Twenty-fifteen is the make-or-break year for climate alarmism, with a crucial battle planned for Paris in November. So we can expect regular bursts of global warming propaganda.
The year started on cue with a breathless announcement from the U.S. National Climate Data Center: “2014 was Earth's warmest year on record” (their records start in 1880).
The Little Ice Age ended in about 1880. Therefore, it is no surprise that global temperatures have generally risen since then. And it reveals nothing about the cause of the warming.
Moreover, the announcement hides more than it reveals.
India’s resistance to accept a peak year for emissions was a prime reason why US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi failed to strike a climate deal along the lines of a US-China agreement on emission cuts. The US wanted India to make specific commitments including a peak year for a new climate treaty to be signed at Paris later this year. But India refused as it feared it would have resulted in the world putting India in the same bracket as China on carbon emissions. --Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, 27 January 2015
Syriza’s election victory in Greece has kindled hopes of an environmental champion pushing for greater climate ambition on the European stage, but the party will need to balance its green credentials with a commitment to new coal plants. “If we face fiscal difficulties from abroad in the medium term, then to burn more lignite instead of importing energy will seem a wise thing to do,” a Syriza source said. “If we don’t have money to import petrol then we will burn lignite which is free – not of a carbon footprint – but relatively cheaper. One way or another Greek lignite will be exploited.” --Arthur Nielsen, The Guardian, 26 January 2015
First they came for the coal mining and power plant industry, and most people did not speak out because they didn’t rely on coal, accepted Environmental Protection Agency justifications at face value, or thought EPA’s war on coal would benefit them.
In fact, Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon gave the Sierra Club $26 million, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the Club $50 million, to help it wage a Beyond Coal campaign. The Sierra Club later claimed its efforts forced 142 U.S. coal-fired power plants to close, raising electricity rates, threatening grid reliability, and costing thousands of jobs in dozens of states.
Dateline: January 27, 2015 - 3 to 4 AM, New York City and Tri-State area.
There was no climate change where I live in a suburb of Newark, N.J. if by “climate change” you meant a dramatic blizzard with high winds and several feet of snow. It’s winter and you get the occasional, rare blizzard every few years, but more often you get snowstorms. That’s not “change” by any definition.
Listening to WABC radio follow events with callers from around the Tri-State area calling in with far more accurate reports than the meteorologists was an education in the way those trained in meteorology and the rest of us have been conditioned to believe that something is happening to planet Earth that, quite simply, is not happening.
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?