instruments are highly valuable because they can collect and report temperature data from the earth’s lower atmosphere that are not corrupted by urban heat island effects or local land-use changes that impact local temperature readings.
When the satellite instruments first began collecting and reporting temperature data, scientists expected the satellite readings would report more warming than actually occurs at the earth’s surface. The reason for this is carbon dioxide traps heat disproportionately in the earth’s lower atmosphere rather than at the ground. Accordingly, global warming theory postulates that the earth’s lower atmosphere will warm more quickly and to a greater degree than the earth’s surface.
Thursday, April 12th 2012, 7:03 AM EDT
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. reports on his webpage that he recently reviewed a paper that had the following assertion, “A global climate model that does not simulate current climate accurately does not necessarily imply that it cannot produce accurate projections.” (!)
This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
“Science deniers,” meanwhile, are caught in the tired, stale ideas of the past. Everybody just knows that we must act now to avert a global warming crisis, so why do deniers cling to such outdated notions as testing a theory against real-world observations, and forcing scientists to explain any discrepancies between their theories and reality? Heck, if they are going to force us to do that, they might as well force us to prove that the earth is not flat.
Wednesday, February 22nd 2012, 4:58 PM EST
There never was a “leaker” in the shameful Fakegate scandal. In the end, there was only a forger, a fraudster and a thief. Alarmist scientist Peter Gleick has admitted that the latter two were one and the same person – himself. I suspect we will soon learn the identity of the forger, as well.
With the weight of damning evidence closing in on him, Gleick has admitted in his Huffington Post blog that he was the alleged “Heartland Insider” who committed fraud and identity theft, lying and stealing his way into possession of Heartland Institute internal personnel documents and then sending those private documents to global warming activist groups and left-leaning media. Gleick sent to the press an additional document, a fake “2012 Climate Strategy,” that he claims he did not write.
In short, Gleick set up an email account designed to mimic the email account of a Heartland Institute board member. Gleick then sent an email from that account to a Heartland Institute staffer, in which Gleick explicitly claimed to be the Heartland Institute board member. Gleick asked the staffer to email him internal documents relating to a recent board meeting. Soon thereafter, Gleick, while claiming to be a “Heartland Insider,” sent those Heartland Institute documents plus the forged “2012 Climate Strategy” document to sympathetic media and global warming activists.
Wednesday, February 8th 2012, 5:42 PM EST
A long-time source of frustration for many small-government Republicans has been politicians who buy into various subsidies, mandates, restrictions and other big-government “solutions” to speculative or nonexistent energy and environment problems. This frustration has continued throughout the Republican primary season as frontrunners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich each have a history of supporting such big-government energy and environment policies. But the times may be a-changing. Rick Santorum has been emphasizing small-government energy and environment policies in recent weeks and the conservative base is responding.
Most visibly, Santorum is throwing down the gauntlet on global warming. While blasting Obama on global warming, he is also hitting Romney and Gingrich hard on the topic. “Both of them bought into the global warming hoax!” Santorum has taken to saying on the campaign trail and in media interviews.
Santorum’s strategy is powerful for two reasons. First, he has an unassailable record of questioning alarmist global warming claims and opposing carbon dioxide restrictions. Second, he is pressing the issue with a fervor that conveys clear and unmistakable sincerity.
True, Romney and Gingrich have been saying the right things lately on global warming and other energy/environment topics. Small-government Republicans hope they will govern in a manner that is consistent with their recent statements and pledges on these topics. But small-government conservatives have reason to be concerned.
Thursday, January 26th 2012, 4:07 PM EST
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to track lower than year 2000 levels, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on Monday, extending this century’s downward trend in U.S. emissions. The new data rebut assertions that the United States needs to impose new restrictions on coal-fired power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide emissions.
Interestingly, EIA reports U.S. emissions rose more than 15% during the eight years of the Clinton-Gore administration but have declined since.
The primary reason for emissions remaining on a downward trajectory this century is the increasing number of natural gas-fired power plants. Recent discoveries of immense amounts of natural gas trapped in shale rock, coupled with the development of new technologies to capture and produce such shale gas, are driving natural gas prices down. U.S. power plants currently produce 50% more power from natural gas than during the year 2000. Natural gas power emits approximately 40% less carbon dioxide than coal power. (Natural gas power slashes many other pollutants tracked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by more than 80%.)
The EIA data reveal three important lessons for our energy economy and global warming concerns.
Thursday, January 12th 2012, 10:59 AM EST
As 2011 comes to a close, climate science celebrates an important landmark. It has now been 33 years, or a third of a century, since sensors aboard NASA and NOAA satellites began measuring temperatures throughout the earth’s lower atmosphere.
For 33 years, we have had precise, objective temperature data that do not require guesswork corrections to compensate for uneven thermometer placement and non-climate surface temperature biases such as expanding urban heat islands and land-use changes. The satellite data, moreover, tell us the earth is warming at a more modest, gradual, and reassuring pace than was foretold by United Nations computer models.
The satellite sensors became operational at a time that is very convenient for those who believe humans are causing a global warming crisis. Global temperatures declined from the mid-1940s through the late 1970s. As a result, the sensors coincidentally began measuring global temperatures at the very beginning of our most recent global warming trend. Had the sensors been in place 33 years earlier, during the 1940s, the overall pace of warming shown by the satellite sensors would be less than half what is shown by the post-1978 temperature data.
Even so, the measured temperature trend is quite modest. John Christy, who along with Roy Spencer oversees the NASA satellite sensor program, reports temperatures have warmed at an average pace of 0.14 degrees Celsius per decade since the satellite sensors became operational. This is merely half the pace predicted by computer models utilized by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Wednesday, January 4th 2012, 4:00 PM EST
“I DO think there’s a ‘squatch in these woods….”
What the heck has happened to science on television? Animal Planet has a show called “Finding Bigfoot,” with a guy looking like he just cleaned out all the pork rinds at the Piggly Wiggly telling us he believes “there’s a “squatch” in these woods….”
“Sasquatches DO exist,” insists another sasquatch hunter, doing his best to look and sound serious, in the show’s accidentally comical commercial.
We shouldn’t single out Animal Planet for scorn, however. The channel does have silly company. The History Channel has a show called UFO Hunters. Planet Green has a show called UFOs over Earth. These and other channels show Nostradamus programs more regularly than they show microscopes and telescopes combined.
Against this backdrop, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by incessantly ridiculous claims and headlines about global warming.
Global warming causes earthquakes. Global warming causes depression. Global warming causes tsunamis. Global warming causes wife beatings. Global warming causes acne. Global warming causes AIDS. Global warming causes a greater likelihood of a UFO invasion.
Thursday, December 15th 2011, 4:01 AM EST
Global warming activists are sounding four-alarm fire bells over a new study claiming global warming is causing drought and killing trees in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa. Much like previous claims that have fallen by the wayside, the notion that global warming is devastating the Sahel is unlikely to stand the dual tests of time and scientific scrutiny.
According to the new study, a rise in temperatures and a decline in precipitation during the 20th century reduced tree densities in the Sahel by approximately 18 percent from 1954 through 2002. Lead author Patrick Gonzalez says in a press release accompanying the study, “Rainfall in the Sahel has dropped 20-30 percent in the 20th century…”
At first glance, the study and accompanying press release might present a persuasive argument for Western democracies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Then again, the argument that Western democracies should reduce carbon dioxide emissions may have been driving the study, rather than the other way around.
Lead author Gonzalez is also a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose funding and very existence are dependent on the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. Moreover, IPCC is on record claiming global warming is causing an increase in drought, so having a new study claiming global warming is causing drought and related problems in Africa’s Sahel region bolsters the shared interests of Gonzalez and IPCC.