Filed under: Politics, Science/Technology, History, Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Energy, Democrat Corruption, Progressivism, National Security, Junk Science | Tags: Predicting the Future, The Attack On Skeptics, The Climate Models
Fear of catastrophic climate change exists only in computer models which are used to predict the future on the basis of not very much real knowledge. That we don’t really know very much about earthly climate should be obvious from all the controversy.
The earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, well before we discovered the use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age was the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, and it was warmer than today. That was a period when humanity thrived. Before that were the Dark Ages, and before than the Roman Warming. Humanity has been pretty successful at adapting to change. Why is it only now that we fear change as a portent of disaster? Too many end if the world scenarios in the movies?
The idea that it would be catastrophic if carbon-dioxide were to increase and average global temperatures were to rise a few degrees is just silly. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the climate will become drastically warmer, or that the sea will rise by feet rather than millimeters. None.
A new scientific study by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany published in the American Meteorological Society Journal—finds the effect of aerosols on climate are much smaller that those in almost all of the computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“Aerosols are the minute particles added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (as well as by non-anthropogenic sources, like volcanoes). The reason they are important is that they are so often cited by alarmists to excuse the awkward fact that the world has stubbornly failed to warm at the disastrous rate they predicted it would.”
A NASA expert in 2009 said:
Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth.
There was a lack of global warming, a cooling period, between 1940 and 1970 (ice age?) when there was increased industrialization and extra man-made CO². Aerosols have been used to explain the lack of warming.
The new Stevens paper has been called a “game changer” by one expert in the field — Nic Lewis.
According to the IPCC’s models, the effect of aerosols on the climate could be as much as 4.5 degrees. The Stevens paper says this is a big overestimate and the reduction they effect on temperature cannot be more than 1.8 degrees C. If the cooling effects of aerosols is much smaller than the IPCC thinks, then the rise in global temperatures that can be attributed to man-made CO² is much smaller than the alarmist computer models acknowledge.
The terrestrial temperature measuring stations have been shown to vastly overestimate warming as well, for many are improperly sited next to air-conditioner exhausts, walls that reflect heat, trash burners, next to asphalt parking lots — all locations that artificially raise the heat measurement on the thermometers.
Satellite measurement began about 1980, I think. The climate models are unable to predict the present climate when we know what it is. Mankind has always wanted to predict the future, but I don’t know that it’s any better now than when they were tossing bones, or reading tea leaves. Lord knows they’ve tried, especially with financial markets. The models devised for predicting the future of the stock market were, I believe I read, the original source for the climate models. Any successful predictions are apt to be just lucky guesses, otherwise we wouldn’t have Las Vegas, nor a Lottery, nor losses on the stock market. We are not meant to know the future,but to be wise enough to prepare for what might be.
ADDENDUM: Dr.Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who developed the satellites that give us the only real time climate measurements, are celebrating their 25th anniversary, so they started measuring in 1990. I was only ten years off!
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: California's Collapse, Governor Jerry Brown, The Climate Crusade
California Governor Jerry Brown, speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was “unfit” to run for the presidency because of his views on climate change.
That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data,” he said. “It’s shocking, and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”
Brown said that there should be urgency to deal with climate change.”I think this almost has to be at the level of a crusade.”
Host Chuck Todd asked if California’s four-year drought was directly attributable to climate change, but then the climate zealot responded “Well they say the scientists know more about it, but I will tell you this. There is research that says there is a connection between the current drought and the extreme weather in the east and other parts of the world. The UN has said that 40% of the world is suffering from a water shortage.”
But somehow the cold and record snow levels in eastern cities like Boston have persuaded the governor that the planet is heating up?
Well what I mentioned is to particularize a particular storm or absence of rain in a given week, you can’t tie that into the buildup of the presence of carbon dioxide, methane and other green house gasses. We know there is some connection and we know that this drought is just the kind of things that are absolutely inevitable that in the coming years and decades. And it builds up slowly. That’s the challenge. And it becomes irreversible.
Uh huh, but there is no time for delay in combating climate change. He continued:
So you can’t just sit around and engage in rhetoric, because some of your donors and your constituents say ‘We want to make profit.’ The coal companies are not as important as the people of America and the people of the world. I think that this has to be almost at the level of a crusade to whip people up and take the steps intelligently, carefully, and nevertheless forcefully from this point going forward.
That is the voice of a zealot who gets what little information he has from leftist talking points, and turns it into matters of faith. He believes. He has never been interested enough to investigate and see what the scientists are saying and writing; nor has he any idea what his “crusade” could possibly consist of. Will banning fracking end the mild winters? Will eating less meat bring more rain and snow to fill the reservoirs? Will shutting down all the coal-fired power plants do anything except make people in colder areas freeze to death?
How about refraining from flushing all the Sacramento River water out to the ocean to save the river smelt, a tiny bait fish of no use to anyone? That might help the drought in the great Central Valley. You could raise the cost of water to encourage more careful use. How many water features are there in the California desert golf resorts anyway?
He’s done a marvelous job of sending California’s businesses, residents and jobs to other states, especially Texas. And he’s replaced the fleeing residents with illegal aliens, and making them comfortable with drivers licenses and welfare subsidies.
And just think what he could do with the funds that are designated for his high-speed rail connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles that is slower and cheaper than a flight. That line will not be completed for eighty years, when we’ll all be traveling by driverless vehicles on programmed roadways or pneumatic tubes or something.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Environment, Freedom, Global Warming, Heartwarming, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Climate Catastrophe, Florida Manatees, Unendangered Species
The prediction from The Save The Manatees Club:
“Perhaps the most challenging obstacle that manatees will face with a changing climate is a lack of financial resources dedicated to the protection of this species. As human priorities shift to disaster reduction, concern for wildlife may decrease, and agency funding may shift away from individual species.”
The Reality, the population of Manatees is Up 25%
The Tampa Times reported that : Researchers counted a record numbers of manatees in Florida’s warm inland waters this winter, with the robust population numbers serving as ammunition in the simmering war over whether to restrict human interaction with the sea cows. The Feb. 20 tally, conducted by a team of 20 observers from 11 organizations, counted 6,063 manatees in Florida, 3,333 along the east coast and 2,730 on the west coast. The total is about 25 percent more than were counted last year.
From Dr. Katie Tripp, Director of Science and Conservation, Save the Manatee Club:
Imagine a Florida where the coral reefs have dissolved, droughts are the norm, humans are abandoning multi million dollar coastal homes and retreating inland, daily high tides flood the streets of coastal cities and neighborhoods, and exotic species outnumber natives. Climate change could make this scenario a reality for the sunshine state, with some impacts being observed within as few as 10 years.
The global warming crowd is, as usual, completely wrong. It’s the “We’re Doomed” crowd, always ready to claim a coming catastrophe.
Always ready to create an organization dedicated to collecting funding and doing feel-good publicity, but never interested enough to actually study the science.
The polar bears are also increasing nicely.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Science/Technology | Tags: "Merchants of Doubt", A Failing Campaign, In The Pay of Corporations?
There’s more to the Progressive attack on climate science than I thought.
“Merchants of Doubt,” a new documentary film designed to portray climate change skeptics as “pundits for hire” as in the pay of big business (read “corporations”) has tanked at the box office.
Ukip blogger ‘Rog Tallbloke’ has revealed that Kenner emailed him, exhorting him to ‘spread the message': “Dear Roger, People who mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV. Period,” the director said.
“That’s one big reason why I produced Merchants of Doubt, a film that lays bare the greedy, shameful world of climate denial and the journalists who broadcast it. That’s also why, right now, we’re launching a people-powered national campaign that could keep climate deniers out of the news for good.
“Merchants of Doubt premieres in U.S. theaters today, and it will invite thousands of energized viewers to sign this petition and join our campaign. Let’s lead the charge! Join me to tell TV network and cable news directors: Stop booking “merchants of doubt” on your programs immediately.”
Unfortunately for Kenner, it seems not many people are interested in leading the charge – not to the box office at least. The film made just $23,300 in its opening weekend, ranking it the 314th best opening weekend ever for a documentary film in the United States, according to the Heartland Institute.
My goodness, they are really pulling out all the stops to try to attack the climate scientists who are actually studying the climate and trying to understand more about how it works. The message is that you shall not deny climate orthodoxy. The problem is that the attackers know nothing about climate science beyond the administration’s talking points — which unfortunately are not science, but talking points.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Environment, Freedom, Global Warming, History, Iran, Junk Science, Media Bias, Progressivism, Science/Technology | Tags: Climate Skeptics, Science v. Talking Points, Progressive Attacks
David Horowitz said to always remember that with Progressives, the issue is never the issue. In that light, consider the current Progressive campaign to attack climate science “deniers,” as they call us, on every front. So what’s happening?
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has resigned from the IPCC, brought about by allegations of sexual harassment. Christopher Booker says “he should have resigned in 2012 when the IPCC report was shown to have been full of wildly unscientific errors emanating from green activists.
Then evidence appeared that NOAA has been tampering with climate data, adjusting it to show the “warming trend” that the Obama administration was claiming as evidence to support the veto of the Keystone Pipeline, the executive action closing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, the millions going to Obama cronies for solar arrays and wind farms. A federal judge in Texas has held up Obama’s Amnesty, and noticed that White House lawyers neglected to mention that Obama had already given work permits to 100,000 illegals
Republicans are not only interfering in Obama’a Iran negotiations, but challenging them, and pointing out evidence that Obama’s strategy is not exactly what will create peace in the Middle East. Progressives need a distraction to point the media in the right direction. The issue is not the issue.
Democrats have launched a major campaign to discredit academics, politicians and climate scientists who are skeptical of man-made global warming. Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, has demanded that seven universities reveal the funding sources of affiliated scientists who are skeptical of man-made global warming. The information demanded is voluminous in quantity, (they want the e-mails too), and beyond annoying. Steven Hayward reveals the ignorance of the House Committee’s demands. As Hayward said, “Is the good congressman really telling us that he is incapable of assessing factual claims and judgments about the wisdom of policy on the merits alone?”Be interesting if we demanded the funding sources for Democrats who purvey discredited falsehoods about climate change.
Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air-quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulation and shapes public understanding of climate scientists,” Grijalva wrote to the presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Pepperdine University, Arizona State University, the University of Alabama, University of Colorado and University of Delaware.
Scientists targeted are some of the most respected in the field, but they are skeptical, with good reason. MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen, Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry, Colorado’s Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and the University of Alabama’s John Christy and Roy Spencer. Word has gone out from Organizing for Action, Obama’s campaign organization, to join in on targeting climate change deniers.
Christy and Spencer operate the Remote Sensing Systems satellite dataset, which since the weather stations have been shown to be undependable due to locations next to AC hot air vents, concrete walls reflecting heat, and trash burners, are the only reliable temperature data on a worldwide basis. That shows no significant warming trend for more than 18 years.
Dr. Pielke has presented research that shows that global warming is not making weather more extreme. “It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the U.S. or globally.
Particularly attacked was Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. after a New York Times article claiming that Dr.Soon had received $1.25 million in undisclosed money from fossil fuel companies. Corporate funding! As opposed to money from billionaire Tom Steyer or the secretive Democracy Alliance, for example?
Three Democratic senators (Barbara Boxer, Edward Markey and Sheldon Whitehouse) have asked more than 100 energy companies and trade groups to provide details on their research spending.
Their objective? To find out whether the organizations “are funding scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution, and whether the funded scientists fail to disclose the sources of their funding in scientific publications or in testimony to legislators.”
The witch hunt is particularly revealing, for none of the perpetrators actually know anything about climate science whatsoever. What they know is “the 97 percent,” the “majority of climate scientists,” cutting “carbon pollution.” As is common with progressives, they know talking points, without understanding that talking points are not science. They are just repeating political charges that have no basis in fact.
Here is MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen appearing on Fox News:
These guys think saying climate changes, saying it gets warmer or colder by a few tenths of a degree should be taken as evidence that the end of the world is coming. And it completely ignores the fact that until this hysteria, climate scientists used to refer to the warm periods in our history as optima.
Here is a reprint of Dr. Richard Lindzen’s article in the Wall Street Journal about “The political Assault on Climate Skeptics,” which is an excellent summary of the sheer stupidity of the useless Congressional attempt to discredit the top climate scientists.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, History, Junk Science, Media Bias, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Science/Technology, The United States | Tags: Climate Change, Secretary of State John Kerry, The Phony 97% Consensus
Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a haughty speech on climate change at the Atlantic Council in Washington on Thursday. He is upset that those Republican yokels don’t understand that climate change is happening and that humans are largely responsible, and those facts should be as universally accepted as the law of gravity.
Well, we yokels do accept the laws of gravity, not so much because Sir Isaac Newton said so, but because it is an observable truth. I would be most gratified if the dishes I drop would float for a while before falling, so I could catch them before they break, but gravity triumphs every time.
No one denies that climate change is happening. The climate is always changing, always will. It has been far warmer in the past, and far colder as well. We have all heard of Ice Ages. What we are skeptical about is that the current warming phase occurs only in computer climate programs — not in the real world. In the real world, where accurate temperatures across the world are measured by satellites, there hasn’t been any warming for eighteen years. Mr. Kerry said:
Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say ‘climate change.’ We have to talk about how we solve climate change. Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.”
Oh dear, the 97% “consensus” (2013) Cook et. al. has been refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, credentialed scientists. 100 percent of the former say that warming has nearly stopped.
I’ll bet Mr. Kerry has never read any of the science, but only accepted what he believes to be the conventional wisdom. He insisted that last year was the warmest of all, (it wasn’t even close ) and added that “I don’t mean to sound haughty” — when has he ever not? I’m not sure that you can be a skeptic and a member of the Obama administration.
He issued a passionate call for nations to forgo the short-term lure of “outdated” fossil fuels — “The bottom line is that we can’t only factor in the price of immediate energy needs. We have to factor in the cost of long-term carbon pollution. We have to factor in survival.”
“We need to face reality,” he added. “There is no ‘Planet B.’”
Joe Biden made a speech along exactly the same line. “Climate Change is as real as the law of gravity” so that is apparently the administration’s approved line of the day. It is a concerted Democratic assault on “deniers,”or those who do not follow the party line on climate change orthodoxy. Why? Because as with all progressive campaigns, the issue is never the issue.
The computer climate simulations put in what information we knew about the climate for sure, which wasn’t much, some assumptions, some complete guesses, and unfortunately could not predict the climate of today—when we already knew the correct answer. There is a lot that remains unknown — especially the action of clouds, and if you are a cloud-watcher, that difficulty is easy to understand.
When new Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell first spoke to her department, she said “I hope there aren’t any deniers here!” That orthodoxy is clearly expected in the Obama administration, and it is clearly expected in the Science departments of many universities.
Climate science, because of governmental interest — which includes grants, prestige, higher salaries. For the university more interest, more money, better equipment. Aside from government grants, there is money from NGOs and even some corporations. If the world is really heating up dangerously a lot of people want to know about it. Scientists in many different departments suddenly found that they could write a good grant proposal and suddenly they were climate scientists and in the money.
The list of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) dependent on global warming panic for their funding and livelihood is long, and you know the big ones. NRDC, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society,Environmental Defense Fund—that’s just a few of the biggies. There are literally hundreds more.
They have depended on emotional appeals to raise money and entice activists to the cause — first, it was baby harp seals who were being clubbed to death, then the spotted owl, and finally the Greens latched on to the polar bears as their standard-bearer. Not enough ice, the bears were endangered, going to go extinct if you didn’t cough up enough funding. The bears were never endangered, though they did get them labeled “threatened, but better surveys certified that the bears were just fine, increasing in numbers, and Arctic ice melts in the summer and grows in the winter, and in recent winters of “polar vortexes” is more extensive than ever.
It seems, however, that Mr. Kerry’s speech and Mr. Biden’s speech are only the tip of a fairly massive iceberg floating along under the surface. More to come.
Filed under: Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Politics, Progressivism, Science/Technology | Tags: EPA Administrator McCarthy, Droughts?, Hurricanes?
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy proved to be remarkably clueless in a Senate hearing on her request for $8.6 billion to help in the fight against the horrors of climate change.
She claimed that the increased frequency of droughts due to warming, was due to mankind’s increased production of greenhouse gasses, notably carbon dioxide which the EPA seems to think is a pollutant. CO² is a natural fertilizer for plant growth, essential to life on earth through the photosynthesis process, and since we exhale it with every breath—not likely a dangerous pollutant.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told Ms. McCarthy that Dr.Bjorn Lomberg from the Copenhagen Institute and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado had both written that we have had fewer droughts in recent years, and asked “Do you dispute that?”
Ms. McCarthy responded that she “didn’t know in what context he was making statements like that.” Context?
Dr. Pielke, a professor of Climate Science, told the Senate environment48.6 billion and public works subcommittee in July 2013, that droughts have “for the most part have become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the US over the last century. “Globally, there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years. (There goes the theory that climate change is the reason for the rise of ISIS. Yes really, they were claiming that).
Sen. Sessions then asked Ms. McCarthy if we have had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade? She responded that she could not answer because “it’s a very complicated issue.” Only if basic math is complicated. The last hurricane to hit America as strong as a category 3 or higher was Wilma, which hit Florida in October of 2005. Superstorm Sandy was barely Category 1. The damage came from a storm surge, not the hurricane winds.
The senator inquired about the increase in global temperatures. There has been very little if any increase in temperatures in the last 18 years—90% below what the computerized climate models predicted that temperatures would increase. Ms. McCarthy replied that she didn’t know “what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to.”
From the Administrator of the EPA, attempting to justify a request for $8.6 billion, that ill-informed knowledge of basic and widely circulated facts about climate change are pretty stunning, but not all that surprising. For the zealots, global warming is a religion — a war that must be fought to save the earth and bring about that ‘better world’ that zealots are so sure is out there — somewhere.