Monday, January 23, 2017


JAN. 23 2017 8:45 AM

Curiosity Finds An(other) Alien Visitor on Mars

The Curiosity rover has been on Mars since Aug. 6, 2012. In the more than four years it’s been there, it’s seen wonders beyond our Earthly reckoning: evidence of ancient flowing water, evidence of ancient standing water, methane in the atmosphere now, carbon in the rocks, dark basaltic sand dunes, weird lumpy moons circling a dusty red planet.

Reading the Red Planet

By RUSSELL SEITZ       Updated March 11, 2005 12:01 a.m. ET

In 1880, a myopic Harvard graduate was almost killed galloping headlong into the captain of an opposing polo team. Given a telescope to gaze through as a convalescent pastime, Percival Lowell soon thought that he saw not just canals on Mars but greenery. He devoted himself to astronomy and founded an eponymous observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz.
But much of what he sketched of Mars others could neither see nor photograph. In 1976 NASA's Viking Lander revealed a panorama of desolation -- a world seemingly as dead as Lowell's reputation. Yet science often beggars fiction. A generation later, a whiff of embalming fluid may herald the discovery of life on Mars.
Ice Floes
Last year, a flood of purple prose about water as the cradle of life on the Red Planet flowed from the Opportunity probe's discovery that Mars's saline sands were once as damp as the underside of a walrus. This year, a satellite orbiting the planet has found evidence of an equator once carpeted by ice floes and a recently active geyser. Things have gotten a lot more colorful too. Beyond hematite blueberries and green vitriol on the surface, the spectrum of the Martian atmosphere shows inklings of organic complexity.
Earthbound telescopes have found more than inklings. There is, it now appears, formaldehyde along with methane -- i.e., coal gas -- in Mars's tenuous air. This is a big deal because they exist in equilibrium, a discovery rich with vital implications. Oxygen and sunlight turn methane into the deadly preservative, but because Mars lacks an ozone layer, the pungent formaldehyde molecules are soon zapped out of existence by ultraviolet rays. The solar wind is blasting methane off the top of the Martian stratosphere, too, so the megatons of formaldehyde in the Martian air imply a constant infusion of fresh methane.
So what? Some geophysicists insist that methane on Earth arises from inorganic sources (e.g., carbide minerals), not just from life (either end of a cow) and its decay (coal). But unlike the tectonically vigorous Earth, Mars's effete geology lacks a crustal conveyor belt to exhume gases from its depths. Absent such upheaval, Occam's razor cuts in: The alternative methane source is life.
Ah, life on Mars! We've heard that one before. Few other potential tourist destinations have offered so wide a range of speculation. Edgar Rice Burroughs, better known for Tarzan, tipped his hat to Trollope by portraying Mars as hunt country, where Confederate veteran John Carter encounters not little green men but 15-footers with four arms and an attitude. Before long he encounters red, white, and yellow Martians galloping astride eight-legged saber-toothed sloths, pursuing 10-legged foxes and maidens demurely attired in stainless-steel brassieres.
The high-water mark of Hollywood's Saturday serials was Flash Gordon's arrival on the Martian scene. Hot on the heels of Orson Welles's 1938 "War of the Worlds" broadcast came "Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars," whose hero kept fit by wrestling an octopus in the aquarium of Ming the Merciless, an art deco eco-terrorist who set the stage for Michael Crichton's latest technothriller by changing Earth's climate with a Nitron raygun. America loved it, and Cole Porter soon had Bing Crosby crooning: "Have you heard, it's in the stars, / Next July we collide with Mars?"
Porter was off by 35 years, but eventually collide we did -- more space probes have crashed on Mars than landed. NASA's past failures to fish up Martian life may be due to random bad luck with landing sites -- one mile off a Palm Springs fairway, after all, and the landscape seems as sterile as Death Valley. Magnification matters, too. It's hard to overlook a cavalry of giant sloth, but bacteria are seriously small and often tucked into unattractive places.
It makes one wonder what we may have missed. Bits of Mars are occasionally flung to Earth by impacting asteroids, ending up as the meteorites called shergottites. Reports of tiny fossils in one of them have not panned out, but the rocks match the isotopic composition of Mars so exactly that few doubt that they have been whacked into the inner solar system like golf balls of the gods. Plain-vanilla physics likewise dictates that bits of Earth have hit the Martian fairways over the eons too. One day, Earthmen on Mars may trip over alien-looking rocks from home.
This is less peculiar than it sounds. Deep space is a hostile place, but precisely because it's cold out there, cosmic rays and the solar wind can take a long time to sterilize things flying through it. What if a hypervelocity impact on Earth sent not bits of dead dinosaur but some mineral-encased spores clear to Mars?
If anything earthly got to Mars alive, it can have done only one of three things: lived long, prospered or died. If hardy critters from Earth's ecological skid row landed in Martian brine 10 or 10,000 eons ago -- bacteria that thrive in acid hot springs, for instance, or Antarctic frost heaves -- it's bad news for Carl Sagan fans today. What will become of funding for the SETI project -- searching for extraterrestrial intelligence -- if we meet the aliens and they is us? Or us is them?
It would be nice to have some evidence either way. A few strenuous years could see the dispatch of some purpose-built probes to solve the conundrum. Recent Mars-destined instruments have focused not on life but on rocks, and you can't do molecular biology with a geologist's pick. NASA needs money enough to send several robots (in case one crashes as usual) carrying not Viking's Edsel-vintage life detectors but 21st-century mass spectrometers, biochips and glimmerings of artificial intelligence to run them.
If this little fleet sniffs a shift in the light and heavy isotopes in the air, or notices DNA in whatever damp cavern it can drill into, it's even money that we will have to get used to having neighbors. But don't get your hopes up, B-movie fans. The odds against Martians sacking Grover's Mills, N.J. -- à la Orson Welles -- remain, well, astronomical. Think slime and you won't be disappointed.
Full Bandwidth, Please
In 1969, the Eagle landed on the moon in pathetic black and white after rising in thunder and flame like 9/11 run backward. Mars deserves better. This time, the taxpaying audience should demand NASA's full bandwidth and the eye-popping resolution of an IMAX camera. For if we encounter anything not of this Earth on Mars, its image will begin a new and endless iconic dynasty. You can only be alone in the same universe once

Sunday, January 22, 2017

                             WHICH THERE NEVER WERE


And just like that “Global Warming Vanished” No mention of it on the white page. Praise God. This is the biggest leftist agenda being shoved down the American peoples throats and they try to make it believable or threaten us deniers. But that it the LIE, there is nothing to deny cause it was all made up by a bunch of power hungry people who thought they could fool the ignorant of America..

Haha.. I am one happy women and am so glad we will tap into OIL & GAS since it is so abundant and lowers the cost of energy on ALL Americans. AND JUST LIKE THAT, THEY WAS NO MORE CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH THERE NEVER WERE. The earth has cycles and just cause it warms and cools at different times does not mean you can shove you money grubbing agenda down our throats.

THANK GOD FOR TRUMP.. THE SILENT MAJORITY SPOKE AND IT ISN’T FOR DAMN CLIMATE CHANGE. Just that name is ridiculous. Duh of course the climate changes. Hello wake up, its a new day in America.


President Trump was briefed yesterday on the latest scientific news to come to the attention of Pat Buchanan, who focused his two  minute slideshow on British reports of  Doctor John Tyndall demonstrating the absorption of warmth  by  gases  released  by steam engines & blast furnaces to the Royal Society, news the former Nixon speechwriter thinks urgent because  East Coast liberals like Whig ex-President  James Buchanan have denied it.
The nation' first Pennsylvanian President, says his namesake, is intimately  familiar with the strategic  importance of coal and the  new-fangled  Titusville  Rock  Oil  in sustaining  the  Age of  Steam, and shares the Whig Base's indigation at the impious suggestion  that  God-given resources can somehow vitiate Scripture by altering the Postdiluvocene climate of the world.

In his  State Of The Union  message the President lamented  the coal states vulnerability to  alternative fuels touted by  Nantucket whaling magnates, Newfoundland seal-harvesters and other Northerners, and proposed a compromise, in which Kansas and  Missouri are admitted to the Union as whale oil free states.
"All for which the  States  have  ever contended, is  to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible  before  God and  the world  for  the  bounty [of steam-coal ] existing  among  them.  For this the [whalers] of the North are not more responsible and have no more right to interfere than with similar resources and practices in Russia or in Brazil "
Citing oeconomic concerns that America is approaching Peak Wood, the  President  chided  Illinois  Congressman  Abraham  Lincoln  for being in thrall to rail-splitting interests, and dismissed his  suggestion that a  Presidential  Office Of Natural Philosophy Policy might be of advantage to the Executive, saying:
" What do you think I am, sir ! Some sort of Scientific Republican ? "
“It is beyond the power of any president, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore  a return to [wood-burning] among the states. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous question.”
President Buchanan rejected testimonials to Tyndall from Geognostic Professors  Silliman of Yale, and  Agassiz  of  Harvard College.  He warned the Congress to remember their costly proposal to  defend the Alamo by building a Quincy granite wall along the Mexican Border, and  to  recall the origin of  specious warming theories in the work of the French elitist & suspected Libertinarian Baron Fourier.

Freed from the onerous intelectual workload of  McLaughlin Group  broadcasts , Pat will now be able to tutor  the President  weekly, and expects  to continue  with  a briefing on  molecular biology,  as soon as the heliostatic semaphore internet brings word of the discovery of molecules from the Continent.

Friday, January 20, 2017

                                THAT  DIDN'T  TAKE  LONG !

The White House website Climate Page has been taken down,
 and replaced with  this:

                          FEAR  AND  LOATHING  ON  K - STREET


Washington’s lobbyists are starting to panic

Things are changing in Washington… and not just at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...

Washington regulars – the politicos, party hacks and think tankers who are here all year round – are feeling unsettled. In part this is the natural response to a change of party at the top. But it is also the result of Trump’s extraordinary style of politics, which is sowing fear among lobbyists who must try to navigate his impetuous manner and Twitter rants.

For the time being, many Democrats have left town altogether, unwilling to be any party to celebrations... Much of the talk among lobbyists was about finessing the tactics they will need in Trump’s aggressive world.

Trump has scored a series of extraordinary successes by hectoring big businesses into promising to keep jobs in America. It started with the attack on the Carrier Plant in Indiana, which planned to transfer 2,000 jobs to Mexico...

Then there was a Twitter rant directed at Boeing... A similar protest at the cost of Lockheed Martin’s F35 project sent that company’s share price into freefall.

So I have some sympathy with the big pharma lobbyist I met at the party. His industry is in Trump’s firing line. What little we know of plans to replace Obamacare includes negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of drugs, passing on the savings to patients. And Trump’s negotiations seem to involve firing off a string of public demands, whipping up public anger and dominating the news cycle. ‘Getting away with murder,’ is how Trump has summed up the pharmaceutical pricing structure.

Who wants any of that? Who wants to be the company that sticks its head above the parapet? Who wants to put themselves in Trump’s sights? Who wants to wake up at 6am to find themselves the target of a Twitter rant and watch their share price turning red on the news tickers? Lobbyists may find that for a while they will need to keep their heads down. That’s the new reality that Washington’s cosy world has entered. And it may be no bad thing.

Thursday, January 19, 2017



 Rick Perry & Al Franken to star as  H.L. Mencken & Woody Allen
 with The Taj Mahal  Tabernacle Choir 
Elsewhere in the inaugural entertainment news:

Wednesday, January 18, 2017


Viscount Monckton has been perusing  The Daily Beast again, and so little  likes what he reads there that he threatens criminal prosecution:

Come off it, Offit!
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
When a medical doctor with no prior record of publication in the learned journals of climate science wanders off the reservation and writes for a collectivist website about the totalitarians’ favorite Trojan horse, global warming, one expects nonsense.One is not disappointed by:   
When Scientists Hate Science
Paul Offit is a paediatrician. Yet, in an article for one of the sillier groupthink websites, he considers himself qualified to state that the “climate denialists” President Trump and his appointees to EPA and Energy, Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry, “deny the fact that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the environment have trapped heat, causing an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature … and consequent climate disruption”... 
Offit should get someone to read Legates et al. (2013) to him at bedtime. In that paper, we revealed that only 41, or 0.3%, of 11,944 learned papers on climate and related topics published in the journals over the 21 years 1991-2011 had stated that recent global warming was mostly manmade. 
Not that that stopped Cook et al. (2013) from falsely reporting a 97% consensus when their own records clearly show they found only 64 of those 11,944 papers had explicitly assented to the consensus position as they had defined it: that recent global warming was mostly manmade.
Police on three continents are investigating. Prosecutions will follow...
In future, let the cobbler stick to his last or he will find himself talking cobblers.
Come off it, Offit!
Has it escaped the noble lord's attention that Trump's most scientifically distinguished cabinet pick is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine? 

Though he  may write like a mad hatter, Monckton  is no mere cobbler, but a worthy Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Broderers. I have long worn his excellent shirts, and was saddened to see him quit haberdashery for balderdashery, for  looking  at his resumes makes it clear that he is a fantastic embroiderer:

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

                          WARNS  OF  WITCHCRAFT  DENIAL

Copper Infused Square Frying Pan Channel Host Climate Depot 

publisher Marc Morano, late of Senator Inhofe's staff, explains

                           YES,  FEARLESS  LEADER  WRITER

Too bad Delingpole has been too busy crushing ocean acidification loons to actually talk to an oceanographer ! 

Monday, January 9, 2017



The irreversible momentum of clean energy

The release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to human activity is increasing global average surface air temperatures, disrupting weather patterns, and acidifying the ocean (1). Left unchecked, the continued growth of GHG emissions could cause global average temperatures to increase by another 4°C or more by 2100 and by 1.5 to 2 times as much in many midcontinent and far northern locations (1). Although our understanding of the impacts of climate change is increasingly and disturbingly clear,  there is still debate about the proper course for U.S. policy—a debate that is very much on display during the current presidential transition.  But putting near-term politics aside, the mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow. This Policy Forum will focus on the four reasons I believe the trend toward clean energy is irreversible.


The United States is showing that GHG mitigation need not conflict with economic growth. Rather, it can boost efficiency, productivity, and innovation.
Since 2008, the United States has experienced the first sustained period of rapid GHG emissions reductions and simultaneous economic growth on record. Specifically, CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the economy grew by more than 10%. In this same period, the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18% (2).
The importance of this trend cannot be understated. This “decoupling” of energy sector emissions and economic growth should put to rest the argument that combatting climate change requires accepting lower growth or a lower standard of living. In fact, although this decoupling is most pronounced in the United States, evidence that economies can grow while emissions do not is emerging around the world. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) preliminary estimate of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2015 reveals that emissions stayed flat compared with the year before, whereas the global economy grew (3). The IEA noted that “There have been only four periods in the past 40 years in which CO2 emission levels were flat or fell compared with the previous year, with three of those—the early 1980s, 1992, and 2009—being associated with global economic weakness. By contrast, the recent halt in emissions growth comes in a period of economic growth.”
At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels range from 1% to 5% of global GDP each year by 2100 (4). One of the most frequently cited economic models pins the estimate of annual damages from warming of 4°C at ~4% of global GDP (46), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually (7).
Moreover, these estimates do not include the possibility of GHG increases triggering catastrophic events, such as the accelerated shrinkage of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, drastic changes in ocean currents, or sizable releases of GHGs from previously frozen soils and sediments that rapidly accelerate warming. In addition, these estimates factor in economic damages but do not address the critical question of whether the underlying rate of economic growth (rather than just the level of GDP) is affected by climate change, so these studies could substantially understate the potential damage of climate change on the global macroeconomy (89).
As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that, regardless of the inherent uncertainties in predicting future climate and weather patterns, the investments needed to reduce emissions—and to increase resilience and preparedness for the changes in climate that can no longer be avoided—will be modest in comparison with the benefits from avoided climate-change damages. This means, in the coming years, states, localities, and businesses will need to continue making these critical investments, in addition to taking common-sense steps to disclose climate risk to taxpayers, homeowners, shareholders, and customers. Global insurance and reinsurance businesses are already taking such steps as their analytical models reveal growing climate risk.


Beyond the macroeconomic case, businesses are coming to the conclusion that reducing emissions is not just good for the environment—it can also boost bottom lines, cut costs for consumers, and deliver returns for shareholders.
Perhaps the most compelling example is energy efficiency. Government has played a role in encouraging this kind of investment and innovation: My Administration has put in place (i) fuel economy standards that are net beneficial and are projected to cut more than 8 billion tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of new vehicles sold between 2012 and 2029 (10) and (ii) 44 appliance standards and new building codes that are projected to cut 2.4 billion tons of carbon pollution and save $550 billion for consumers by 2030 (11).
But ultimately, these investments are being made by firms that decide to cut their energy waste in order to save money and invest in other areas of their businesses. For example, Alcoa has set a goal of reducing its GHG intensity 30% by 2020 from its 2005 baseline, and General Motors is working to reduce its energy intensity from facilities by 20% from its 2011 baseline over the same timeframe (12). Investments like these are contributing to what we are seeing take place across the economy: Total energy consumption in 2015 was 2.5% lower than it was in 2008, whereas the economy was 10% larger (2).
This kind of corporate decision-making can save money, but it also has the potential to create jobs that pay well. A U.S. Department of Energy report released this week found that ~2.2 million Americans are currently employed in the design, installation, and manufacture of energy-efficiency products and services. This compares with the roughly 1.1 million Americans who are employed in the production of fossil fuels and their use for electric power generation (13). Policies that continue to encourage businesses to save money by cutting energy waste could pay a major employment dividend and are based on stronger economic logic than continuing the nearly $5 billion per year in federal fossil-fuel subsidies, a market distortion that should be corrected on its own or in the context of corporate tax reform (14).


The American electric-power sector—the largest source of GHG emissions in our economy—is being transformed, in large part, because of market dynamics. In 2008, natural gas made up ~21% of U.S. electricity generation. Today, it makes up ~33%, an increase due almost entirely to the shift from higher-emitting coal to lower-emitting natural gas, brought about primarily by the increased availability of low-cost gas due to new production techniques (215). Because the cost of new electricity generation using natural gas is projected to remain low relative to coal, it is unlikely that utilities will change course and choose to build coal-fired power plants, which would be more expensive than natural gas plants, regardless of any near-term changes in federal policy. Although methane emissions from natural gas production are a serious concern, firms have an economic incentive over the long term to put in place waste-reducing measures consistent with standards my Administration has put in place, and states will continue making important progress toward addressing this issue, irrespective of near-term federal policy.
Renewable electricity costs also fell dramatically between 2008 and 2015: the cost of electricity fell 41% for wind, 54% for rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, and 64% for utility-scale PV (16). According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2015 was a record year for clean-energy investment, with those energy sources attracting twice as much global capital as fossil fuels (17).
Public policy—ranging from Recovery Act investments to recent tax credit extensions—has played a crucial role, but technology advances and market forces will continue to drive renewable deployment. The levelized cost of electricity from new renewables like wind and solar in some parts of the United States is already lower than that for new coal generation, without counting subsidies for renewables (2).
That is why American businesses are making the move toward renewable energy sources. Google, for example, announced last month that, in 2017, it plans to power 100% of its operations using renewable energy—in large part through large-scale, long-term contracts to buy renewable energy directly (18). Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, has set a goal of getting 100% of its energy from renewables in the coming years (19). And economy-wide, solar and wind firms now employ more than 360,000 Americans, compared with around 160,000 Americans who work in coal electric generation and support (13).
Beyond market forces, state-level policy will continue to drive clean-energy momentum. States representing 40% of the U.S. population are continuing to move ahead with clean-energy plans, and even outside of those states, clean energy is expanding. For example, wind power alone made up 12% of Texas’s electricity production in 2015 and, at certain points in 2015, that number was >40%, and wind provided 32% of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2015, up from 8% in 2008 (a higher fraction than in any other state) (1520).


Outside the United States, countries and their businesses are moving forward, seeking to reap benefits for their countries by being at the front of the clean-energy race. This has not always been the case. A short time ago, many believed that only a small number of advanced economies should be responsible for reducing GHG emissions and contributing to the fight against climate change. But nations agreed in Paris that all countries should put forward increasingly ambitious climate policies and be subject to consistent transparency and accountability requirements. This was a fundamental shift in the diplomatic landscape, which has already yielded substantial dividends. The Paris Agreement entered into force in less than a year, and, at the follow-up meeting this fall in Marrakesh, countries agreed that, with more than 110 countries representing more than 75% of global emissions having already joined the Paris Agreement, climate action “momentum is irreversible” (21).
Although substantive action over decades will be required to realize the vision of Paris, analysis of countries’ individual contributions suggests that meeting medium-term respective targets and increasing their ambition in the years ahead—coupled with scaled-up investment in clean-energy technologies—could increase the international community’s probability of limiting warming to 2°C by as much as 50% (22).
Were the United States to step away from Paris, it would lose its seat at the table to hold other countries to their commitments, demand transparency, and encourage ambition. This does not mean the next Administration needs to follow identical domestic policies to my Administration’s. There are multiple paths and mechanisms by which this country can achieve—efficiently and economically—the targets we embraced in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement itself is based on a nationally determined structure whereby each country sets and updates its own commitments. Regardless of U.S. domestic policies, it would undermine our economic interests to walk away from the opportunity to hold countries representing two-thirds of global emissions—including China, India, Mexico, European Union members, and others—accountable.
This should not be a partisan issue. It is good business and good economics to lead a technological revolution and define market trends. And it is smart planning to set long-term emission-reduction targets and give American companies, entrepreneurs, and investors certainty so they can invest and manufacture the emission-reducing technologies that we can use domestically and export to the rest of the world. That is why hundreds of major companies—including energy-related companies from ExxonMobil and Shell, to DuPont and Rio Tinto, to Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Calpine, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company—have supported the Paris process, and leading investors have committed $1 billion in patient, private capital to support clean-energy breakthroughs that could make even greater climate ambition possible.


We have long known, on the basis of a massive scientific record, that the urgency of acting to mitigate climate change is real and cannot be ignored. In recent years, we have also seen that the economic case for action—and against inaction—is just as clear, the business case for clean energy is growing, and the trend toward a cleaner power sector can be sustained regardless of near-term federal policies.
Despite the policy uncertainty that we face, I remain convinced that no country is better suited to confront the climate challenge and reap the economic benefits of a low-carbon future than the United States and that continued participation in the Paris process will yield great benefit for the American people, as well as the international community. Prudent U.S. policy over the next several decades would prioritize, among other actions, decarbonizing the U.S. energy system, storing carbon and reducing emissions within U.S. lands, and reducing non-CO2 emissions (23).
Of course, one of the great advantages of our system of government is that each president is able to chart his or her own policy course. And President-elect Donald Trump will have the opportunity to do so. The latest science and economics provide a helpful guide for what the future may bring, in many cases independent of near-term policy choices, when it comes to combatting climate change and transitioning to a clean-energy economy.

References and Notes

  1. The result for 4°C of warming cited here from DICE-2016R (in which this degree of warming is reached between 2095 and 2100 without further mitigation) is consistent with that reported from the DICE-2013R model in (5), Fig. 22, p. 140.