On climate change, Tony Abbott tells Europe to stuff it

April 6, 2014
Tony Abott Australia

Has no time for nonsense

Australia is scheduled to host the annual G20 heads-of-state meeting this year. The G20 is an informal grouping dedicated promoting international financial stability, and the host country gets to set the agenda. For some strange reason Tony Abbott, Australia’s Liberal prime minister, has decided that the G20 should stick to its brief and said that global warming/climate change/ritual denunciations of the Demon CO2 will not be on he agenda.

This has made Europe unhappy.

European Union officials say Australia has become completely “disengaged” on climate change since Tony Abbott was elected in September last year.

They are disappointed with the Prime Minister’s approach, saying Australia was considered an important climate change player under Labor.

One well-placed EU official has likened the change to “losing an ally”.

The EU has a long-running emissions trading scheme which was going to be linked to Australia’s market.

But Mr Abbott has pledged to scrap the carbon price in favour of his direct action policy.

Europe is sceptical of Mr Abbott’s replacement plan.

I can hear the Eurocrats’ tongues clucking and their tut-tutting even now. How are they going to live their taxpayer-funded lifestyles and carry out their dreams of “global eco-social justice,” if more nations follow Australia’s lead? They must be so disappointed in Mr. Abbott. I’m sure he’s losing sleep over it. Perhaps from laughing.

The kicker line is this:

Mr Abbott has said he doesn’t want the G20 agenda “cluttered” by topics that would take the focus from his top priority of economic growth.

Imagine that. A national leader actually concerned about his people’s prosperity and not only unwilling to sacrifice it at the altar of eco-statist group-think, but quite willing to openly “call BS” on the whole farcical charade. I’m sure that John “Climate change is a WMD” Kerry is unhappy. You can guess how that prospect makes me feel.

It’s nice to know that, somewhere in the Anglosphere, there are still nations lead by leaders who don’t have their head stuck firmly up their progressive backsides and who know that their first job is protecting their nation’s interests, not winning a popularity contest in Brussels or Turtle Bay. Canada is another.

I can only look on with envy and hope that, someday, we rejoin them.

via JoNova

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


John Kerry focuses the State Department like a laser… On climate change

March 10, 2014
We're doomed.

We’re doomed.

Because, as we all know, Man-caused climate change the Dread Demon Carbon Dioxide is the “world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” a threat we have to deal with now and with all our efforts. Not nukes in the hands of Iranian mullahs yearning to bring about their version of the Apocalypse. Not jihadist terror groups also jonesing for a few kilotons of their own. Not H-bombs and rockets in the possession of Kim Jong Un, who, when not feeding relatives to the dogs and ordering the execution of Christians, might decide to restart the Korean War. Not Vladimir Putin, who, with thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal, has decided to start dismembering neighboring states and daring the West to do something, anything about it. Not a rising, hyper-nationalist, aggressive, nuclear-armed China, which is rattling sabers at its island neighbors and looking to challenge American supremacy in the western Pacific.

Nope. Global warming is the greatest threat to America, and so Secretary Kerry has ordered our ambassadors around the world to make that their top priority:

US Secretary of State John Kerry has called on American ambassadors around the world to make the fight against climate change a top priority ahead of new UN talks next year.

In his first department-wide policy guidance statement since taking office a year ago, he told his 70,000 staff: “The environment has been one of the central causes of my life.”

“Protecting our environment and meeting the challenge of global climate change is a critical mission for me as our country’s top diplomat,” Kerry said in the letter issued on Friday to all 275 US embassies and across the State Department.

“It’s also a critical mission for all of you: our brave men and women on the frontlines of direct diplomacy,” he added in the document seen by AFP.

He urged all “chiefs of mission to make climate change a priority for all relevant personnel and to promote concerted action at posts and in host countries to address this problem.”

Note that the environment has been one of the “central causes” of John Kerry’s life, his personal mission. Thus the Department of State, charged with conducting the nation’s diplomacy, is now at the service of John Kerry’s personal tilt at the windmill. Silly me for thinking State’s job is to pursue the nation’s interests, not one dull man’s obsessions.

Of course, Kerry probably thinks his cause is the nation’s. It’s solipsism as foreign policy.

I ask again: Have we ever had a more fatuous, dunderheaded  bore as secretary of state than John Kerry?

Via Doug Powers, who provides illustrative examples of the Kerrys’ “Green lifestyle.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The group the ‘Right Climate Stuff’ says there no need to worry about catastrophic global warming

March 8, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Generally I don’t like credentialism, the error of uncritically accepting as true what someone with fancy credentials claims, but the guys who put Americans on the Moon using only the technology of opinions of the 60s and 70s carry a lot of weight with me. I’ll put them up against James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones any day.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon

The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming. Even if we burn all the world’s recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent.

So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon – in a new report.

“It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

View original 1,189 more words


Global warming headline of the year

February 28, 2012

And it’s only February:

Yes, so powerful is the effect of a trace gas that serves mainly as plant food, that it can make the world cooler while simultaneously causing dangerous warming. Call it a one-stop shop for natural disasters, all of which can be reliably blamed on Mankind, and the only solution to which is greater governmental control (1) over our economies and daily lives.

Next up: man-caused climate change causes sun to rise in West and Barack Obama to become a fan of the free market.

Global warming — is there nothing it can’t do?

And is there any way the climate alarmists could make themselves look more fatuous and desperate? Why, yes, there is.

Hat-tip to  WUWT, which notes the headline has since changed, probably out of embarrassment. And here’s a link to the original Georgia Tech press release, which climate-hysteric “journalists” predictably screwed up.

Footnote:
(1) Especially by transnational bureaucracies answerable to no one and supported by global taxes. Winning!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Hard times in the Church of Global Warming

January 31, 2012

Today’s a busy day, but I wanted to share three stories that, taken together, almost make one feel sorry for those who cling bitterly to their faith in the fraud that is anthropogenic global warming …er… dangerous man-caused climate change …no, wait… extreme weather events that are really our fault whatever they want to call it, this week.

First, yet another prediction of DOOM falls flat. Among the various disasters sure to befall us as we pump CO2 (aka, “plant food”) into the atmosphere and Earth takes her revenge in the best Hollywood manner was supposed to be an increase in violent hurricanes.

There’s a small problem: it ain’t happening.

What was learned
The four researchers’ reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these “high-magnitude” events “peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago.” Thereafter, it suggests that they were “relatively rare” with “about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago,” after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which “began around 600 years ago” and has persisted through the present with “below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia.”

What it means
It is instructive to note that over the past century and a half of ever-increasing fossil fuel utilization and atmospheric CO2 buildup, the frequency of the most intense category of hurricanes in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico has been lower than it was over the prior five millennia, which speaks volumes about the climate-alarmist claim that continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to more frequent super cyclones and hurricanes.

Dontcha just hate it when empirical evidence gets in the way of perfectly good religious dogma scientific theory? Granted, this study was only in Florida, but, also in fairness, Florida is one of the places alarmists claimed would be worst-hit by AGW-caused super-storms. Certainly, this is worth testing elsewhere to see if the results hold up.

But wait, there’s more!

Far from the Earth becoming a steam bath thanks to Man’s folly, we may well be headed toward another Little Ice Age, such as that which plagued us from the mid-17th to the mid-19th centuries, when the Hudson and the Thames would freeze-over in winter. Apparently, the sun just won’t cooperate:

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

(h/t the ever-readable Delingpole)

The Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (1), as you may know, have been two of the chief centers for climate alarmism, constantly pushing a message of impending DOOM!!, unless we all submit now to a transnational bureaucracy that will tax and control us all the way to Salvation. Naturally, since the report came from the Met, they feel obliged to explain that it really means nothing and that the power of CO2-induced warming will overwhelm the influence of the sun (2).

So, does this mean AGW is now good, since it will keep us from freezing our tootsies off? I’m so confused…

Finally, a group of 16 (real) scientists co-authored an essay in the Wall Street Journal arguing that while there is no need to panic over global warming, we should decry the corruption of science in the name of “consensus” and, yes, profit:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

(…)

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And the next time you find yourself pitying a disconsolate global-warming cultist, forget it. Laugh and point, instead; it’s much more fun.

Footnotes:
(1) The CRU was also at the center of the Climategate and Climategate II scandals. How anyone can take them seriously after that is beyond me.
(2) Of course, this is the same crowd that claimed our children and grandchildren would not know what snow is, only to see Europe soon thereafter blanketed with record snowfalls. So we know what their predictions are worth.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


More Green dreams shattered

January 10, 2012

Two posts at Watts Up With That bring news that that ought to turn the Gaea-cultists’ sweet dreams into nightmares. First, a study from Civitas in the UK demolishes any idea that wind-power is a practical, economic alternate energy source:

The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.

(Full report here (PDF))

They have to pay lip-service to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there’s no credible evidence of a man-caused greenhouse effect from CO2, because of the success the Green Statists in and outside of government have had in demonizing a gas that’s essentially plant food. The key takeaways, though, are these: because of the unreliability of wind, conventional power stations have to be kept running on standby to handle those times when the turbines aren’t running, either because there’s no wind, or the wind is blowing too fast. That means costs to the consumer skyrocket, as UK residents are finding out. (And we will, too, if Obama and the Eco-lobby in the US have their way.)

But wait, there’s more! It turns out that wind-turbines actually increase the use of CO2 -spewing fossil fuels:

In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]

Ooops…

Second, you know all those fears of “ocean acidification,” the Green Left’s latest environmental bogeyman? Turns out it’s another …say it after me… natural process:

It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats.  Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.

pH varies widely and often, yet life adapts and prospers, in a process that’s gone on for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. No need to invoke the Demon Man and his evil capitalism to frighten people into obedience and submission to a bunch of liberty and economy-killing  transnational bureaucracies.

Though I’m sure they’ll try, anyway.

Keep dreaming, cultists.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Shocker: MSM fakes information in “mutant shark” story to promote climate-alarmist agenda

January 5, 2012

I knew it! I just had a feeling there was something funny going on here!

Remember the story about hybrid sharks I posted about the other day? I mocked it for it’s use of weasel words to scare the reader and push a climate-alarmist, pro-AGW agenda. The story was cited by several news outlets under different bylines (I quoted the original AFP report by writer Amy Coopes), but a Business Insider story by Dina Spector carried (for a while) an even more lurid headline:

“The World’s First Hybrid Shark Is Another Scary Sign That Global Warming Is Real”

At Watt’s Up With That, a commenter wrote directly the researcher cited in the articles, Jess Morgan, to ask her if she really said anything about shark hybridization being possibly related to global warming/climate change. Here’s her answer:

Quote not correct – I have now stated numerous times that it is extremely unlikely that climate change caused the hybridization event – however, the hybrid-Australian blacktips are now being seen further south of their known range (Australain blacktips have a tropical distribution) in cooler waters suggesting that the hybrids may have a wider temperature tolerance than their parents (ie the hybrids may be better adapted to handle changing water temperatures). That long statement is being condensed and printed as your quote below.

(Emphasis in the WUWT post)

Well, well, well. As Arte Johnson might have said, “verrry interesting… but shtinky!” Whether Spector or Coopes or someone else was the original source, and whether the misrepresentation of Morgan’s words was deliberate or unintentionally born of a do-gooder’s enthusiasm, what might have been an interesting bit of scientific reportage was transformed into street-corner preaching for the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, agenda journalism of the worst sort.

It’s a prima-facie example of what Professor Bob Carter has called “noble cause corruption,” the perversion of of scientific (and other) ethics in the service of some cause or vested interest, rather than empirical truth:

Such corruption arises from the belief of a vested interest, or powerful person or group, in the moral righteousness of their cause. For example, a police officer may apprehend a person committing a crime and, stuck with a lack of incriminating evidence, proceed to manufacture it. For many social mores, of which “stopping global warming” and “saving the Great Barrier Reef” are two iconic Australian examples, it has become a common practice for evidence to be manipulated in dishonest ways, under the justification of helping to achieve a worthy end. After all, who wouldn’t want to help to “save the Great Barrier Reef”?

And this is yet another example that journalists are no more immune than cops or scientists — or anyone. It also serves as a healthy reminder to us all to read critically and, when possible, do like the commenter at WUWT and go straight to the source when something catches our eye, rather than relying on authority.

Be sure to read the whole post at WUWT. At the end, you’ll see Business Insider was forced by all the embarrassing questions to change both its headline and article text.

PS: As of this writing, AFP/Yahoo has not corrected the text of the article I originally quoted. Also, be sure to check out Bob Carter’s excellent critique of the “science” behind the theory of dangerous man-caused climate change, “Climate: The Counter-Consensus.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The horrifying price we pay for not signing the Kyoto treaty

January 3, 2012

Curse that George W. Bush (and Bill Clinton) and those global-warming skeptics! Thanks to their betrayal of Mother Gaea, the planet is warming climate is changing and we are faced with the inevitable price of their folly:

Mutant sharks!!! (1)

No, really:

Scientists said on Tuesday that they had discovered the world’s first hybrid sharks in Australian waters, a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change.

The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world, said lead researcher Jess Morgan.

“It’s very surprising because no one’s ever seen shark hybrids before, this is not a common occurrence by any stretch of the imagination,” Morgan, from the University of Queensland, told AFP.

“This is evolution in action.”

Here we go again with more leading propaganda for the climate-alarmist cause: “potential,” a weasel word meant to make us think that something significant may be happening, and that it could be linked to dangerous man-caused climate change, so we need to do something NOW! to stop it. That “something” inevitably requiring economy and liberty-killing government regulation and taxation and massive transnational bureaucracy.

The quoted section is also misleading because it relies on a fallacy: if we’ve never seen something before, it must never have happened before, leaving us with the impression that it must be significant — in this case, for the alarmist cause.

It’s far more likely, in my non-scientific educated layman’s opinion, that natural cycles of climate change lead one shark into the territory of another, closely related species and, when the two met and being in the mood for love, Nature took her course. I’d bet it’s happened countless times before in the history of life on Earth. It may even have been an accident, such as an escape from a fishing net. While the incident itself may be biologically significant and worthy of investigation on its own, to broadly hint that it’s likely the result of man-caused climate change while presenting no evidence of linkage is just Green propaganda, with journalist Amy Coopes as either the propagandist or the willing tool.

Via James Delingpole, whose column is a hilarious must-read.

Footnote:
(1) Anyone who’s familiar with the Arduin roleplaying game knows what’s coming: exploding hydrogen-filled Air Sharks! (Hey, if the alarmists can make lousy projections based on no facts or false facts, so can I.)

UPDATE: More at Pirate’s Cove.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Next time someone tells you CO2 causes global warming…

September 18, 2011

Show them this chart:

(Click on the diagram to enlarge.)

The blue line represents estimates of average global temperature, while the black records the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there’s a correlation (1) here between rising temperate and rising CO2, I sure don’t see it.

The authors at Geocraft point out that only twice in the Earth’s history have CO2 levels been as low as they are now. In fact, if it were to go much lower, photosynthesis would shut off and plant life would die. (2)

Talk about “unintended consequences” should the “Save Gaea” crowd succeed at geo-engineering!

via Power Line.

Footnotes:
(1) In fact, there’s some evidence that a rise in CO2 lags a temperature rise, not precedes it.
(2) Of course, light and heat play major roles, too, but the point is that we are much closer to the minimum than any dangerously high levels.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming causes mental illness?

August 30, 2011

Is there nothing that can’t be blamed on a harmless gas that serves mainly as plant food?

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.

”While cyclones, drought, bushfires and floods are all a normal part of Australian life, there is no doubt our climate is changing,” the report says.

Emphasis added, because that bit is key to the whole fantasy built by this article — that dangerous man-caused climate change is leading to an increase in mental illness.

First, let’s remind ourselves of something. According to one of the high priests of the Cult of Global Warming, Dr. Phil Jones, former Director of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (1), there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Another, Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, once wrote in an email:

“The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

So, I ask the article’s author and the Climate Institute, where is the “unrestrained global warming?”

*crickets*

But let’s get back to the article’s thesis. It rests on two pillars:

  1. That changing climate (2) and severe weather events can lead to stress and various mental illnesses.
  2. That these events and therefore the mental illnesses can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

I have no disagreement with the first point, nor am I making light of the mentally ill. Fire, drought, earthquake, hurricanes, tornadoes… all these and other disasters can lead to the loss of property, loss of a job, injury or even the death of loved ones. Sure, all this can lead to stress and possible mental illness. I’ve seen it myself in the wake the wildfires and temblors that periodically ravage California.

So, sure. A connection between natural disasters and mental illness? No problem.

But it’s in the second point that Erik Jensen Health of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Climate Institute take a Wile E. Coyote-like leap off the cliff of logic. First for assuming anthropogenic global warming exists when it is very much in question. (See also Carter and Plimer.) And second for listing event after event with the underlying assumption that AGW must be the cause, while never presenting a skeptical viewpoint and without ever investigating if  these events fall outside the norms of Australia’s climate history, whether as recorded by human observers or seen in the paleoclimatological record.

This wasn’t an article about science or even the problems of mental illness. It’s just unchallenged assertion after unchallenged assertion, all meant to scare the reader by invoking the dread demon Climate Change. It was nothing more than a fire-and-brimstone sermon at an Al Gore revival meeting:

“Repent, ye racist greenhouse gas-spewing sinners, lest your communities collapse and your children go nuts because of your crimes against Gaea! THOU SHALT DE-CARBONIZE!!”

The SMH should be embarrassed for running such tripe.

via WUWT

Footnotes:
(1) Also a key figure in the Climategate scandal. (See also)
(2) Of course the Earth’s climate (really, a range of regional climates) is changing. We live on a dynamic planet that has never been in a steady state. But there is no evidence showing that any changes now occurring are beyond what has happened in the past. It’s not CO2, folks, it’s the sun.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Another bad day for the Church of Global Warming

August 28, 2011

Don’t you just hate it when empirical results get in the way of a cherished article of faith theory? Not only have none of the predictions of doom made by global warming alarmists come to pass, but now experimental results are lending strength to an alternate theory of global warming and cooling:

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

(…)

To find out, Kirkby and his team are bringing the atmosphere down to Earth in an experiment called Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD). The team fills a custom-built chamber with ultrapure air and chemicals believed to seed clouds: water vapour, sulphur dioxide, ozone and ammonia. They then bombard the chamber with protons from the same accelerator that feeds the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle smasher. As the synthetic cosmic rays stream in, the group carefully samples the artificial atmosphere to see what effect the rays are having.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten.

To be fair, physicist Kirkby then points out that the generated particles are too small for clouds to form around, though he concedes that this experiment is an “important first step” in understanding how cosmic rays might be involved in the creation of clouds.

The significance of this experiment is that it seems to bear directly on the debate over whether CO2 or solar activity is most responsible for global warming and cooling, and thus climate change.

In short, it’s been known for over a century that radiation from outer space, “cosmic rays,” bombard the Earth, and that these rays are affected by the “wind” put out by the sun when it is active, the visible sign of which is an increase in sunspots. When the solar wind is strong, fewer cosmic rays reach the Earth. When it is weak, the number of rays hitting us increases.

Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark theorized that cosmic rays play a role in the formation of clouds, which in turn act as regulators of the Earth’s heat: more clouds means a cooler world, fewer lead to warming. Thus, the theory goes, periods of weak solar activity lead to more cosmic rays, which creates more clouds and a cooling planet. And, of course, the reverse would be true of periods of strong solar activity. Svensmark and others claimed that this would explain the apparent correlation between a warming and cooling Earth and the sunspot cycle. (See, for example, the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum).

While writers such as Warren Meyer at Forbes (and Climate Skeptic) rightfully caution us:

But let’s be careful.  We are basically now in the exact same place with Svensmark that we are with CO2 greenhouse warming.  We know the relevant effects exist in a lab, and are fairly certain they exist in nature, but we are uncertain how sensitive the actual climate is to these effects.  We skeptics criticize alarmists for exaggerating feedbacks and real-world sensitivities to CO2.  We should avoid the same mistake.

…I find Svensmark’s thesis much more plausible, as it does something alarmist theories have not: account for the past. Advocates of man-caused global warming either deny (or hide) or hand-wave away the various warming and cooling periods in the past, unable to plausibly explain how those occurred without the presence of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by Man.

The cosmic-ray theory, on the other hand, seems to correlate nicely not only with the past, but with the observed present in which there has been both a decline in solar activity and no statistically significant warming since 1995.

At the very least, this suggests that the science, no matter what Al Gore says, is far from settled and that we should avoid implementing sweeping policies until we know much, much more.

By which time, I suspect, we’ll recognize them for the poisonous cures to a problem that does not exist that they are and can toss them onto the intellectual trash heap with the “flat earth” theories and Piltdown Man.

via Watt’s Up With That

LINKS: Calder’s Updates has more details. So does The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Follow-up reactions from WUWT. The Telegraph’s James Delingpole goes to town on this development, reminding us that the scientific establishment never wanted this experiment to take place. There’s good scientific practice for you. Meanwhile, this and other recent developments casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming has been hard on the church’s High Priest, Al Gore. From an obscenity-filled tirade to suggesting we need to eat less meat to save the planet to equating skeptics with racists, he’s publicly losing it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I almost feel sorry for global warming cultists. Almost.

July 29, 2011

Pay no attention to facts! The science is settled!

I mean, when one of the central tenets(1) of your faith is shown to be wholly, absolutely wrong and all you can do is stand there slack-jawed and watch like a Philistine as the temple comes crashing down around you, it can be a bit… disheartening.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it? (Emphases added)

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Yeah, you bet they will, if they hold up.(2) Key to the “science” of dangerous man-caused climate change is the idea that the carbon-dioxide man dumps into the atmosphere, rather than being beneficial to plants and otherwise harmless, throws the Earth’s thermostat off and causes dangerous levels of warming — seas rising, ice caps melting, deserts expanding, etc. But not because the CO2 directly warms the atmosphere, though it may do that a teensy bit, but because it traps heat indirectly that should otherwise radiate to space by causing an increase in humidity and cirrus clouds.

See where this is going?

By discovering that the Earth releases far more heat than the UN’s models and releases it far earlier in the process than assumed(3), the central driving mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is shown to be nothing more than a myth, a chimera.

It is shown to be wrong, and with it the whole structure of dangerous man-caused climate change collapses.

Not that this will end this nonsense overnight. Too many people, businesses, and governments have too much false pride, money, and political objectives staked on AGW being true. The British government is enthusiastically driving its economy back into the dark ages in the name of solving  a problem that does not exist. The Obama administration is grasping for control over the US economy via EPA regulations meant to control “carbon pollution.” Alarmist scientists are desperate to preserve their reputations and grant money, and companies like GE and BP are investing a lot to profit from the “green technology” that’s supposedly meant to save us from global warming — and in government mandates that force us to use that technology.

Then there’s the question of faith, coming back to the title of this post. For many, “Green” or “Gaea” is a religion, though most might deny it. Full of loathing for capitalism and seeing an out of control climate as fit punishment for what we’ve done to the Earth, it’s important to them that carbon dioxide really be a demon, rather than plant food. Living the “green life,” rather than simply being sensible stewardship of the environment and not fouling one’s own nest, becomes a quest for virtue and atonement. And, like any zealot, they have to make sure we live their faith, too, whether we want to or not.

Thus Spencer and Braswell’s findings have to be devastating to alarmists who stop to think about them, and I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

Nah. Not even close.

LINKS: Spencer and Braswell’s article in Remote Sensing (PDF). More at Hot Air, Power Line, and Pirate’s Cove.

RELATED: Oh, my. Polar Bear-gate? Fraud in the Warmist community? Say it ain’t so! *cough*Climategate*cough* A caution.

Footnotes:
(1) Pet peeve: people who either misspell the word as “tenent” or misuse “tenant.”
(2) Yes, if. Science is about testable hypotheses, not consensus or settled science. Spencer and Braswell’s results have to be subjected to falsification.
(3) All the UN/IPCC computer models are based on boatloads of assumption, guesswork, and very little (and that often “adjusted”) empirical data, unlike the study at hand. That’s not science, that’s a rigged game.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why the Left’s global warming agenda is flat out wrong

July 10, 2011

Here’s a neat video that summarizes the problems with the Left’s argument in favor of the existence of dangerous Man-caused global warming. (1) It’s narrated by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and AGW-skeptic. I think it frames the issues nicely.

Produced by Encounter Books and Declaration Entertainment, a bit over nine minutes long.

Dr. Spencer has also written a few books you may find of interest. (2)

Footnotes:
(1) Also known as “The problem for which there is darned little evidence and which probably doesn’t exist.”
(2) Thank you, California, for sparing me the shame of earning any of that filthy lucre through those links.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


John Huntsman: scratch one candidate

May 17, 2011

Not that I was likely to vote for him anyway, but this made it a certainty:

You also believe in climate change, right?

This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

Matt [David, Huntsman’s communications director,] says you’ve changed your mind about cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.

So, if 90% of scientists said birds chirping in the morning as the sun rose actually caused the sun to rise, you’d take them seriously, John? If it were me, I’d ask what clown college they got their degrees from.

And who cares if whatever percentage of scientists (In what fields?) agree? Science is not about democracy or consensus; it is about empirically derived data, testable hypotheses, and the simplest explanation that best fits the observed facts. On all those scores, the “theory” of dangerous man-caused climate change fails. There is no detectable evidence for it that signals human origin for climate change. Quite the contrary, there are scads of evidence across many disciplines that climate change is a) always occurring; b) operates in a series of overlapping natural cycles; and c) is not anywhere near to exceeding what’s happened in the past per the geological record.

It sounds like the former governor and former ambassador could stand to read a good book or two on the topic.

Oh, and John, it’s never the moment for cap-and-trade, unless you like statist solutions for problems that don’t exist and are guaranteed to cripple your nation’s economy.

And Huntsman wants me to vote for him for president? Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather vote for someone who understands basic science and economics.

via Hot Air

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


California: Judge suspends implementation of job-killing “greenhouse gas” law

March 22, 2011

A rare victory for commonsense in the Golden State:

Judge places California’s global warming program on hold

A San Francisco superior court judge has put California’s sweeping plan to curb greenhouse gas pollution on hold, saying the state did not adequately evaluate alternatives to its cap-and-trade program.

In a 35-page decision, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith said the Air Resources Board had failed to consider public comments on the proposed measures before adopting the plan, which affects a broad swath of the state’s economy.

In particular, the judge noted, officials gave short shrift to analyzing a carbon fee, or carbon tax, devoting a “scant two paragraphs to this important alternative” to a market-based trading system in their December 2008 plan.

The air board said it would appeal the judge’s decision, which was filed late Friday and released Monday.

Sure, the judge wasn’t rejecting anthropogenic global warming per se, but instead objecting to the board’s lack of attention to public comment and consideration of alternative means to fight a problem that does not exist*. But, still, this functions as a temporary restraining order on a bill that would only do further damage to this state’s already gut-shot economy. The judge may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but it’s still the right thing.

*Okay, I may have editorialized a bit with those last few words.

ADDENDUM: Even if one thinks there’s some validity to the theory of AGW, the idea that California by itself can make a significant impact in the face of gross polluters such as China is laughable. AB32 is patent medicine meant only to make the Green Statists feel good about themselves, even though it’s laced with poison.

via Watt’s Up With That?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The irrelevance of the United Nations, as illustrated by the Secretary General

March 2, 2011

There are many examples to choose from, if one wishes to show why the United Nations is a waste of taxpayer money. Its record in resolving international crises is abysmal: Bosnia, anyone? And don’t get me started on its corruption by and covering for Saddam Hussein in the run-up to Gulf  War II. Oh, but what about human rights, you say? Isn’t the UN set to expel Libya from the Human Rights Commission? Aside from asking why Libya was ever on anything named “Human Rights Council,” take a minute to look over its membership and then try to tell me the HRC is anything but a bad joke — on the world.

Anyway, if you want something that captures the essence of the uselessness of the United Nations, it’s this: the Secretary General, Mr. Ban-Ki Moon, has come to Hollywood to lobby the film industry to make movies about global warming:

We kid you not. As the real world seemed to be coming apart at the seams, Ban Ki-moon swept into Tinseltown during Oscar week to urge the entertainment industry to produce more movies, TV shows and music about — drumroll, please — global warming.

During a daylong forum, some 400 writers, directors, producers, agents and network executives were briefed on recent heat waves, floods, fires and droughts that have been blamed on man-made climate change.

With all that’s wrong in the world today, this feckless buffoon has gone before our cultural movers and shakers (who are all too willing to buy in) to beg for propaganda films about a problem that does not exist. But, hey, if it works and he convinces everyone to SAVE THE PLANET NOW!!!, it will mean lots of new transnational bureaucratic jobs, international conferences in swanky resorts,  and even more taxpayer money funneled to, you guessed it, UN bureaucrats. What a deal! (For the UN)

Meanwhile, Libya’s collapsed into civil war against a brutal tyrant and Somali pirates are murdering travelers on the high seas — and giving money to allies of al Qaeda, a global terrorist organization. Oh, and Mexico is headed toward becoming a failed state while North Korea and Iran build nuclear weapons.

But Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon has his priorities.

And you’re paying 22% of his tab.

via Fausta

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


But… But… But I thought wind power would save the planet!

February 17, 2011

Apparently they don’t do well in harsh winters, which isn’t good for their customers:

A $200-million wind farm in northern New Brunswick is frozen solid, cutting off a supply of renewable energy for NB Power.

The 25-kilometre stretch of wind turbines, 70 kilometres northwest of Bathurst, has been shut down for several weeks due to heavy ice covering the blades. GDF Suez Energy, the company that owns and operates the site, is working to return the windmills to working order, a spokeswoman says.

“We can’t control the weather,” Julie Vitek said from company headquarters in Houston.

No, really?

Let’s see. Wind power has been sold to us by the Green Statists as one of the perfect solutions for a problem that does not exist, anthropogenic global warming. Trouble is, wind turbines are no good when the wind is too slow or too fast. They still require old-fashioned electrical power stations to be online constantly as backups. They are sound neither from an economic nor an engineering standpoint. The need lavish subsidies to turn a profit at all.

And now they can’t keep the heat running when you need it most.

Genius.

via Fausta

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Merry Christmas, Global-Warming Cultists!

December 25, 2010

Here’s my present to you: research showing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are consistent with the warming and cooling of the oceans, with about a 250-year lag:

We find that the ~250-year lag time is consistent. CO2 levels peaked 250 years after the Medieval Warm Period peaked and the Little Ice Age cooling began and CO2 bottomed out 240 years after the trough of the Little Ice Age. In a fashion similar to the glacial/interglacial lags in the ice cores, the plant stomata data indicate that CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes by about 250 years over the last millennium. The rise in CO2 that began in 1860 is most likely the result of warming oceans degassing.

Be sure to click through for all the pretty charts and analysis.

See? Aren’t I nice to you? 

via Heliogenic Climate Change


Green scam falls apart

November 8, 2010

The Goracle hates failure!

The Chicago Climate Exchange, set up in anticipation of a huge market trading carbon credits and which had as an adviser one Al Gore, has failed.

Darn. Breaks my heart.  The biggest racket since the mob figured out they could make money from Prohibition, and now… bupkus.

LINKS: More at Big Journalism.


Global warming skeptics support slavery

October 28, 2010

Don’t take my word for it; ask the guy with the PhD. According to Dr. Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan, those of us who don’t support the (increasingly shot full of holes) theory of anthropogenic global warming are the moral equivalent of those who defended slavery:

The American public is still mired in doubt about the science and the economics of climate change, he said, but is ready for the kind of social shift that eventually brought success to the abolition movement of the 18th and 19th centuries.

“Just as few people saw a moral problem with slavery in the 18th century, few people in the 21st century see a moral problem with the burning of fossil fuels,” Professor Hoffman said. “Will people in 100 years look at us with the same incomprehension we feel toward 18th-century defenders of slavery?”

So, let’s see. In recent years, those of us who are skeptical of climate change as anything other than a poorly understood series of natural cycles have been called “deniers,” a deliberate comparison to Holocaust denial; we’ve been labeled traitors to the planet; and it’s been suggested we be put on trial. I’m sure I’m forgetting something. Regardless, having resorted all these smear cards, why not deal the “slavery card,” too? It’s an easy way to delegitimize the skeptics, make one feel all warm and superior inside, and keeps Green Statists from having to deal with the actual science.

I could go on a real rant here, but The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway beat me to it. I’ll give him the final word on our Enlightened Moral Superior:

I don’t know what’s more offensive, the idea that skepticism of global warming is a moral injustice on par with slavery, or the fact that those people pushing global warming think of themselves in such incredibly self-righteous terms where they’re the ones saving humanity from itself. If Environmentalists wonder why their credibility is shot, perhaps they should stop with the doomsday propaganda and come up with a better solution to the global warming problem than making my monthly utility bills cost more than the gross national product of Burkina Faso.

My only disagreement is that there is no global warming problem at all. Other than that, spot on.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,164 other followers