There goes another Warmist, eco-zealot narrative. It seems the ice isn’t vanishing, after all.
This is excerpted from a longer post at Power Line discussing a report pointing out the benefits of CO2 (hint: it’s plant food) and the nonsensical hysteria climate cultists try to spread about it. Proving the point about roads paved with good intentions, the insane pursuit of biofuels has lead to nearly 200,000 premature deaths:
Between 1990–92 and 2011–13, although global population increased by 31% to 7.1 billion, available food supplies increased by 44%. Consequently, the population suffering from chronic hunger declined by 173 million despite a population increase of 1.7 billion. This occurred despite the diversion of land and crops from production of food to the production of biofuels. According to one estimate, in 2008 such activities helped push 130–155 million people into absolute poverty, exacerbating hunger in this most marginal of populations. This may in turn have led to 190,000 premature deaths worldwide in 2010 alone. Thus, ironically, a policy purporting to reduce [global warming] in order to reduce future poverty and hunger only magnified these problems in the present day.
In the United States we’ve seen increases in the prices of food due in part to cropland being diverted to biofuels, instead of producing feed for cattle or vegetables for the produce sections of our local markets. But, we’re lucky: thanks to a marvelous transportation system, food can still be brought in by land and sea. For the subsistence farmers described above, it’s not an inconvenience: it’s a matter of life and death.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: Heaven help us against those trying to “save” us.
PS: The whole report is available at Watt’s Up With That.
Well, how do you like that? Put more CO2 (aka “plant food”) into the atmosphere, combine that with the end of a drought and some human ingenuity, and suddenly another prediction by the global warming prophets of doom goes poof:
The study shows that the West African Sahel – part of the semiarid strip just south of the Sahara desert, which spans the African continent from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea – has been steadily “regreening” since the severe droughts of the 1970s and 1980s which killed more than 100,000 people.
Among the reasons for the “regreening” are increased rainfall, the beneficial effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant growth and the ingenuity of farmers (“community-led conservation efforts) in this harsh, marginal region.
Skeptics have long been aware of these beneficial side effects of “global warming” – see, for example, this report from 2011 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation called The Sahel Is Greening.
I swear these people make it too easy: they issue scaremongering warnings of doom-Doom-DOOM!!, and all we have to do is wait for the Earth (not their goddess, Gaea) to stick a grapefruit in their face. Atmospheric hot spot? Nope. Disappearance of snow? Nope. Continued, unstoppable, catastrophic warming all due to Mankind’s folly? Er… um… Well?
Good thing they have their faith to keep them strong in these trying times:
Visual proof this is a bad drought. Our water tables are recharged by the runoff from the mountains when the snow melts. No snow = no runoff = groundwater runs out.
From the UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada in 2015 was at the lowest level in the past 500 years, according to a new report led by University of Arizona researchers.
These two natural-color satellite images of the snow cover in the Sierra Nevada in California and Nevada show the last year with average winter snowfall, 2010, compared with 2015 — a year that had the lowest snowpack in 500 years. The images were taken by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
The team’s research is the first to show how the 2015 snowpack compares with snowpack levels for the previous five centuries.
“Our study really points to the extreme character of the 2014-15 winter. This is not just unprecedented over 80 years — it’s unprecedented over 500 years,” said Valerie Trouet, an associate professor of dendrochronology at the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring…
View original post 710 more words
Two videos today from Prager University, both narrated by Dr. Patrick Moore, a PhD in Ecology from the University of British Columbia and one of the founders of the environmental activist group Greenpeace.
In the first, Dr. Moore discusses the nonsense surrounding the almost superstitious dread of carbon dioxide among climate alarmists. Notably, and as has been mentioned several times on this blog and elsewhere, Dr. Moore points out the inconvenient truth that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has in the past been up to ten times higher than it is now, without the world ending. That, in fact, we are still in an era of relatively low CO2 concentrations. Also, he mentions a truth so obvious that only climate hysterics need to be told it: CO2 is plant food. In fact, the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 4-5 higher than it is now. We can already see the benefits of increasing CO2 as the Earth grows greener, contrary to the Cult of Climate Change’s dire predictions.
But enough of me ranting. Here’s Dr. Moore, not ranting:
The second video is Dr. Moore’s tale of how he came to be a founder of Greenpeace, in its day an organization dedicated to a mix of scientific conservationism and anti-war politics. He relates how the movement changed over time to an anti-scientific, almost anti-human dogma, which at its farcical worst declared banning the element chlorine as a goal, going so far as to label it “the Devil’s element.”
Nothing religious or cultish about that.
Here’s Dr. Moore explaining why he finally had to leave Greenpeace:
That’s the trouble with organizations that get captured by their most ardent activists: they drive out the moderates who could act as a brake on their worst tendencies, which, left unchecked, wreck their credibility.
Prager University has put out a new video for Earth Day to remind us of how much the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuels has improved our world:
Though I think the host should have made a more obvious connection between all the wonderful developments of the last 300 years and the use of fossil fuels, the point made is still true: without gasoline, coal, and oil, we’d be living much poorer, more brutish lives. And he should have spent more time on how advances in technology –themselves made possible by fossil fuels– have helped us deal with the environmental problems created earlier in the industrial age.
But these are quibbles; his main argument is a valid one — the Green hostility toward fossil fuels goes beyond a reasonable concern for the environment and becomes a hostility to the very things that have made our lives so much better.
Because, you see, he’s spending the money on actual environmental projects, rather than giving it to UN bureaucrats who will attend meetings, issue reports, travel in Mercedes…. and ask for more money.
And that won’t do:
This is tin-tacks taken back from the Green Blob, but cheer it on. The Abbott government apparently wants to use the money to protect rainforests, instead of given to green-bureaucrats. Enjoy the apoplexy among greens and environmentalists. Excuse me, I think your priorities are showing!
“The Federal Government has slashed funding to a key United Nations environment agency by more than 80 per cent, stunning environmental groups ahead of a global climate change summit in Peru.
The ABC has learned the Government cut $4 million from the UN Environment Program (UNEP), which provides advice on environmental policies and climate change negotiations.”
Instead of giving $1.2m a year, we are giving $200,000. True to form, the green-blobby is “stunned” and immediately responds with a higher ambit claim. There is a scale for everything, and too much is never enough:
“Environmental groups are stunned, especially because according to UNEP’s Voluntary Indicative Scale of Assessments, Australia should have contributed around $2.2 million next year.”
The money is going to the environment, and environmental groups hate that:
“Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the Government had to “make choices in a difficult budget environment”.”
“‘I would imagine that most Australians would see putting $12 million into coral reef protection within our region and combating illegal logging of the great rainforests of the Asia-Pacific as a pretty good investment compared with $4 million for bureaucratic support within the UN system,’ Mr Hunt said.”
The appropriate response when the government takes money from bureaucrats and uses it to protect reefs and rainforest is to call it “anti-environment”, “anti-nature”, “anti-science”, and “denier”.
Read the rest for the laugh-worthy reaction from the head of the Australian Green Party.
Meanwhile, here in America, President Obama has signed an agreement with China that uses the climate-change fraud to satisfy his radical Green supporters and force energy price hikes here. Sigh.
This leads to the inevitable question: “Abbott 2016?”