An engineering company specializing in ecological projects has a plan to turn the Eiffel Tower into a giant green “jungle” covered in 600,000 plants.
From Walter Russell Mead: Weather, not climate.
Those Via Meadia readers old enough to remember Hurricane Katrina can no doubt remember the many moralizing predictions of smug and condescending green climate hacktivists that followed: global warming was going to mean more hurricanes and bigger ones. Our coasts were toast; it was baked in the cake. The rising sea level combined with the inexorably rising number of major hurricanes were going to knock the climate skeptics out of the park.
Well, no. Andrew Revkin has called attention to this post from Roger Pielke’s blog which shows that as of today it has been 2,226 days since the last major hurricane (Category 3 or higher) hit the US mainland. Unless a big hurricane hits this winter, it means we are on track to break a 100 year record for the longest gap between major hurricanes hitting the coast. (The last Big Calm was between 1900 and 1906.) [emphasis mine]
The gravy train is ending: Canada has joined the United States in raising objections to a planned $100-billion a year climate fund.
I like this quote describing the U.S.’s objections:
Heading into the United Nations climate conference in Durban this week, the United States has made it clear it will not support the current proposals for the climate fund over concerns about how the money would be raised, lack of verification of how it is spent, and an unwillingness of major emerging countries to commit to legally binding emissions reduction. [emphasis mine]
Other than these minor points, everything about the fund is above board and legitimate.
Two stories today from the Climategate 2 archives:
The first describes how Andrew Revkin, the Times’ primary environmental reporter, was entirely in the global warming camp, and worked with these corrupt scientists to push their agenda. It also quotes, from the climategate emails, Revkin’s contempt for anyone who expressed skepticism about the IPCC process and global warming.
The second describes how the BBC teamed up with these same corrupt scientists to keep any skepticism of global warming from being aired at any time.
» Read more
Further analysis of the climategate 2 emails: Michael Mann hides the decline.
Why Climategate 2 is important: a close look at one entire email thread, and how it proves these global warming scientists were trying to suppress knowledge.
The international development agency Oxfam is screaming disaster..
This year’s food shortages and famine are a sign of what’s to come if the world doesn’t get climate change under control, Oxfam is warning. The international development agency made a call for action the day before the UN kicks off its annual climate change conference in Durban, South Africa. . . .
» Read more
I had just posted, as a comment, a link to a searchable database of the climategate emails, including both the 2009 as well as the just released emails. However, I think it makes sense to post this separately, on the main page of Behind the Black, to make sure all my readers will see it and thus have access to it. The link is here.
The gravy train might finally be ending: The Obama administration is blocking a UN $100 billion climate fund.
Now the European carbon-trading market is crashing.
“Perpetuating rubbish”: a detailed analysis of one part of the new climategate emails.
I think the first comment sums up the tragedy of this situation very clearly:
So privately they said the series had a “dubious relationship to temperature”, but publicly they said it was “well calibrated”? I am just about to the point of never trusting any scientists at all.
The willingness of the climate field to whitewash the fraud and corruption revealed by the first set of climategate emails is now haunting this field badly. Why should anyone believe anything any global warming scientist ever says? It is very clear that too many of them put politics above science in their work.
The uncertainty of science: New data suggests the global climate is not as sensitive to changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as predicted by past climate models.
