Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Climate change expert sentenced to 32 months for fraud, says lying was a 'rush'
read here
It is Agenda21 that is being implemented.
White House Climate Czar: 'Global warming causes extreme cold'
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
The recent cold spell that swept through much of the continental U.S. was the result of global warming, a new propaganda video put out by the White House claims. According to Obama's Science and Technology Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, the U.S. supposedly experienced one of its worst freezes in contemporary history because the planet is warming, an absolutely astounding demonstration of cognitive dissonance that proves the total insanity of our nation's leaders.
The video, entitled "The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes," makes the audacious claim that one of the major indicators of global warming is a progressive increase in extreme cold weather patterns. With a completely straight face, Dr. Holdren, the White House climate czar, attempts to convince America during the clip that extreme cold actually means progressive warming, or something like that.
"If you've been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one that we're having in the United States now, disprove global warming, don't believe it," states Dr. Holdren. "A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues."
To back up this claim, Dr. Holdren purports that the arctic regions of the globe are warming at twice the rate of the mid-latitudes, and that this decreasing temperature variance between the two regions is somehow responsible for extreme cold spells. In other words, all this cold weather occurring in the Northern Hemisphere during the winter season, which is completely normal, is somehow a byproduct of the warming poles.
Extreme cold events have been occurring for centuries and have nothing to do with elevated CO2 levels and man-made 'global warming'
The White House apparently believes that, by flashing all sorts of graphs and time-lapse imagery of changing polar ice caps over Dr. Holdren's voice, Americans will simply eat up all the pseudoscientific nonsense being peddled by its climate czar. But thankfully, not everyone is guzzling down the Kool-Aid with a vacuous grin, including Princeton University physicist and Professor William Happer.
In a recent rebuttal posted at Climate Depot, Prof. Happer deconstructs the various claims made by Dr. Holdren that extreme cold is actually indicative of extreme warming caused by mankind's use of the earth.
"Polar vortices have been around forever," explained Prof. Happer to Climate Depot. "They have almost nothing to do with more CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere."
Prof. Happer refers, of course, to the claim made by Dr. Holdren that changing polar vortices -- the recent cold spell that swept the U.S. was the result of a polar vortex swirling at a lower latitude than normal -- are the consequence of a warming planet. On the contrary, polar vortices are completely normal, and they vary from year to year, causing extreme cold events at different latitudes, just as they did back in 1777 just before the Battle of Princeton.
"On the night of January 2-3 [1777], a polar vortex swept across New Jersey, with snow and a very hard freeze," writes Marc Morano for Climate Depot, noting that this extreme cold event, which was similar to the one that recently hit the U.S., actually helped George Washington win this important battle against the British -- and it occurred more than 230 years ago, long before man-made "global warming" was a staple in the political vernacular.
"The extremely cold air at the bottom of the vortex can be carried south by meanders of the jet stream at the edge of the vortex," adds Prof. Happer about the logistics of polar vortices, which change naturally. "We will have to live with polar vortices as long as the sun shines and the earth rotates."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043524_global_warming_extreme_cold_White_House_Climate_Czar.html##ixzz2qTvBwjQO
House Democrats: Climate Change Turns Women Into Prostitutes
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/107526-house-democrats-climate-change-turns-women-prostitutes/
Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong
Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'
Human CO2 just not a big deal at Pine Island Glacier
By Lewis Page,
3rd January 2014
Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global warming.
The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously studying it in the 1990s.
Many researchers had suggested that this was due to human-driven global warming, which appeared to be taking place rapidly at that time (though it has since gone on hold for 15 years or so ( http://tinyurl.com/lf3lyde ), a circumstance which science is still assimilating).
However back in 2009 the British Antarctic Survey sent its Autosub robot probe under the shelf (famously powered by some 5,000 ordinary alkaline D-cell batteries on each trip beneath the ice, getting through no less than four tonnes of them during the research). The Autosub survey revealed that a previously unknown marine ridge lay below the shelf, over which the icepack had for millennia been forced to grind its way en route to the ocean. However in relatively recent times the ice had finally so ground down the ridge that the sea could flow in between shelf and ridge, freeing the ice to move much faster and warming it too.
As we reported at the time ( http://tinyurl.com/2a9syx2 ), this caused BAS boffins to suggest that the observed accelerating ice flow and melt seen since the '90s was actually a result of the ridge's erosion and sea ingress, rather than global warming.
Now, the latest BAS research has revealed that rather than accelerating, "oceanic melting of the ice shelf into which the glacier flows decreased by 50 per cent between 2010 and 2012".
The BAS goes on to explain:
Observations made in January 2012, and reported now in [hefty boffinry mag] Science, show that ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded. The top of the thermocline (the layer separating cold surface water and warm deep waters) was found to be about 250 metres deeper compared with any other year for which measurements exist.
This lowered thermocline reduces the amount of heat flowing over the ridge. High resolution simulations of the ocean circulation in the ice shelf cavity demonstrate that the ridge blocks the deepest ocean waters from reaching the thickest ice ...
In January 2012 the dramatic cooling of the ocean around the glacier is believed to be due to an increase in easterly winds caused by a strong La Ninã event in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:
"We found ocean melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half of that observed in 2010. This enormous, and unexpected, variability contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
The Science paper can be read by subscribers to the journal here ( http://tinyurl.com/p93m48d ). The BAS announcement of the results can be read here ( http://tinyurl.com/mrbtvdf ). Readers unfamiliar with the rules of the climate game should note that the term "climate variability" as used in those documents means for this purpose "climate effects not caused by humans". ®
The usual suspects will no doubt choose to play the man rather than the ball here and complain that this article is an example of cherry-picking by an evil climate "denier", probably funded by the Koch brothers and unqualified to write on climate matters - and also that we never point out other research suggesting that in fact the Antarctic sheet will shortly slide off into sea inundating us all in movie-plot menace style.
Some notes on that:
1) We here on The Register climate desk actually do offer plenty of standard doom coverage - knock yourselves out, green readers. At the moment it is mostly not nearly as much read as the skeptical stuff. That latter may serve to illustrate the fact that reputable research from top boffins like this, suggesting that the human race is perhaps not imminently menaced by carbon emissions, is news - whereas the idea that it is imminently menaced is rather old hat.
2) Your correspondent "denies" nothing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, plain and simple, and massive releases of it will obviously warm the atmosphere up to some degree. How much remains pretty uncertain: and the consequences of this uncertain warming in terms of sea levels, crop yields etc are very uncertain indeed. But it could be true that carbopocalypse is upon us - just as it could be true that we face species extinction or global disaster in the coming century from an asteroid or comet strike, or global pandemic, or some other threat.
3) What is really a lot more certain - and this is admitted ( http://tinyurl.com/nm4ohec ) by hardline greens - is that a shift to all or mostly renewable power means incredibly expensive energy and abandonment of economic growth. That means that the great majority of the human race, including many rich westerners who today live in reasonable comfort, must henceforth descend into/remain in miserable poverty under such a plan. Expensive luxuries such as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc will all have to go if there is to be no economic growth. It won't be a painless matter of buying a G-Wiz, insulating the loft and getting rid of some small, cheap government departments like the nuclear weapons programme.
4) It is very likely, then, that the suggested climate cure will cause more misery than the disease. Sea defences capable of dealing with a 1m rise would be very, very cheap by comparison and a lot of farmers would actually be better off under global warming.
5) As to the ad hominem criticism. Your humble correspondent today, it is true, holds no PhD in climatology, pays only occasional visits to the climate beat over relatively recent times, and - horror - for a long time was not even a journalist (!). However the idea that this means I must not report on climate-related matters while normal environment or "science" correspondents can would seem pretty silly. Many such normal correspondents visibly don't even understand what a Watt is, how windfarms are paid for, etc etc. Frankly, if my climate/energy reporting is ignorant or activist, it is much less so than most.
6) The more general idea that The Register must not report on climate matters (unless, presumably, we do so in a politically correct way) falls under the eternal "where's the IT angle?" complaint and will not be given a lot of sympathy. We've always been "Sci/Tech news for the World", remember.
7) Koch brothers/oil industry funding. The only money we at The Reg have ever had that you could put even close to this are a couple of minor ad deals with the Norwegian government petro firm, Statoil. Those ads sought to suggest that Blighty might like to buy more relatively clean and reliable natural gas to help fund Norway's social miracles - as opposed to turning to coal or buying unreliable supplies from the Kremlin to fund weapons programmes and oppression. That ad money was not enough to be important to The Register commercially and involved no influence whatsoever on editorial stance - none was so much as hinted at. Your correspondent personally has never received a penny from writing about climate/energy issues other than as part of a Register salary.
8) Given all the above, comments on this site which just say "Lewis is evil" or "you know this is all utter guff" or in particular which show signs of being astroturf are, yes, liable to be suppressed. Play nice, commentards - especially new commentards.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/
Rothschilds 666 nwo cult - Weather_ HAARP WEATHER CONTROL Could Be Part Of NWO DEPOPULATION PLAN, Here_s The Science -
Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat... because of too much ice: Stranded Antarctic ship's crew will be rescued by helicopter
Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document 'environmental changes' at the pole
In an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expedition
MV Akademik Schokalskiy still stuck among thick ice sheet 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, the Tasmanian capital
Called for help at 5am Christmas morning after becoming submerged in ice
Australia's back-up ship, Aurora Australis could not break through
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html#ixzz2pBcOxFBJ
Lol
THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBAL COOLING AND THE HIGH COST OF GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-challenges-of-global-cooling-and-the-high-cost-of-global-warming-policies/
Within the body of its main report, the U.N. has been forced to back away from alarmist claims made in its previous assessments. The pause in global warming, the failure of climate models, the expansion of Antarctic sea ice and the Medieval Warming of 1,000 years ago, are among the “retreats” the NIPCC lead authors have identified. Yet, the U.N.’s Summary for Policymakers, which precedes the main report claims it is “extremely likely that human influence has been the dominate cause of observed warming since the mid-20th Century.” The attitude here seems to be never let the facts get in the way of an alarmist narrative; especially one that can be used to rationalize the anti-energy regulations that flow out of government agencies. But there’s a complicating factor that could make the U.N. position completely untenable in the near future. A growing body of evidence now points to a global cooling phase that could persist for decades. There is, for example, a group of German scientists who predict temperatures could fall for the remainder of the 21st Century.
For global warming believers, 2013 was the year from Hell
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/19/lawrence-solomon-for-global-warming-believers-2013-was-the-year-from-hell/
Just part of the fraud, what else in new?
"EPA Global Warming Expert (and Its Highest-Paid Employee) Avoided Doing Work for 13 Years by Pretending He Was in the CIA"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/16/epa-global-warming-expert-and-its-highest-paid-employee-avoided-doing-work-for-13-years-by-pretending-he-was-in-the-cia/
Global warming?? This tells a different story. Who is lying?
http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/13/more-ice-or-less-doesnt-matter-its-all-causing-global-weather-disasters/
More Ice Or Less Doesn’t Matter, It’s All Causing Global Weather Disasters
December 13, 2013 by Bob Livingston
In 1974, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reported that greatly increased areas of snow and ice over the north polar cap presaged the dawning of a “little ice age.”
The report claimed that satellites had first noticed the increasing snow and ice in 1972 and blamed it on weather events that occurred that year around the globe. Among those weather events were hot, dry conditions in the Moscow region of the Soviet Union that killed food crops; a shortened monsoon season in India that reduced grain production; and inadequate rains in Argentina and Australia that likewise damaged crops. In the United States, abnormally wet weather in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 reduced corn and soybean production.
The result of this, according to the report, was skyrocketing food prices and widespread food shortages.
The report proclaimed: “There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates. If so, it is a normal that will be far less favorable to global agriculture, and thus to world food supplies.”
According to the report, the climate changes presaged a new “little ice age” that would not be as extreme as the one that occurred around 1,700 A.D., but would more likely resemble the one that occurred during the period 1880-1920.
Climatologists attending a workshop in Bonn, Germany, in 1974 looked at the satellite data and determined that during the 30 years prior to 1974, temperatures had been steadily cooling in the northern hemisphere. This cooling would continue, they said, and lead to a period wrought with agriculturally adverse droughts, abnormally cold spells and heat waves, with other extremes becoming more common.
When it comes to climate change — or that thing that most people call “weather” — it seems the more things stay the same, the more the climate change mafia changes their stories. The predicted ice age never materialized. Instead, some of same scientists soon turned around and forecast a rise in global temperatures, lessening ice at the poles and coming disasters like rising sea levels, droughts, floods and even snowstorms — the same “disasters” they had just blamed on increasing ice.
Now, Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis is out with a new study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, that notes ice at the North Pole is disappearing at an alarming rate and researchers “are finding a link with recent bouts of extreme weather.” Of course.
According to Francis, just half as much of the North Pole is covered by ice as was the case 30 years ago. This despite the fact that since 1997 there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature, and some areas — notably the Northern Hemisphere — have actually cooled.
In editorializing on Francis’ report, Voice of America tells us, “At the same time, the northern hemisphere has seen some unbelievable weather with the last decade: Record-breaking heat waves and droughts in North America and Europe, and devastating floods in east Asia, to name a few.”
Francis and colleagues went back through three decades of weather data and measurements of Arctic ice and snow cover in northern latitudes. VOA tells us they found that, “’when there was less ice or less snow in any given year during the summertime, that that was more likely to occur at the same time as the occurrences of heat waves,’ she says.”
The takeaway is that climate science is far from settled. The climate change mafia has for years been fudging its statistics and making things up from whole cloth and has no compunction over it.
Their goal is not to “settle” the science, reduce so-called “greenhouse” gases or control the weather to the benefit of mankind. Their goal is simply to redistribute wealth and place more power in the hands of the elites.
Global-warming "proof" is evaporating
The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.
Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.
And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.
Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.
Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.
Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.
The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).
If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.
Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to push to reduce supposed global-warming emissions. Last month, the president even signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats’ ability to restrict Americans’ use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas emissions.”
Such attempted reductions in other countries have proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. But damn the stubbornly weak economy, says President Obama, full speed ahead!
This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.
People have a right to religious and cult beliefs within reason. But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again, each time reacting with little more than pictures of forlorn polar bears on ice floes and trying to shut down the opposition. (More bad timing: Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than it’s been in 35 years.)
In war and in science, the bloodiest conflicts always seem to be the religious ones. Time for the American public to say it’s no longer going to play the victim in this one.
Michael Fumento is a journalist and attorney based in Colombia.
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
Chilling Facts About Global Warming DebateBy: Larry Bell
Have no doubt it — there’s a concocted climate of confusion regarding what many alarmists would like to have you think most scientists agree about.
No where is this more true than the mainstream media hype about a “settled climate debate.”
That “97 percent of all climate scientists believe in global warming” nonsense got a big boost from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-question online survey sent to 10,257 Earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.
That anything-but-scientific poll asked two questions.
The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” None should dispute that temperatures have risen since planet Earth began thawing out of the little ice age (not a true ice age) which ended in the mid-1850s.
The second: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Assuming that “human activity” includes land-use influences such as agriculture and deforestation, and that “changing” includes cooling and warming (both for better and worse), most people I know would agree with that question also.
Of about 3,000 who responded to the inquiry, only a small subset — just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals — were considered in their totally meaningless survey statistic.
That “97 percent all climate scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered yes.
As for present temperatures being abnormally warm, that’s hardly debatable either. After all, we’re fortunate to be living during an interglacial temperature spike, about 10,000 years into a likely 12,000-15,000 year-long respite before the next in a sequential pattern of ice ages that last about 90,000 years or so.
And what about warming since the Industrial Revolution stoked up all those smoke stacks and SUVs? Yes, there has indeed been a warming pattern since even before then. This ongoing trend followed a not-so-great time when George Washington’s troops endured brutally cold conditions at Valley Forge during the winter of 1776-77, and soon after Napoleon’s suffered a bitterly frigid retreat from Moscow in 1812.
Ok — but what about climate-ravaging influences of that dastardly carbon dioxide we are pumping into the atmosphere? Don’t scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Sure. CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas (as is water vapor which constitutes more than 90 percent of the atmosphere). And while CO2 may very likely have some influence on climate . . . however miniscule . . . that impact has never, not ever, been measured. (Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims to have done so.)
Let’s also remember that significant global temperature fluctuations are normal. In fact the past century has witnessed two distinct periods of warming and cooling. The first warming period occurred between 1900 and 1945. Since that period accounted for about half of all estimated warming up until now, rising atmospheric CO2 levels can’t have been the cause.
The second warming reported by surface thermometers, but not by satellites, began in 1975. It continued at a fairly constant rate until 1998, a strong Pacific Ocean El Niño year. Temperatures have been flat since then, despite a ballyhooed record high level of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Finally, even the U.N.’s alarmist IPCC is admitting that climate sensitivity to CO2 appears to be far less than their theoretical error-plagued models predicted. Yet at the same time they are somehow even more certain than ever that we humans are responsible for more than half of all global warming. Go figure.
Besides . . . let’s be fair! If we are being credited for influencing warming, isn’t it only logical that we are influencing periods of cooling too?
In any case, although no one can predict what turn climate will take next, let’s all hope that the present flat-line or resumed warming lasts a long time before the next really big chill arrives that lots of scientific “experts” predicted in the late 1970s.
Who knows? Maybe they had it right the first time.
http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemplate.aspx?nodeid=540747
Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
What surprises could climate change have in store for us?
By Brad Plumer, Updated: December 4, 2013
There are a few different ways that global warming could unfold in the decades ahead. The world might heat up steadily and predictably, giving humans and other species time to adjust. Or we could see large, abrupt changes that are extremely difficult to adapt to.
It's that latter prospect in particular that worries many climate experts. Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences published a report titled "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises." Their conclusion? Rapid climate shifts — occurring in just a few decades or less — were entirely plausible. Ice sheets could collapse, say, and push sea levels up unexpectedly fast.
Similar sorts of abrupt changes have occurred in the past. Some 12,000 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas, a millennium-long cold period ended in just a few decades, and some 72 percent of large-bodied mammals in North America went extinct. But scientists weren't yet sure how likely similar disruptions are now that humans are warming the planet. More research was needed.
That research is now piling up. On Tuesday, the National Research Council published a brand new report, "Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises," that lays out what scientists have learned since 2002 about the possibility of sudden climate shifts. There are still plenty of troubling uncertainties, but researchers have learned a fair bit.
The upshot? Earth is already seeing some abrupt changes, like the fast retreat of summer Arctic sea ice. There's also a real risk that other rapid and drastic shifts could follow in the coming decades if the Earth keeps warming — including widespread plant and animal extinctions and the creation of large "dead zones" in the ocean.
On the flip side, other drastic changes "are now considered unlikely to occur this century." That includes shifts in Atlantic ocean circulation patterns that could radically alter Europe's climate, as hyped in the disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow." Also unlikely this century: Collapsing ice sheets in West Antarctica that would push sea levels up very quickly, as well as sudden methane eruptions from the Arctic that could heat the planet drastically. Those doomsday scenarios are left to future generations.
The authors do emphasize, however, that scientists still don't fully understand all the different ways the Earth's climate can change in short order. There are lots of unknowns here. "Some surprises in the climate system may be inevitable," they conclude, "but with improved scientific monitoring and a better understanding of the climate system it could be possible to anticipate abrupt change before it occurs and reduce the potential consequences."
Here's a longer rundown of some of the abrupt changes the new National Research Council report explores, as well as how probable they are to occur this century (I've ordered them from most likely to least likely):
— Sharp increases in extinction rates. A recent study in Science found that the world is on track to warm much faster than it has in the past 65 million years. That could require some species to shift habitats at an unprecedented rate.
This concept is known as the "velocity of climate change," and the map on the right shows two different estimates of how quickly species would have to shift in order to maintain the climates of their current habitats (assuming they needed to).
Some species will be able to keep up, others likely won't: There's only so far up a mountain that pikas can climb to stay cool, for instance. And coral reefs will have difficulty adapting if the oceans keep warming and become more acidic. Add it up, and it raises the prospect of extinctions for many species.
Likelihood this century: Moderate. When you toss in other pressures that many plant and animal species are facing — deforestation, for instance — the report concludes that a mass extinction event "could conceivably occur before the year 2100," Coral reefs in particular get singled out here: "some models show a crash of coral reefs from climate change alone as early as 2060 under certain scenarios."
However, the report adds that scientists still need to develop a better understanding of how many species will react to these shifting climates. "It is an open question whether the climatic tolerances of local populations can evolve fast enough to keep up with rapid climate change."
The report also explores the possibility of an abrupt "collapse" of the Amazon rain forest due to a combination of climate change and deforestation (say, by creating a self-sustaining cycle of fires and dryness). The report concludes that some of these scenarios are "plausible," but they're still subject to much intense debate and are very difficult to model the likelihood.
— An abrupt decrease in ocean oxygen. Scientists expect the oxygen content of the ocean to decline as the world warms, due to various chemical and biological changes. And that raises a concern: In some parts of the ocean, it's possible that this process could accelerate abruptly, creating large "oxygen minimum zones" that are virtually uninhabitable for fish and other organisms.
Likelihood this century: Moderate. Similar "dead zones" are already popping up in many coastal areas around the world, mainly caused by fertilizer run-off and improperly treated wastewater. When combined with other changes in the warming ocean, "the decrease in oxygen availability might become non-linear."
— Destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The current scientific consensus is that the world will likely see between 0.4 and 1.2 meters of sea-level rise (1 to 4 feet) by century's end, depending on how fast emissions rise. This assumes the oceans will expand as they warm and ice caps and glaciers melt at a predictable pace.
But what about surprises? The report notes that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet carries enough ice to raise sea levels by 3 to 4 meters (10 to 13 feet). Right now, that massive ice sheet looks stable. But the geological record that these sheets are capable of shifting very quickly, particularly at the boundary between sea ice and land ice.
"Locations where meltwater forms on the ice shelf surface can wedge open crevasses and cause ice-shelf disintegration—in some cases, very rapidly."
Likelihood this century: Unknown but probably low.The report notes that current computer models don't capture all of the physical processes of ice sheets perfectly, so it's tough to say how likely this all is. Greenland's ice sheet is not expected to destabilize this century. By contrast, an abrupt change in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is judged "to be plausible, with an unknown although probably low probability." (And the odds go up if the planet keeps warming past 2100.)
— Carbon or methane "bombs" released from the Arctic. There's a lot of carbon that's locked in frozen permafrost at high latitudes. There's also a lot of methane stored in the northern oceans, trapped in lattice-like structures known as clathrates. All told, there may be more carbon stored in permafrost and ocean hydrates than their are in known fossil-fuel reserves (see the chart on the right).
So what if the Earth heated up enough that the permafrost melted, the oceans warmed, and these greenhouse gases suddenly got released into the atmosphere? That could, in theory, trigger an extremely large climate shift.
Likelihood this century: Low. A sudden massive release looks unlikely this century. The report concludes that as the Arctic warms, it will gradually release more carbon and methane into the atmosphere, which will "amplify" existing warming. But a very large release is unlikely to happen a short span, say, just one or two decades.
The report cautions, however, that "this conclusion is based on immature science and sparse monitoring capabilities." Scientists still need better assessments of the long-term stability of those carbon stores. Not out of the clear yet. And the odds here also keep going up if the planet keeps warming after 2100.
— A chaotic disruption of Atlantic ocean circulation patterns. Ever wonder how Western Europe manages to stay relatively warm despite being so far north? Some scientists give partial credit to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), an ocean pattern that transports warm water into the North Atlantic and Nordic seas. The pattern also plays many other vital roles, like maintaining the ocean's ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
Back in the early 2000s, scientists raised the prospect of a nightmare climate scenario here. Paleoclimate evidence suggests that the AMOC has changed abruptly in the past due to an influx of cool melting freshwater.
So what if, say, Greenland's ice sheets melted quickly enough to disrupt this circulation? Would we get a "The Day After Tomorrow" style scenario in Europe, where some coastal areas cool down very rapidly? (Some scientists have argued that a disruption in Atlantic ocean heat circulation may have led to such a cold spell roughly 12,900 years ago.)
Likelihood this century: Low. Fortunately, this doomsday scenario now seems unlikely anytime soon. Climate models broadly agree that an abrupt change to the AMOC "will not occur this century." Greenland would have to melt at a far faster rate than even the worst-case scenarios. The report does suggest, however, that "it is important to keep a close watch on this system," to understand both the impact of smaller changes and keep an eye on the remote possibility of big, drastic shifts.
Further reading:
— The full National Research Council study can be accessed here. It was sponsored by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Intelligence community.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/04/what-surprises-could-climate-change-have-in-store-for-us/?print=1
Chris is a certified consulting meteorologist who has spent decades specializing in weather forecasting for hedge funds and commodity traders. He is heading up a new service for The Sovereign Society called Weather Trader. This service is not yet out, but to be among the first to know when it’s open.
Sun spots tell the story.
The Sun has All the Answers
Why are we seeing the shift from global warming to global cooling?
The answer is the sunspot cycle.
A sunspot cycle lasts approximately 11 years, and, this fall, we are reaching the current cycle’s peak activity. The greater the number of sunspots, the more luminous the sun and the greater the amount of energy that reaches the earth. The earth and its atmosphere convert the energy into heat. So, when the sunspots are active and the sun is more luminous, the earth heats up. When they’re not, the earth cools. However, there is a time lag because the earth stores heat.
The current peak in the number of sunspots is about a quarter of what it was in the late 1950s and, according to NASA, is at its lowest in at least 100 years – perhaps 200 years. Researchers don’t know why there are fewer sunspots, and they don’t know how long this trend will continue.
What they do know is that the number of sunspots and the amount of energy coming from the sun has been falling since the late 1950s. We also know from the National Climatic Data Center that the number of 90-plus degree temperature readings across the U.S. has declined since 1990. In fact, this year we saw the fewest such readings since 1930. In addition, global temperatures have been stable for the last decade.
Sea-surface temperatures, which help drive long-term weather patterns, are a little warmer than normal but have cooled by a few degrees in the last five years. Land temperatures are just starting to cool. There is a time lag between the peak of energy coming from the sun and the peak in Earth’s temperatures, but researchers don’t fully understand the process yet.
How do We Play This for Profit?
In my Weather Trader service, I am tracking the companies, commodities and sectors that will be impacted by this “new normal” … at the same time that many investors don’t even know that this shift to cooling is already underway. That’s the competitive advantage available to investors with access to advance notice of weather trends.
Cooler weather will be driving markets for the next few years, which has me looking for opportunities in everything from natural gas to furnace manufacturers, to cold-weather-apparel makers, to ski resorts. The possibilities are nearly endless, for both short and long plays.
Start thinking about how the coming decline in global temperatures might impact your portfolio and begin identifying the sectors and companies that are positioned to be the winners and losers as the planet begins to cool.
Change is coming. Those who are the first to adapt will prosper. Those who don’t, won’t.
There’s a silver lining in every cloud,
Exert from Chris Orr'
The Weather Trader
It was a fraud then and it is a fraud, now.
Obama should have addressed this years ago, but I guess he is trying to leave a legacy, as Obamacare sure isn't in his "plus column."
Obama orders government to prepare for impact of global warming
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/#ixzz2jm2Rwt7u
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
<<emission limits be set on all other emitters of CO2.>> Human beings emit CO2.
SCOTUS Revisits EPA Regulation of CO2
By S. Fred Singer
On October 15, 2013, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) granted 'Certiorari' to Petitioners who have been suing the EPA over regulations to control CO2. In 2007, SCOTUS had ruled that CO2 may be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA), provided EPA could demonstrate that continued emission of CO2 would harm 'human health and welfare.' In 2009, EPA published the required Endangerment Finding, which was subsequently attacked on scientific grounds by a collection of plaintiffs. [Full disclosure: SEPP is one of the many plaintiffs involved in this lawsuit.]
However, in June 2012, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled against plaintiffs, giving deference on the science to EPA. EPA had proceeded to institute emission limits for motor vehicles, essentially by setting mileage standards. EPA is now arguing that, having successfully set CO2 limits for motor vehicles in May 2010, the CAA requires that emission limits be set on all other emitters of CO2. Using their statutory authority to set New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA has proposed stringent limits on new power plants that will make new coal plants virtually impossible to construct. The EPA also wants to limit emissions from existing coal plants, arguing that EPA can set guidelines which the states would have to follow in regulating emissions from existing plants.
In the coming case, plaintiffs are essentially appealing the decision of the DC Circuit Appeals Court and hope to prevail -- even though SCOTUS is not likely to listen to scientific arguments -- although publication of the authoritative NIPCC report "Climate Change Reconsidered-II" (Heartland, 2013) cannot be ignored. In fact, the Supreme Court has restricted its Cert to the single question: Is EPA permitted to extend its authority to regulate emissions from motor vehicles to stationary sources?
The EPA is likely to use a section of the Clean Air Act called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). They have a strong case; it will require considerable ingenuity for the plaintiffs' lawyers to prevail over the EPA. One sees at least two possibilities.
A. NAAQS (National ambient air quality standards)
The CAA requires the setting of NAAQS. However, it is a fact that
1. EPA has not set a NAAQS for CO2
2. EPA does not know how to set a NAAQS for CO2. There is no scientific basis for doing so.
3. Even if EPA were to set a NAAQS, there is no way in which EPA can demonstrate that its regulations can achieve it; further, there is no way whereby EPA can enforce it -- since CO2 is global and EPA cannot control emissions from other nations, like China.
4. But without a NAAQS as a goal, any effort to set emission limits must be judged to be 'arbitrary and capricious.' In other words, without a specific target, there is no rational way for setting emission limits for power plants or other emitters.
B. Tailoring Rule
In the regulation of 'criteria pollutants' (of which there are currently six) the arcane provisions of the CAA require EPA to regulate emissions from sources that emit more than either 100 or 250 tons per year.
These limits are ok for CO2 from individual small sources, motor vehicles and even big trucks. But when applied to stationary sources, there would be millions of them, including apartment and office buildings, hospitals, schools, prisons, etc.
Clearly, EPA is unable to muster an effort to issue controls for all such sources. They have therefore arbitrarily raised the lower limit to 75,000 to 100,000 tons per year -- by issuing a so-called 'Tailoring Rule.' It would permit regulation of major sources, such as power plants, refineries, and other large industrial installations.
However, EPA cannot simply change the law to suit its convenience. This cannot be done by administrative action; it must be done by the author of the law -- which is Congress. Again, EPA's revised lower limit may be considered "arbitrary and capricious"
What to do?
The sensible course for EPA is to go back to Congress and suggest an amendment to the Clean Air Act to permit continuing without setting a NAAQS for CO2 and for allowing a 'Tailoring Rule' that makes CO2 regulation more manageable. But it is unlikely that EPA will choose to do this. Because once the matter goes back to Congress, it is no longer under the control of the executive branch of government.
Congress, in its wisdom, could decide to do away with the PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) requirement for CO2 and thus not permit EPA to extend emission controls to power stations. Or, going even further, Congress may decide that CO2 is not to be considered as a criteria pollutant and cannot be regulated at all under the Clean Air Act. In other words, Congress may decide that CO2 is not a 'pollutant' -- and thus overturn and make irrelevant the Supreme Court decision of 2007.
There is little doubt that the House, as currently constituted, would choose one of these routes. It is entirely possible that the US Senate will go along -- even though it has a Democratic majority. But 16 Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014 -- with some from coal states in the Midwest. So there is a strong possibility that the Congress will consider CO2 to be a non-pollutant. Even if the White House were to apply a veto, there is a good chance that it will be overturned -- which would constitute a big defeat for the Obama Administration.
But political futures are hard to predict. Much may ride on the outcome of Obamacare and other snafus that might affect public opinion about the White House and thereby the mood of Congress. One thing for sure: public policy should not be set by unelected bureaucrats.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/
How Big Oil Benefits From Global Warming Alarmism
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/22/how-big-oil-benefits-from-global-warming-alarmism/
Excellent Bruce.
To me it's like a large segment of earth'spopulation has OCD and wants everythng to be uniform.
What real scientists are saying
New film puts Al Gore’s ‘climate reality’ nonsense about climate and carbon tax into perspective.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/23/new-film-puts-al-gores-climate-reality-nonsense-about-climate-and-carbon-tax-into-perspective/
The Age of Climate Alarmism is Coming to an End
by Jim Lakely
October 21, 2013
You can be forgiven for not noticing that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its Fifth Assessment Report late last month.
The report landed with a thud, criticized and even mocked by many leading climate scientists. The distinguished science journal Nature editorialized that this should be the last report issued by the UN body.
This is just the latest signal that the age of climate alarmism is over. Given five tries to convince the world that human activity is causing catastrophic warming of the planet, runaway sea-level rise and various weather disasters, the public still doesn’t buy it.
We’re all skeptics now because the science simply does not back up the hypothesis. For starters, there’s been no rise in global temperatures for 15 years.
The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concedes for the first time that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite a 7 percent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
To put that into perspective, global human CO2 emissions in the last 15 years represent about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and yet temperatures didn’t budge.
Nearly all of the UN-approved climate computer models were wrong. The IPCC finally admitted as much.
The IPCC also admits that the “hockey stick” it used to feature in past reports wasn’t accurate. Penn State professor Michael Mann has been dining out for years on his infamous “hockey stick,” a dread graph featured by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The graph looked so dramatic — like a hockey stick — only because it ignored the Medieval Warm Period, a time about a thousand years ago when temperatures were warmer than today — when wine grapes grew in England and Greenland was green.
The “hockey stick” is missing from the Fifth Assessment Report, and the IPCC admits the Medieval Warm Period was warmer and more global than it claimed in the past.
A third major admission by the IPCC: No increases in droughts, hurricanes, typhoons and other extreme weather. Every time severe weather hits the United States, you could count on IPCC-related scientists, professional climate alarmists and the media to attribute it all to man-made global warming. No more.
The latest IPCC report admits to having “low confidence” in predictions of more frequent or more extreme droughts and tropical cyclones.
While the IPCC is taking its lumps for being wrong on these and other matters, a new kid on the block of climate science is taking a victory lap: The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change released its own report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Packed with 1,000 pages of peer-reviewed literature — and then peer-reviewed again by NIPCC’s team of some 50 scientists from around the world — Climate Change Reconsidered II comes to the conclusions the United Nations is only now and reluctantly admitting.
The NIPCC report concludes that human impact on climate is very modest, especially when compared to natural cycles. Future warming due to human greenhouse gases is likely to be only 1-2 degrees Celsius, and be a boon for flora and fauna alike.
Higher levels of carbon dioxide will not cause weather to become more extreme, sea-level rise isn’t accelerating and polar ice caps aren’t melting at alarming rates.
Global warming isn’t the crisis many people said it was a few years ago. That’s bad news for the IPCC and the many environmental groups and politicians that hooked their wagon to it. But it’s good news for the rest of us.
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/10/the-age-of-climate-alarmism-is-coming-to-an-end/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-age-of-climate-alarmism-is-coming-to-an-end
Same thing on NPR and PBS, to liberals its a done deal....
I am listening to the BBC and they are discussing AGW like there is no more argument needed. Just how does the government limit human freedoms.
Here Comes the Sun: Global Warming and the Perversion of Science
By Jim Heilman
As the hypothesis of man-caused global warming is trundled off to the Morgue for Scientific Hoaxes, let's anticipate the autopsy's preliminary findings: the subject expired after choking on its own premises.
In denial, warmists continue to hawk recently discredited tenets: mankind's (read: America's) profligate use of fossil fuels pumps enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere; naturally, Earth's temperature rises, exacerbating the so-called "greenhouse effect"; in time, our planet becomes a most inhospitable place. "Settled science." Until it wasn't.
These postulates were meant to frighten the naive and misinformed into supporting a radical correction that would (surprise!) hit the U.S. hardest. Now that the warmists' case has come undone, we can see it for what it is: a perversion of science and the scientific method. The greenhouse effect is not a law of nature, but a warmist paradigm consisting of fudged data, tortured logic, and half-truths. Short of World War III, there is nothing humans can do to produce climate change.
Warmists didn't get everything wrong: CO2 levels are indeed greater than they were just a few decades ago, thanks to China's industrialization. Yet global temperatures have not increased in 17 years; actually, they are trending down, undercutting the warmists' key argument. The seeming contradiction can be explained by, well, looking up.
Orbiting the sun 150 million kilometers (93 million miles) out, Earth receives less than five ten-billionths of the star's radiation. Even so, variations in the star's output may cause -- have caused -- major climatological events, a fact warmists choose to ignore.
Waves of stellar activity called "sunspots" have been observed and recorded since the days of Galileo in the early 1600s. Sunspot "cycles" occur every 11 years or so, and they are not all alike. Neutral observers confirm correlations between historical records of solar activity and concurrent weather anomalies.
Sunspot activity has increased over the last 200 years, with each solar cycle gaining in magnitude. "Epic" describes the sun's outbursts in recent decades, with Cycle 19 (c. 1960) notable as the most intense in recorded history.
The sun is now at the peak of solar cycle 24, which was slow to begin and is relatively weak compared to its predecessors. This cycle is similar to Number 5, which ran from the late 1790s into the 1800s, a time known as the Dalton Minimum. That period featured unusually cold temperatures worldwide.
Understandably, warmists don't want to hear speculation about dropping temperatures. They'd rather focus on computer-generated feedback loops "proving" that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are accelerating global warming. In fact, CO2 in the atmosphere in any concentration is not the cause of climate change.
What drives Earth's thermal budget and weather in the short and long terms is stored solar heat, heat most efficiently conveyed by water. (In its liquid state, water is an energy storehouse.) For most of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history, climate change has been the norm. The engine of change? H2O. The source of all the energy found in water? Our sun.
Climatology is not an exact science. Competing theories and enigmas abound. Oceans are warmer now than in centuries past, polar atmospheres colder (likely because of a decline in solar output). New weather patterns may emerge at any time. But this much is gospel: humans cannot be at fault for climate change if climate change is a function of solar activity. No matter: whenever extreme weather-related events occur -- hurricanes, tornadoes, episodes of El Niño and La Niña -- die-hard warmists will attempt to resurrect their creed and blame humanity.
To that I say, never again. Weather phenomena and climate change are unrelated to atmospheric CO2. They are manifestations of natural processes predating mankind by billions of years. This is the "inconvenient truth" Al Gore and his disciples would rather you not know.
The worst of the warmists are scientific opportunists. What matters to them is not being right, but roiling the waters, questioning orthodoxy, getting grants, and gaining influence. As a wag among them, in an honest moment, might put it in verse:
We'll cool the planet, save the whales,
Tell our kids tall climate tales.
And when we're through and temps are pleasing,
We'll warm to threats of global freezing.
Jim Heilman is a retired Earth science teacher and planetarium director.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/10/here_comes_the_sun_global_warming_and_the_perversion_of_science.htmL
"Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
According to this DMI temperature plot, the high Arctic has dropped below freezing about two weeks early
Article here
Global Warming as Faith
Aug 9th, 2013 @ 10:59 am › Norman Rogers
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/08/global-warming-as-faith/
CLimate protestGlobal warming is a scientific theory, but is mostly about faith. Faith plays a bigger role in science than we care to admit. Allegedly well-meaning intellectuals of the 1930s believed in and defended Stalin’s Russia in the face of massive and accessible evidence that “scientific” communism had given birth to a terroristic, totalitarian state. Today’s believers in global warming, like the intellectuals in the 1930s, fiercely defend their wacky faith in the face of massive and contrary evidence. They are vested in a theory that is precious to them. Their scientific studies pick and choose from an evidence buffet.
When an ideology is precious, the believers become aggressively hostile toward infidels. The global warmers do not have dungeons or Siberian labor camps, though one wonders how far they would go if they could. James Hansen, a scientist and the most famous global warming preacher after Al Gore, want’s to put executives of fossil fuel companies in jail for “crimes against humanity.” Al Gore thinks that people who deny his faith are like people who think that the moon landing was staged in Hollywood. In other words, those who question the global warming faith are either criminals or crackpots. This is tolerance as practiced by those who have appointed themselves to save us from imaginary disaster.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, better known as the IPCC, has the same relationship to the believers in global warming as the Communist International or Comintern had to the believers in communism. The Comintern held world congresses and acted to enforce ideological conformity. The IPCC has grandiose meetings with delegates from many countries. The IPCC publishes propagandistic tomes on climate science. Like the central works forming the intellectual basis of Marxism, the IPCC’s publications are dense, turgid and full of dubious science. Many of their claims have been exposed as phony in The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna LaFramboise. Fellow traveling organizations, like the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) slavishly cite the IPCC as if nothing further is needed to prove a point. The USGCRP is our government’s baby IPCC. It has a big budget and publishes outrageous propaganda. The behind the scenes boss of the USGRCP is John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor and a longtime environmental extremist. The IPCC and the USGCRP are authoritarian organizations that promulgate a doctrine, not organizations conducting a scientific investigation. Science is window dressing.
It should not seem impossible, or even remarkable, that governmental organizations and highly educated scientists have become fanatical followers of a global warming ideology. Similar movements and ideologies have captured the fancy of intellectuals, scientists, and governments many times previously. In the first half of the 20th century, the eugenics movement in the United States was extremely popular and embraced by the people like the presidents of Harvard and Stanford and funded by foundations like the Rockefeller and Carnegie. The eugenics movement advocated forced sterilization and restriction on immigration by “inferior” races. These ideas were widely implemented by laws. Much of the eugenics ideology originated in the United States and the ideas were exported to Germany where the Nazis adopted them. Eugenics was not only disrespectful of human rights, but the scientific support was faulty and superficial. If we think that the elite won’t fall for similar ideas today because the intellectual classes of today are more enlightened than those of 100 years ago, we are living in a fools’ paradise.
The crimes against humanity of the 20th century, perpetrated under systems like Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Maoism, and Fascism, should be familiar to everyone. These movements had in common a tunnel vision on the part of the followers that lead to a disrespectful attitude toward human needs and rights. The global warming ideology is disrespectful to the needs of the poor and developing peoples of the world who need technology and energy.
The appeal of global warming is not based on empirical evidence or good science. The appeal is emotional. Somehow these ideas fill a hole in the adherent’s psyches. Many thinkers have suggested that intellectuals as a class feel underappreciated and thus they are attracted to ideologies that give them a sense of personal importance. The twentieth century is littered with the remnants of ideologies that enjoyed popularity and then collapsed from their internal contradictions. Global warming and closely related ideas like clean energy, sustainability, biological diversity, green political parties, nature worship, organic food, etc. have currently taken root in the intellectual imaginations of the masses of unemployed and underemployed graduates. The seeds were planted by their college professors.
A wonderful example of ideological conformity and half-baked science is the Atmospheric Sciences department of Texas A & M University. The Atmospheric Sciences department is considered to be among the best in the world. All tenured and tenure track faculty, except one assistant professor, have subscribed to what amounts to an IPCC loyalty oath or a confession of faith. This is what was published on their website followed by the names of 23 faculty members:
We, the faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:
1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.
This statement is full of ambiguity and error. For example, it is an error to associate the last 100 years with the CO2 theory of global warming. Only the last 40 years are relevant because the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases only became significant 40 years ago.
The statement says it is “very likely” that humans are responsible for most of the warming. In IPCC jargon, “very likely” means 90% probable according to expert judgment. Expert judgment is the opinion of the very people who deeply believe in global warming and write IPCC reports. Half of the warming of the last 100 years was in a burst from 1910 to 1940 and that could not have been caused by greenhouse gases, because we weren’t generating enough greenhouse gases then to cause that warming, according to the theories of the global warmers.
Two degrees Celsius will have serious, adverse impacts? A difference of 2 degrees C in the average temperature is what you get if you move from Boston to New York. Besides, according to the computer models, embraced by the believers, the warming will be concentrated near the north and south poles, during the winter and at night, not at high noon in populated areas, as one might otherwise imagine.
So what gives? These professors are not dummies. Why would they subscribe to such a statement? The only explanation is that they have been blinded by their faith. How is it compatible with the spirit of free inquiry to “encourage” everyone to sign a statement endorsing a particular, and obviously defective, point of view? Are they trying to root out dissenters? My opinion is that at Texas A & M they have simply made explicit the demand for ideological conformity that is present in most academic settings where global warming is studied. Getting people to swear to something that is obviously untrue is an excellent test of loyalty. Only unquestioning, blind believers will endorse an untruth to support the cause.
The enemies of the global warming believers are dissenters, effectively infidels or pagans. Scientists who dissent are especially despised and persecuted because global warming is supposedly based on science and thus scientist’s who dissent are a special threat to the faith. To the believers, a scientist who dissents is like a bishop of the Catholic Church who becomes a Mormon.
To see examples of the persecution of dissenting scientists is easy. It’s everywhere on the Internet. The websites DeSmogBlog, Climate Central, The Daily Climate, Real Climate, and Skeptical Science, to name a few examples, criticize scientists who don’t toe the ideological line DeSmogBlog maintains a data base of people it doesn’t like, including scientists. The general theme of these websites is that the infidels are in the pay of oil companies or coal companies. This theory is repeated again and again, but in reality the oil and coal companies are far too timid to actively support global warming dissenters. The few examples of coal or oil companies actually giving money to dissenters or dissenting organizations are so minor that one suspects that the gift was an accident or bureaucratic snafu. The theory of a fossil fuel company conspiracy is untrue, but is constantly repeated because the believers are unable to think of any legitimate reason why anyone would dissent from what to them is revealed truth.
I have had numerous conversations with climate scientists that start off with a promise not to repeat what is said. The closeted dissenters want to make sure that they won’t be outed before they will speak freely. These are people with families and responsibilities that have to take precedence over bucking the establishment. Even scientists with tenure or vested government pensions are very careful. They know that the believers can make the lives of dissenters miserable in ways beyond cutting off their livelihood.
The global warming faith is in big trouble because warming of the Earth stopped 15 years ago. The movement is trying to transition to the idea that CO2 encourages extreme weather events and acidification of the ocean. Let’s hope that a drastic cooling takes place so as to hasten the demise of this sinister and destructive movement.
[First Published by The American Thinker]
LMAO....you have no clue about what I am....have a good one...
Good question, as alarmists have only hurt the issue. Need to look at this from a business viewpoint only. Until then nothing gets done. Moreover the science community stinks. Lazy, self-removed like Obama, and whoring for grant money....well they are a complete disappointment, much like the media.
Yes it is, just not near term. So we need to profit now. Same argument in reverse. All of you somehow cherry pick this topic as sophmoric theorists tend to do. From a business standpoint, we need to assess the costs as they impact known issues. Feeding 9 billion near term. Water issues. Where to live and land values thereof. Volatile weather. Duh......
The issue is the overall cost of what warm oceans, shifting under currents and general increase in temperature in arable land. We have to assess and adapt. That means cleaning up our end of it. The debate has passed you by. The economics of it have taken over, and even the scientists are now considered irrelevant. So why still debate how it occurs? The costs will enact innovation, and that is good. Don't sweat what either scientific community says. Ask the landowner, the farmer and the disaster relief talking heads. There's the truth.
does not matter, we have to account for what parts we CAN control vs what to do about guessing whether the sun is the driver or not. Your logic is totally off on this. If you are right, we still have to assume that we impact the climate, and then innovate, until you can prove you point. However, we still would have to adapt, and the costs end up the same. So why wouldn't we pursue change? Because the head in the sand approach- possibly your approach, is simply cheaper near term. That is understandable, but....short sighted and no longer cost effective.
whoring for grant money, doc so and so stated.......
A link is http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/
I recognize the guy in the picture from the BBC documentary on Global Warming.
John Christy: Climate Change Overview in Six Slides
by MARLO LEWIS on MAY 31, 2013
Yesterday, Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) hosted a climate change conference in a technology park in Fairmont, W.Va.
A mixed panel of warmistas and skeptics featured Marc Marano of Climate Depot, Scott Denning of Colorado State University, Jim Hurrell of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Joe Casola of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense Fund, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, and John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who participated by satellite link.
I emailed Dr. Christy and asked for permission to post his presentation on GlobalWarming.Org; he promptly sent me the files.
Dr. Christy’s Power Point presentation is available here. The accompanying text is available here. The main takeaway points:
Popular scare stories that weather extremes – hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods — are getting worse are not based on fact.
In the U.S., high temperature records are not becoming more numerous.
Climate models significantly overestimated warming during the past 15 years.
Even if climate models were correct, a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would avert only 0.07°C of warming by 2100.
If a policy is not economically sustainable, it’s not politically sustainable.
The climate change impact of enhancing CO2 concentrations has so far been small compared to the public health and biospheric benefits provided by affordable, carbon-based energy
Critical Thinking about Climate Change
By Anthony J. Sadar
The two links at the bottom are worth checking out...a few FACTS worth noting in them...
Getting students to "think critically" has been a serious effort by educators for quite some time. Of course time after time we've seen that in practice the critical thinking desired critically questions traditional and conservative positions. But, if critical thinking is honestly what instructors are striving for, why not expand student thinking by challenging students to apply the technique in new, practical ways?
As a life-long atmospheric and environmental scientist and long-time college-science educator, I am constantly bombarded with material from a variety of sources, including many environmental groups. Take, for instance, what can be labeled "sales" literature that I recently received from the Environmental Defense Fund. The mailing contained a small double-sided poster that was titled "EXTREME WEATHER: THE CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE" on the one side and "TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE" on the other side. I will focus only on the "extreme weather" side here as an example for effective pedagogy.
What if a teacher were to display the Extreme Weather poster in the classroom and ask students to carefully consider its contents? The poster contains 6 text boxes, each describing a consequence of climate change: Wildfires, Extreme Heat, Storms, Droughts, Flooding, and Swelling Oceans. Take the contents of the Storms box, for instance. It claims:
"Scientists have warned that climate change could bring stronger, more destructive storms. Superstorm Sandy -- the largest tropical storm on record -- brought those predictions crashing down on the Eastern U.S. on October 29, 2012. Responsible for at least 147 fatalities, 8.5 million people without electricity and $50 billion in damages, Superstorm Sandy's reign of terror extended inland to the shores of Lake Michigan and northward to Nova Scotia, Canada." [Emphasis in original.]
Each sentence can be evaluated literarily and scientifically.
As literature, students could be challenged to examine the style, flow, and tone of the message. The highlighted first sentence could be assessed for its real substance: Who are these "scientists" who have such a dire warning? How many are we talking about, 2, 10, every scientist? Is the statement too nebulous to even have serious meaning, regardless of the one example of Sandy that follows? Furthermore, phrases like "crashing down" and "reign of terror" could be parsed for their effect on eliciting deep emotions and inciting readers to "doing something to save the planet."
From the science perspective, how is "stronger" and "more destructive" actually determined, including considering measurement techniques, availability of historic records, increased population and property development, and the like? Further, what is meant by "largest tropical storm on record"? In reality, how extensive and extreme was the storm's "reign of terror"? In Pittsburgh, for example, the storm's "fury" was relatively light with some high winds and precipitation. Sandy did become a Hurricane, a category 3 over Cuba, but only a category 1 (the lowest level) off the east coast of the U.S. Does the fact of this low designation give some scope to the storm's overall intensity?
In addition, at the bottom of the poster we see the claim: "Global Warming: More Daily Record Highs in U.S. Than Record Lows." Starting (conveniently) with the 1950s and then jumping to 2009 through 2012, pie charts display proof of this claim. Here students can be encouraged to put statistical skills into play. How does the selection of data and time periods affect results and conclusions? Is the fact that the contiguous U.S. is less than two percent of the earth's surface important to consider? And, more generally, how are statistics used to enlighten or darken reality?
These are but a few suggestions for use in critical thinking in the classroom. The danger in this poster-checking exercise, from a "progressive" educator's point-of-view, is that students who critically evaluate eco-activist pulp may end up not buying what the environmentalists are selling. And that kind of thinking truly is critical.
(Note that excellent resources for teachers and students to access to effectively counter some of the "facts" of the Extreme Weather poster can be found at www.ICECAP.us and www.drroyspencer.com and, in particular, this presentation by Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville: www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/.)
Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and supporter of the Cornwall Alliance. His new book is In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science (Telescope Books, 2012).
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/critical_thinking_about_climate_change.html#ixzz2WlMjUBUk
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
In the following interview, Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, questions the prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and challenges his peers to “take back climate science.” His remarks are his personal opinion based upon 19 years of scientific research.
http://www.examiner.com/article/harvard-astrophysicist-dismisses-agw-theory-challenges-peers-to-take-back-climate-science
It has the power to ruin economies, impoverish countless millions and leave many of us, quite literally, in the dark and cold. We are not talking about alarmist theories of what the future climate may do. We are talking about what the current and ubiquitous green agenda is doing.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3768/big_green_not_big_oil_is_the_enemy#.UbjEBp_3XF4.facebook
This past weekend, snow even fell in parts of Germany at elevations down to 600 meters. (It rained in the California Bay Area last night, too!)
Five colder than normal winters in a row, the coldest March in decades (in the northeast in 130 years) and now the coldest spring in over 40 years…if that doesn’t lead some climate experts to run out of arguments…”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/27/germany-now-recording-coldest-spring-in-40-years-climate-experts-running-out-of-arguments/
This board is for posting information and discussing the issues of Climate Change / Global Warming & Investing Implications
Please provide link(s) when you post something written by someone else.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |