Tag: environmentalism
“An inconvenient untruth.”
A draft of the next IPCC climate report has arrived, and it is more of the same: We are all gonna die!
A draft of the next IPCC climate report has arrived, and it is more of the same: We are all gonna die!
An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace. The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors. The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.
I love the way the journalist here uses the term “climate change doubters.” Throughout the story it is applied to skeptical scientists in such a way as to imply that any doubt about these conclusions is obviously something to snicker at and to ignore.
As for the claim that the seas will rise three feet in the next 90 years, note that the level of sea rise has been consistently between 2 and 3 millimeters per year for the past half century, even as we have been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the climate has supposedly warmed. At 3mm per year, the seas will only rise 270 millimeters by the end of the century, or just under 11 inches, not three feet as claimed by this new IPCC report.
A draft of the next IPCC climate report has arrived, and it is more of the same: We are all gonna die!
An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace. The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors. The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.
I love the way the journalist here uses the term “climate change doubters.” Throughout the story it is applied to skeptical scientists in such a way as to imply that any doubt about these conclusions is obviously something to snicker at and to ignore.
As for the claim that the seas will rise three feet in the next 90 years, note that the level of sea rise has been consistently between 2 and 3 millimeters per year for the past half century, even as we have been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the climate has supposedly warmed. At 3mm per year, the seas will only rise 270 millimeters by the end of the century, or just under 11 inches, not three feet as claimed by this new IPCC report.
The Obama administration is now insisting that the proper term for climate change is “carbon pollution.”
If it ain’t working then the solution is to change the name! The Obama administration is now insisting that the proper term for climate change is “carbon pollution.”
First it was “global warming.” Then it was “climate change.” Then it was “global climate disruption.” Now, “carbon pollution,” which is the most ridiculous term of all, since all life on the planet is made from carbon. Moreover, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide, which means (assuming the “carbon” in this silly term refers to CO2) we are therefore all polluters. Off with our heads! And the plant life that we all depend on breathes carbon dioxide and could not exist without it.
If it ain’t working then the solution is to change the name! The Obama administration is now insisting that the proper term for climate change is “carbon pollution.”
First it was “global warming.” Then it was “climate change.” Then it was “global climate disruption.” Now, “carbon pollution,” which is the most ridiculous term of all, since all life on the planet is made from carbon. Moreover, all animal life exhales carbon dioxide, which means (assuming the “carbon” in this silly term refers to CO2) we are therefore all polluters. Off with our heads! And the plant life that we all depend on breathes carbon dioxide and could not exist without it.
A climate scientist demands neutrality from climate scientists.
Pigs fly! A climate scientist demands political neutrality from climate scientists.
I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I’ve found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.
They call me an “honest broker”, asking for “more Dr Edwards and fewer zealous advocates”. Crucially, they say this even though my scientific views are absolutely mainstream.
But it’s not just about improving trust. In this highly politicised arena, climate scientists have a moral obligation to strive for impartiality. We have a platform we must not abuse. For a start, we rarely have the necessary expertise. I absolutely disagree with Gavin that we likely know far more about the issues involved in making policy choices than [our] audience.
She might believe in human-caused global warming, but she also has the sense to recognize the vast uncertainties and political difficulties involved in this issue. The full title of her blog, All Models are Wrong is “All models are wrong, but some are useful. A grownup discussion about how to quantify uncertainties in modeling climate change and its impacts, past and future.”
Pigs fly! A climate scientist demands political neutrality from climate scientists.
I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I’ve found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.
They call me an “honest broker”, asking for “more Dr Edwards and fewer zealous advocates”. Crucially, they say this even though my scientific views are absolutely mainstream.
But it’s not just about improving trust. In this highly politicised arena, climate scientists have a moral obligation to strive for impartiality. We have a platform we must not abuse. For a start, we rarely have the necessary expertise. I absolutely disagree with Gavin that we likely know far more about the issues involved in making policy choices than [our] audience.
She might believe in human-caused global warming, but she also has the sense to recognize the vast uncertainties and political difficulties involved in this issue. The full title of her blog, All Models are Wrong is “All models are wrong, but some are useful. A grownup discussion about how to quantify uncertainties in modeling climate change and its impacts, past and future.”
Despite the complete lack of evidence, the Obama administration on Monday blamed floods, wildfires, and power outages on global warming.
Justifying pork: Despite the complete lack of evidence, the Obama administration on Monday blamed floods, wildfires, and power outages on global warming.
Want the real reason the White House is making these doomsday claims? They want to fund $1 trillion in new government spending.
Justifying pork: Despite the complete lack of evidence, the Obama administration on Monday blamed floods, wildfires, and power outages on global warming.
Want the real reason the White House is making these doomsday claims? They want to fund $1 trillion in new government spending.
In order to protect one species of owl, the Forest Service is going to kill thousands of another species.
Environmental idiocy: In order to protect one species of owl, the Forest Service is going to kill thousands of another species.
Environmental idiocy: In order to protect one species of owl, the Forest Service is going to kill thousands of another species.
Modern Journalism: Retyping press releases
This post is really about the monthly NOAA update of the solar cycle, but before I do that, I must note some really bad science journalism in connection with that solar minimum.
This week NASA released a poorly written press release describing how the Sun’s magnetic field flips whenever it goes through solar maximum, the period when sunspot activity reaches its maximum. The article gave the incorrect impression that this “flip” will be some grand singular and spectacular event and when it happens the consequences to Earth could be significant. Then it buried this most important little detail to the article’s final paragraphs:
» Read more
New York’s “greenest” skyscraper turns out to be its biggest energy hog.
New York’s “greenest” skyscraper turns out to be its biggest energy hog.
Maybe the building’s problem is that it has Al Gore as one of its tenants.
Seriously, the article illustrates well “the law of unintended consequences.” You pass a law or regulation intended to do x, and discover that people instead manipulate the law or regulation to get y instead.
New York’s “greenest” skyscraper turns out to be its biggest energy hog.
Maybe the building’s problem is that it has Al Gore as one of its tenants.
Seriously, the article illustrates well “the law of unintended consequences.” You pass a law or regulation intended to do x, and discover that people instead manipulate the law or regulation to get y instead.
New satellite data covering the period from 2000 to 2011 now shows that the atmosphere traps far less heat than predicted by every global warming climate model.
The uncertainty of science: New satellite data covering the period from 2000 to 2011 now shows that the atmosphere traps far less heat than predicted by every global warming climate model.
The models had predicted that the increase in CO2 — which is insufficient on its own to cause a greenhouse effect — would cause feedbacks with water (the atmosphere’s real greenhouse gas) that would increase the amount of atmospheric humidity which would thus trap heat in the atmosphere and raise the global temperature. The new data instead shows the opposite. The atmosphere is not trapping any heat. The greenhouse effect is not occurring as predicted.
The uncertainty of science: New satellite data covering the period from 2000 to 2011 now shows that the atmosphere traps far less heat than predicted by every global warming climate model.
The models had predicted that the increase in CO2 — which is insufficient on its own to cause a greenhouse effect — would cause feedbacks with water (the atmosphere’s real greenhouse gas) that would increase the amount of atmospheric humidity which would thus trap heat in the atmosphere and raise the global temperature. The new data instead shows the opposite. The atmosphere is not trapping any heat. The greenhouse effect is not occurring as predicted.
“Global warming hasn’t stopped, it’s just hiding.”
The routine lowering of past climate data to make today’s temperatures seem hotter.
More climate fraud: The routine lowering of past climate data to make today’s temperatures seem hotter.
Almost all past temperatures have been adjusted downward, compared with the temperatures that were actually recorded at the time. During the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, when many record high temperatures were recorded, the readings have been adjusted downward by, generally speaking, one to one and a half degrees. These adjustments stop abruptly in the late 1990s. The effect of the adjustments is to make the past look cooler in relation to the present.
This kind of manipulation of data, changing the historical record after the fact, is done ALL THE TIME by the climate alarmists who crank out all of the data that are reported on in the newspapers. And the adjustments are always the same: they make the past cooler, so that the present will look warmer, in order to support their power-grabbing climate hysteria agenda. Whenever you hear on the radio that a temperature reading is the “warmest ever” in a particular place, you can reasonably assume that the “warmest ever” title was conferred by falsely reporting temperature readings from past decades.
And as Hinderaker properly concludes, “This is, in my view, the biggest scandal in the history of science. I can’t think of any competitor that could even come close.”
More climate fraud: The routine lowering of past climate data to make today’s temperatures seem hotter.
Almost all past temperatures have been adjusted downward, compared with the temperatures that were actually recorded at the time. During the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, when many record high temperatures were recorded, the readings have been adjusted downward by, generally speaking, one to one and a half degrees. These adjustments stop abruptly in the late 1990s. The effect of the adjustments is to make the past look cooler in relation to the present.
This kind of manipulation of data, changing the historical record after the fact, is done ALL THE TIME by the climate alarmists who crank out all of the data that are reported on in the newspapers. And the adjustments are always the same: they make the past cooler, so that the present will look warmer, in order to support their power-grabbing climate hysteria agenda. Whenever you hear on the radio that a temperature reading is the “warmest ever” in a particular place, you can reasonably assume that the “warmest ever” title was conferred by falsely reporting temperature readings from past decades.
And as Hinderaker properly concludes, “This is, in my view, the biggest scandal in the history of science. I can’t think of any competitor that could even come close.”
Close-minded politicians everywhere!
Despite the repeated news in recent weeks that the evidence for global warming is slim, or at least confused, today we have two elected officials and one appointed official screaming that the sky will fall if we don’t do something, including spending billions of dollars of other people’s money.
First we have our friend Al Gore, who was in Washington, DC to speak at an environmental event put on by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island). Whitehouse you might remember was the senator who, even before the injured and dead had been counted from the terrible Moore, Oklahoma tornado, started blaming Republicans for the tornado because they weren’t doing more to stop global warming.
» Read more
Despite the decline in Arctic sea ice during the past decade the population of polar bears in the Davis Strait has skyrocketed.
Despite the decline in Arctic sea ice during the past decade the population of polar bears in the Davis Strait has skyrocketed.
The increase might have even placed the population at the carrying capacity for the region.
In related news, the New York Times has finally admitted to the fact that the climate stopped warming fifteen years ago.
At the same time, the reporter has a great deal of trouble dealing with this fact, mainly because he refuses to recognize that the theories of carbon-dioxide-caused global warming might be mistaken.
Despite the decline in Arctic sea ice during the past decade the population of polar bears in the Davis Strait has skyrocketed.
The increase might have even placed the population at the carrying capacity for the region.
In related news, the New York Times has finally admitted to the fact that the climate stopped warming fifteen years ago.
At the same time, the reporter has a great deal of trouble dealing with this fact, mainly because he refuses to recognize that the theories of carbon-dioxide-caused global warming might be mistaken.
Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”
Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”
[E]ssentially, the government is now incorporating newer climate models that capture the future damage from sea-level rise more explicitly. Those models also project that agriculture will suffer more heavily in a hotter world. So, in its central estimate, the federal government now assumes a ton of carbon-dioxide emitted in 2013 does roughly $36 in damage, rather than its previous estimate of $22, with the value rising each year.
Meanwhile, new data also suggests increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might actually be beneficial, not damaging.
Shouldn’t the EPA and the Obama administration get their heads out of the sand?
Despite the failure of any climate model to predict the climate, the Obama administration is increasing the cost and strictness of regulation because of what it sees as the “social cost of carbon dioxide.”
[E]ssentially, the government is now incorporating newer climate models that capture the future damage from sea-level rise more explicitly. Those models also project that agriculture will suffer more heavily in a hotter world. So, in its central estimate, the federal government now assumes a ton of carbon-dioxide emitted in 2013 does roughly $36 in damage, rather than its previous estimate of $22, with the value rising each year.
Meanwhile, new data also suggests increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might actually be beneficial, not damaging.
Shouldn’t the EPA and the Obama administration get their heads out of the sand?
The predictions of seventy-three climate models are compared to real data and not one comes even close to reality.
The predictions of seventy-three climate models are compared to real data and not one comes even close to reality.
Remember: computer modeling is not science research. It does not tell us anything about the actual climate. It is instead theoretical work useful for trying to understand what the data actual is telling us.
Computer modeling, however, is totally useless if it doesn’t successfully mimic that actual data. Since all of these climate models fail to do this, they very clearly show that they do not understand the climate itself, and are not valid theories to explain its processes. If the scientists who created them were honest about these results, they would immediately go back to the drawing board and rewrite these models.
I unfortunately have serious doubts they will do this.
The predictions of seventy-three climate models are compared to real data and not one comes even close to reality.
Remember: computer modeling is not science research. It does not tell us anything about the actual climate. It is instead theoretical work useful for trying to understand what the data actual is telling us.
Computer modeling, however, is totally useless if it doesn’t successfully mimic that actual data. Since all of these climate models fail to do this, they very clearly show that they do not understand the climate itself, and are not valid theories to explain its processes. If the scientists who created them were honest about these results, they would immediately go back to the drawing board and rewrite these models.
I unfortunately have serious doubts they will do this.
The EPA has acknowledged that it illegally released personal information of farmers to several leftwing environmental organizations.
The EPA has acknowledged that it illegally released personal information of farmers to several leftwing environmental organizations.
Mistakes do happen, but like the IRS scandal, this mistake was all one way, helpful to the left and harmful to their opponents. And like the IRS scandal, this one way harm suggests this was not a mistake, but quite intentional.
The EPA has acknowledged that it illegally released personal information of farmers to several leftwing environmental organizations.
Mistakes do happen, but like the IRS scandal, this mistake was all one way, helpful to the left and harmful to their opponents. And like the IRS scandal, this one way harm suggests this was not a mistake, but quite intentional.
The Sun makes the scientists look good — for now!
NOAA today released its monthly update of the Sun’s sunspot cycle, covering the period of May 2013. As I have done every month for the past three years, I have posted this latest graph, with annotations to give it context, below the fold.
For the third month in a row, the Sun has shown increased sunspot activity. Though the total activity continues to remain well below all predictions, it appears that the Sun is going to produce a double-peaked maximum, as predicted by some solar scientists back in March. Be aware however that this prediction isn’t based on any real understanding of the physical processes that produce sunspots but is instead based on the fact that the Sun has sometimes done this in the past. If you asked these scientists why the Sun sometimes produces a double-peaked maximum they will wave their arms about but will really not be able to tell you.
A new study suggests a link between CFCs, the ozone hole, and climate change.
The uncertainty of science: A new study suggests a link between CFCs, the ozone hole, and climate change.
“Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”
The data is interesting, though hardly as conclusive Lu claims. It does illustrate again how incredibly complex climate science is, and how many factors influence it that we can’t yet completely quantify.
The uncertainty of science: A new study suggests a link between CFCs, the ozone hole, and climate change.
“Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What’s striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.”
The data is interesting, though hardly as conclusive Lu claims. It does illustrate again how incredibly complex climate science is, and how many factors influence it that we can’t yet completely quantify.
Based both on computer models and satellite data a team of scientists has concluded that the increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making arid regions greener.
Based both on computer models and satellite data a team of scientists has concluded that the increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making arid regions greener.
This study illustrates one possibility that is always ignored in the climate debates — that there is a really good chance that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial.
Based both on computer models and satellite data a team of scientists has concluded that the increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is making arid regions greener.
This study illustrates one possibility that is always ignored in the climate debates — that there is a really good chance that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial.
To the horror of global warming alarmists, the climate refuses to warm.
To the horror of global warming alarmists, the climate refuses to warm.
For those who are regular readers here at Behind the Black, none of the data described by Peter Ferrara in this article will be a surprise. I have been reporting these facts for years. However, the article provides a nice outline of what we know, and includes this sentence near the end that sums up the true problem we face:
Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?
To the horror of global warming alarmists, the climate refuses to warm.
For those who are regular readers here at Behind the Black, none of the data described by Peter Ferrara in this article will be a surprise. I have been reporting these facts for years. However, the article provides a nice outline of what we know, and includes this sentence near the end that sums up the true problem we face:
Has there ever in history been such an almighty disconnect between observable reality and the delusions of a political class that is quite impervious to any rational discussion?
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Blaming turbulent weather on global warming Is extreme nonsense.
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Blaming turbulent weather on global warming is extreme nonsense.
Be sure to read the interview all the way through. The second half is especially devastating in its educated attack on the global warming crowd.
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Blaming turbulent weather on global warming is extreme nonsense.
Be sure to read the interview all the way through. The second half is especially devastating in its educated attack on the global warming crowd.
Who are the real climate deniers?
Who are the real climate deniers?
I very much dislike the use of the term “deniers”, no matter who it is applied to, since it lowers the civility of the discussion. Nonetheless, the article is a nice thumbnail summary of the climate field, both in terms of the players as well as the areas of uncertainty and confusion. It also provides a clear illustration of the contrast between the two sides and how they tend to discuss these issues, best summarized by this quote:
It is also telling that in a radio debate between Harris [the skeptic] and Rhynas [the global warming advocate] that took place following Rhynas’s initial presentation, the former agreed to take questions from the public but the latter refused.
Who are the real climate deniers?
I very much dislike the use of the term “deniers”, no matter who it is applied to, since it lowers the civility of the discussion. Nonetheless, the article is a nice thumbnail summary of the climate field, both in terms of the players as well as the areas of uncertainty and confusion. It also provides a clear illustration of the contrast between the two sides and how they tend to discuss these issues, best summarized by this quote:
It is also telling that in a radio debate between Harris [the skeptic] and Rhynas [the global warming advocate] that took place following Rhynas’s initial presentation, the former agreed to take questions from the public but the latter refused.
Climate scientists have been forced to revise their climate models due to the unexpected refusal of the climate to warm since the late 1990s.
The uncertainty of science: Climate scientists have been forced to revise their climate models due to the unexpected refusal of the climate to warm since the late 1990s.
In related news, the certainty of some ignorant politicians: A Democratic senator used the Oklahoma tornado to rant against Republicans who have expressed skepticism about human-caused global warming. Update: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) followed up by blaming the tornado on global warming while pushing her carbon tax bill today.
The first story attempts very hard to keep the narrative alive that we are all going to die from global warming, even though the gist is that the warming has stopped and all the predictions of global warming scientists have been wrong. The second story illustrates the typically close-minded attitude of liberal politicians. The senator not only refuses to recognize the new data showing that warming has stopped, he has accepted the global warming narrative completely, including the entirely false claim that extreme weather is rising because of global warming.
The uncertainty of science: Climate scientists have been forced to revise their climate models due to the unexpected refusal of the climate to warm since the late 1990s.
In related news, the certainty of some ignorant politicians: A Democratic senator used the Oklahoma tornado to rant against Republicans who have expressed skepticism about human-caused global warming. Update: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) followed up by blaming the tornado on global warming while pushing her carbon tax bill today.
The first story attempts very hard to keep the narrative alive that we are all going to die from global warming, even though the gist is that the warming has stopped and all the predictions of global warming scientists have been wrong. The second story illustrates the typically close-minded attitude of liberal politicians. The senator not only refuses to recognize the new data showing that warming has stopped, he has accepted the global warming narrative completely, including the entirely false claim that extreme weather is rising because of global warming.
The myth of the scientific liberal
The myth of the scientific liberal.
The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on universal health care, global warming, and universal preschool.
The author then delves into each of these topics and shows how the liberal community refuses to deal with the evidence.
The myth of the scientific liberal.
The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on universal health care, global warming, and universal preschool.
The author then delves into each of these topics and shows how the liberal community refuses to deal with the evidence.
The European Union’s program to reduce carbon emissions is in disarray.
The European Union’s program to reduce carbon emissions is in disarray.
The article at the link is probably one of the worst written stories in the history of journalism. It is incoherent, disorganized, and confused. Moreover, the authors are so in favor of the regulations to limit fossil fuels that they are unable to even consider any reasons which might explain why Europe’s carbon credit market is collapsing and why the EU’s legislators rejected a rescue plan to save it.
In fact, because of their biases, the authors buried the real story, which is this:
Parliamentarians on April 16 voted 334 to 315 for blocking the carbon market rescue.
“This is the first time I can remember when parliament has put economic survival and jobs ahead of green orthodoxy,” said Roger Helmer, a member of the U.K. Independence Party who has been in the parliament for 14 years and opposes emissions trading. “It marks an absolute watershed.”
The bad economy and high debt in Europe is making the idea of raising taxes and adding more restrictions on fossil fuels very unappealing to politicians.
The European Union’s program to reduce carbon emissions is in disarray.
The article at the link is probably one of the worst written stories in the history of journalism. It is incoherent, disorganized, and confused. Moreover, the authors are so in favor of the regulations to limit fossil fuels that they are unable to even consider any reasons which might explain why Europe’s carbon credit market is collapsing and why the EU’s legislators rejected a rescue plan to save it.
In fact, because of their biases, the authors buried the real story, which is this:
Parliamentarians on April 16 voted 334 to 315 for blocking the carbon market rescue.
“This is the first time I can remember when parliament has put economic survival and jobs ahead of green orthodoxy,” said Roger Helmer, a member of the U.K. Independence Party who has been in the parliament for 14 years and opposes emissions trading. “It marks an absolute watershed.”
The bad economy and high debt in Europe is making the idea of raising taxes and adding more restrictions on fossil fuels very unappealing to politicians.
The high peak in tornado in 2011, the most in fifty years, was quickly attributed to global warming. Eric Berger asks: How does this explain this year’s low number, the fewest in fifty years?
The uncertainty of science: The high peak in tornado in 2011, the most in fifty years, was quickly attributed to global warming. Eric Berger asks: How does this explain this year’s low number, the fewest in fifty years?
If you click on the first link, you will see that the global warming scientists quoted, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt, were all involved in the climategate emails, where they came off very badly. Moreover, there have been significant questions about the work of Michael Mann himself. I also wonder if these guys will have anything to say about the dearth of tornadoes today.
The uncertainty of science: The high peak in tornado in 2011, the most in fifty years, was quickly attributed to global warming. Eric Berger asks: How does this explain this year’s low number, the fewest in fifty years?
If you click on the first link, you will see that the global warming scientists quoted, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, and Gavin Schmidt, were all involved in the climategate emails, where they came off very badly. Moreover, there have been significant questions about the work of Michael Mann himself. I also wonder if these guys will have anything to say about the dearth of tornadoes today.
Two university professors who believe in global warming celebrate book burning at San Jose State University
Two university professors who believe in global warming celebrate book burning` at San Jose State University
Two university professors who believe in global warming celebrate book burning` at San Jose State University
A dozen Democrats are calling for action on global warming because it might cause women to become hookers.
Is there nothing global warming can’t do? A dozen Democrats are calling for action on global warming because it might cause women to become hookers.
I shouldn’t be surprised by this idiocy. These are the same politicians that voted for Obamacare without even reading the bill.
Is there nothing global warming can’t do? A dozen Democrats are calling for action on global warming because it might cause women to become hookers.
I shouldn’t be surprised by this idiocy. These are the same politicians that voted for Obamacare without even reading the bill.
The dismal predictions of the future from the first Earth Day in 1970.
Chicken Little report: The dismal predictions of the future from the first Earth Day in 1970.
I especially like the last two predictions, since I expect them to sooner or later become popular again.
Chicken Little report: The dismal predictions of the future from the first Earth Day in 1970.
I especially like the last two predictions, since I expect them to sooner or later become popular again.
The climate models used to predict global warming all fail to predict droughts correctly.
The uncertainty of science: The climate models used to predict global warming all fail to predict droughts correctly.
This result is only further proof that the claims that global warming is going to cause more extreme weather are pure fiction. None of the computer models that presently exist can predict extreme weather that accurately.
The uncertainty of science: The climate models used to predict global warming all fail to predict droughts correctly.
This result is only further proof that the claims that global warming is going to cause more extreme weather are pure fiction. None of the computer models that presently exist can predict extreme weather that accurately.