Predicting the end of the world is part of the human condition, people have always been convinced Doomsday was just around the corner. From the soothsayers of Roman times casting their runes and reading animal entrails predicting global apocalypse to the soothsayersclimate scientists soothsayers of the 21st Century casting their digital runes and predicting global apocalypse.
Despite the passage of 20 Centuries the modern day rune casters are no more accurate than their distant ancestors were, the expensive and religiously revered “Computer Models” have yet to predict any event that has actually happened, yet their erroneous results still trump observed empirical evidence.
The attacks came fast and furious, from March through June. A coordinated attack to vilify, ostracize and neutralize efforts by local citizen activists who are standing in opposition to Agenda 21 and its policy called Sustainable Development. The terms “conspiracy theory,” “extremists,” “fear mongers,” and “far right,” are all over these obvious attempts to smear any opposition to the agenda of the Sustainablist planners that now swarm over nearly every community in America.
It started with the American Planning Association (APA) delivering yet another report in a continuing effort to understand the fierce opposition to its “innocent,” “locally- driven” programs. Apparently it is a mystery to the APA why there would be opposition to its plans to reorganize entire communities which sometimes result in turning people’s lives upside down.The APA has done a series of studies over the past few years in an attempt to find a way to silence or counter our opposition to planning. The latest report, issued in March, 2014, entitled “The Actions of Discontent,” was perhaps the most honest of the reports the APA has issued, when it said the opposition to planning is “marked by deep philosophical differences between activists and planning proponents…” That’s certainly better than saying we’re just nuts, unlike most of the usual attacks against us.
Written by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, Somewhat Reasonable on .
Secretary of State John Kerry recently warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
After disgracefully screwing up the possibility of any Middle-East cease-fire, Kerry is now in India to talk about something he is also utterly clueless about: climate change.
With his persistent sidestepping of the facts, Kerry is holding a full day of talks with Indian environmental scholars and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday. At the top of the agenda: Kerry's elusive attempts at finding a bi-national agreement to combat the elusive global-warming threat. From AFP (bold added):
Kerry’s visit to New Delhi comes after an unusually large number of disputes between the world’s largest democracies, including charges of U.S. surveillance against Indian politicians and a trade rift that could scuttle a global customs deal.
The top U.S. diplomat plans to hold a full day of talks with senior Indian leaders before meeting Friday with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist who was shunned by Washington until soon before his sweeping election victory in May.
The hyperbole masquerading as objective and rigorous climate science journalism rolls on. As part of a three part series on “How climate change is altering the deserts of the southwest,” Ian James states the following:
“In the deserts of the Southwest, adaptation will likely involve learning to live with more extreme heat. Scientists predict in the newly released National Climate Assessment report that annual average temperatures in the Southwest could rise by 5.5-9.5 degrees by the end of the century if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow.
That would make the climate of cooler high-elevation deserts more like the region’s hottest low-elevation deserts.
Palm Springs, Indio and El Centro, among other places, could be scorched by average temperatures hotter than those seen today in Death Valley, which holds the record for the hottest temperature ever recorded: 134 degrees.”
Written by Paul Gilchrist, Adirondack Journal on .
SchardtThere’s been controversy in recent months brought on by believers in Al Gore’s extremist views of climate who advocate that opposing views should be censored by newspapers. They’ve recommended that people should consult websites such as Realclimate and Skeptical Science for climate information.
Critics caution that the Realclimate website is the creation of Environmental Media Services (EMS), whose co-founder/president, Arlie Schardt, served Gore’s presidential campaigns as national press secretary in 1988 and communications director in 2000. EMS was co-founded by, and is the communications arm of, Fenton Communications of Washington D.C., sharing the same suite of offices. Fenton Communications is a leading PR firm for left-wing advocacy groups, and expressly declines “clients and projects that we don’t believe in ourselves.” It’s been criticized for serving Marxist-Leninist regimes in Central America and Africa, pro-Democrat PACs and campaigns against gun-ownership rights.
Here in the mountains of east Tennessee, we distill corn mash to produce a product provincially known as Moonshine – because it is often produced and transported under cover of darkness. Arguably, it is a more useful and beneficial product than that toxic form of distilled alcohol from corn mandated for fuel blends by the Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called “Renewable Fuel” Standard.
Now, the word “corny” is an adjective, akin to trite, banal, hackneyed, tired, stale, cheesy, schmaltzy, mushy and sloppy. Those descriptors would be much too kind if applied to the “science” (read: “political calculus”) behind the EPA’s mandate for producing and converting corn into ethanol and mixing it with fuel. However, the EPA may be ratcheting up that mandate to require a higher percentage of ethanol in fuel, citing spurious claims that ethanol is better for the environment than fossil fuels.
The topical answer is that the liberal elite wing of the New Democratic Party, along with a few Corn Belt Republican subsidizers, argue ethanol produces less CO2 after combustion than fossil fuels.
In a recent appearance before a congressional committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told them that the agency’s proposed sweeping carbon-regulation plan was “really an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control.”
If the plan isn’t about pollution, the primary reason for the EPA’s existence, why bother with yet more regulation of something that is not a pollutant—carbon dioxide—despite the Supreme Court’s idiotic decision that it is. Yes, even the Court gets things wrong.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is vital to all life on Earth, but most particularly to every piece of vegetation that grows on it. Top climatologists tell me that it plays a very small role, if any, in the Earth’s climate or weather. Why would anyone expect a gas that represents 400 parts per million of all atmospheric gases, barely 0.04% of all atmospheric gases to have the capacity to affect something as huge and dynamic as the weather or climate?
The impact of carbon dioxide on climate change may have been overstated, with solar activity giving a better explanation of changes in the Earth's temperature, according to Chinese scientists.
A new paper published in the Chinese Science Bulletin has found a "high correlation between solar activity and the Earth's averaged surface temperature over centuries," suggesting that climate change is intimately linked with solar cycles rather than human activity.
The paper, written in Chinese, says that there is also a "significant correlation" between solar activity over the past century and an increase in Earth's surface temperatures over the same period. The correlation between solar activity and water temperature is even higher than the correlation between solar activity and land temperature.
In the same way Americans are discovering that the Cold War that was waged from the end of World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not over, Americans continue to be subjected to the endless, massive, global campaign to foist the hoax of global warming--now called climate change—on everyone.
The campaign’s purpose to convince everyone that it is humans, not the sun, oceans, and other natural phenomenon, and that requires abandoning fossil fuels in favor of “renewable” wind and solar energy.
“It is not surprising that climate alarmists, who desire above all else blind allegiance to their cause, would demand all school teachers toe the ‘official party line’ and quash any dissent on the subject of man-made global warming in their classroom,” says Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). “What is absurd is that any teacher or free-thinking person for that matter would listen to them.”