Democrat Tom Steyer saved face—and millions of dollars—last week by forgoing a bid for retiring California Sen. Barbara Boxer ’s seat in 2016 on the pretext that he could accomplish politically more on the sidelines. That’s probably true, but Mr. Steyer may well have other plans.
Liberals had publicly urged the hedge fund billionaire to sit out the race in order to clear the field for their preferred candidate, state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had a thicker record of promoting liberal policies.
After three decades working in finance, Mr. Steyer emerged on California’s political scene in 2010 when he funded the opposition to a referendum rolling back the state’s global warming law. Two years later he sank $30 million of his personal wealth into a ballot initiative revamping California’s corporate tax that has raised an estimated $1 billion annually for environmental projects. Last year he shifted his focus to races outside of California, though he received a measly return on his $74 million investment: Republicans won in nearly every contest he invested.
A climate change advocate, believed to be a Greenpeace activist and Guardian contributor, has called for the beheading of so-called “climate change deniers”, arguing the world would be a better place without them. The comments are merely the latest in a long history of warmists advocating the killing of people who question global warming dogma.
On January 21st, in it’s ‘Climate Consensus – the 97%’ section, the Guardian published an article entitled “Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past”, which was illustrated with a fake, but nonetheless rather gruesome image of a severed head.
Today sees the UK Parliament consider an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill that would introduce a moratorium on unconventional gas wells in the UK. To coincide with the vote, the Environmental Audit Committee has produced one of its normal sham reports saying that industrial activity will all end in disaster, based as always on a series of interviews with environmentalists and pretty much nobody else. It's good to know that the views of electrohippies are not being overlooked. I gather that the committee's chairman Joan Whalley has been all over the BBC this morning, no doubt given the usual free pass by the eco-nutters who present programmes for the corporation. --Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 26 January 2015
By most estimates, the United Kingdom uses about three trillion cubic feet of natural gas every year. According to the British Geological Survey, there could be somewhere in the region of 1,329 trillion cubic feet of such gas under northern England alone. We would be mad to leave it there. We may be about to be mad. Today, the parliamentary environmental audit committee (EAC) will call for a moratorium on fracking. --The Times, 26 January 2015
Busy lives leave us with little time to study overwhelming amounts of climate science data, shift through countless research studies, or keep pace with ever-changing global warming policies and politics. Reasonable people just want the “answer” from organizations they choose to trust…NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and Media. Why then take the time to read a story from an unknown blogging geologist, with a super nerdy title, and a boring lead photo?
Because something, not sure what, just doesn’t seem right about this whole global warming thing. Your uneasiness has elements of the following:
- Explanations and theories from trusted experts are just not fitting observed climate trends.
- As Predictions of significant global warming and sea level rise have failed, climate experts have resorted to atypical absolutist types of statements. These statements feel overly dramatic and needlessly defensive.
- It’s difficult to completely understand the theoretical relationship between Earth’s Carbon Cycle (CO2) and atmospheric temperatures. It’s a moving target, in a state of constant modification by climate experts.
- Are the Alpine and Polar Glaciers melting or not melting?
- Why haven’t skeptics given up, and why have their ranks grown? They don’t appear to be making money from their efforts. What then is their reason for persisting?
- Finally, given all these doubts and concerns, is it really time to immediately institute worldwide tax increases, emission restrictions, and give complete control of climate science to a select few? Can we really trust these folks? Maybe we should slow down for a moment, and then listen to the non-insider scientists.
On the politicization of ‘climate change’.
On my recent post Raw politics, I made the following remark re President Obama’s tweet:
‘Climate change is real’ is almost a tautology; climate has always changed and always will, independently of anything humans do.
A few hours after I posted this, the U.S. Senate provides some interesting news, summarized in this article by Andrew Freedman:
Modern severe weather incidents and examples of extreme climate change exceptionally different from the past are hard to come by for the climate-doomsday cult...in the case of "global warming" causing more frequent and greater snow records, turns out there are no new snow-depth records over the last 15 years for the U.S. mainland.....
Remember this statement from climate alarmists over the last few years?
===> "Global warming causes greater amounts of snow and cold for the U.S. due to the fact that the Arctic is melting."
If that is true, then we should witness greater and greater amounts of snow accumulating across the continental U.S., year in, year out.
The satellite temperature records tell a very different story from the surface temperature records quoted by NASA.“2014 was the hottest year on record.”
Q: If the above statement is not true – and (see below) it isn’t – would it make it any more true were it to be uttered in an important speech at Davos by fashion designer, songwriter and hip hop producer Pharrell Williams?
Q: OK. Then how about if Pharrell, while chilling in the outdoor hot tub with George Soros, Bono and Paul Krugman at their seven-star hotel in Davos, were to write a chart-topping song about it – something along the lines of Happy, only catchier, more uplifting – and it became, like this massive club hit across the world and all the kids everywhere were singing “2014 was the hottest on record.” Would that make it more true?
As Twitchy reported earlier this week, at least 1,700 private jets are expected to land in Davos, Switzerland for this year’s World Economic Forum, where attendees will discuss what to do about global warming.
The European Parliament’s industry committee failed to agree on a recommendation for a draft measure to curb a glut of carbon permits. The panel, which has an advisory role in the legislative process, rejected a report on a mechanism to withhold surplus allowances. In today’s final ballot, the industry committee voted 31 to 28, with seven abstentions, against an entire report even after approving individual amendments. --Ewa Krukowska and Ian Wishart, Bloomberg, 22 January 2015
European Union carbon allowances posted their biggest drop since April after a panel in the bloc’s parliament failed to agree on how to modify a measure curbing a glut of carbon permits. Permits fell as much as 8.1% after the European Parliament’s industry committee, which has an advisory role in the legislative process, rejected a recommendation on a mechanism to withhold surplus allowances. --Ewa Krukowska and Ian Wishart, Bloomberg, 22 January 2015
The State Department, the one headed by über-enviro-elitist John Kerry, is working with Disney to create a climate change spin-off of the highly popular movie Frozen. From the "Your Tax Dollars At Work Dept.":
Admiral Robert Papp, the State Department’s special representative on the Arctic, revealed that he had been in talks with the company’s executives to harness the popularity of the 2013 film to teach children about the impacts of global warming in the Arctic.
“I went to Disney and I had the opportunity to speak to an executive there,” said Papp, speaking at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø, Norway.
Environmental campaigners make much of the potentially catastrophic outcomes of increased atmospheric CO2 levels, often exaggerating their claims in order to gain public support for policies designed to tackle anthropogenic climate change. If challenged they often fall back on the precautionary principle: doing something has no negative outcome, whereas doing nothing might.
But what if doing something does have a negative outcome? In a new paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Andrew Montford, author of the Bishop Hill blog on climate change, has identified quite a number of negative outcomes of environmentalist-driven climate change policies – or what William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, terms in the foreword “the jihad against atmospheric carbon dioxide”.
WORLD growth is resulting in a doubling of the atmospheric composition of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases”.
Present concentrations are at near record lows and a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations is harmless to health.
The concerns revolve around the knock-on effect on climate.
Some point to a warm 2014 as evidence of climate change, however global temperatures have remained unchanged for the past 18 years.
Across the world the issue has led governments to pour some $100 billion into research (and far more on renewable subsidies).