From The Telegraph, no less:
I rushed to the window. I opened one. I opened another – and I closed my eyes and waited for the cooling breeze. Then I opened my eyes, and wafted my hand in amazement in front of the window. Hot damn: the air coming in – from the streets of London in December – was, if anything, actually warmer than the air in my office, which had itself been raised to Reptile House temperatures by the ping-pong. What in blazes was going on?
And then I had a ghastly vision. What if this is it? What if this is the long-awaited inflexion point – the moment that has been prophesied since the Eighties? What if winter is over – for ever?
Aaargh, I thought: and in that moment of horror, I contemplated the loss of something so intrinsic to our psychology. Imagine: no more snow. No more tobogganing on Primrose Hill, no more waking up to see the magic prints of the dog on the lawn.
A heated exchange regarding global warming and magisterial teaching between a top Vatican official and various other presenters ended a December 3 Acton Institute conference in Rome. Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a close advisor to Pope Francis and the Chancellor of both the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences stressed that the pope’s declarations on the gravity of global warming as expressed in the encyclical Laudato Si’ are magisterial teaching equivalent to the teaching that abortion is sinful.
Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press who obtained his doctorate in theology under Joseph Ratzinger prior to his elevation to the pontificate, told LifeSiteNews, “Neither the pope nor Bishop Sorondo can speak on a matter of science with any binding authority, so to use the word ‘magisterium’ in both cases is equivocal at best, and ignorant in any case.” Fr. Fessio added, “To equate a papal position on abortion with a position on global warming is worse than wrong; it is an embarrassment for the Church.”
Amid the media’s elation over the United Nations climate deal reached in Paris on Dec. 12, one significant outcome has been overlooked. The European Union failed to achieve its main objective, namely that the agreement adopt carbon-dioxide mitigation commitments that are “legally binding on all parties.”
While this may appear to be a major setback, it liberates Europe from the restrictions of the Kyoto Protocol—which runs out in 2020—and opens the way for more flexible and less damaging policies.
During the Paris negotiations, European Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete warned that the EU “cannot make the mistake we made in Kyoto” where “all the big emitters were outside the legally binding agreement.” For Europe, the Kyoto Protocol has forced EU states to adopt unilateral, and disastrously costly, decarbonization policies. With their manufacturers rapidly losing ground to international competition, governments are increasingly concerned about the threat high energy prices pose to Europe’s industrial base.
Another week, another study showing that our official climate data gatekeepers have been exaggerating the extent of “global warming” to make it look more scary, more urgent, more desperately in need of extra funding for our official climate data gatekeepers…
This one, co-authored by meteorologist Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That? fame) shows that at least half of the “global warming” in the US since 1979 has been fabricated by NOAA.
While satellite records have shown no global warming for at least 18 years, the land based data sets like the ones maintained by NOAA for the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) continue to show a warming trend.
Meteorologists have blamed El Niño and the polar vortex for record-breaking warm temperatures across the US this week, saying the pair of weather systems will likely keep 2015 warm enough to be the hottest year on record. This year’s El Niño, a recurring weather pattern caused by unusually warm water in the Pacific Ocean, is particularly strong and reaching its peak. The 2015-16 El Niño is expected to rank as one of the three strongest in half a century. --Alan Yuhas and Oliver Milman, The Guardian, 15 December 2015
We need a revolution if we are to survive as a people and as a nation. While the changes in federal policy needed to undo the damage of leftism are high-profile presidential election issues, the real revolution needs to come at a different level of government and with a different purpose.
What we are fighting, really, is fifty years of leftist indoctrination from education, information, and entertainment. Until we fight back and win the battles at this level, we will continue with the drearily familiar mind control of the left over our lives.
It’s time to count down the top stories of the year, looking back at the big events of 2015 and reviewing my own coverage of them.
We’ll start the countdown with #5, which is the least important of the big stories because it’s not about something that’s actually happening. It’s about how a whole section of our top political and cultural leadership is pretending that something that isn’t happening is actually the most vital and pressing issue of the day. That is pretty important in its own right.
I’ll call this The Phantom Menace, which you can consider a tribute to the return of the Star Wars saga, or perhaps an unwelcome reminder of everybody’s least favorite prequel. (It’s a close call between the three, but Phantom Menace had the most Jar-Jar Binks, so it wins.)
Britain cut more renewable energy subsidies on Thursday, putting jobs at risk and drawing criticism for losing credibility in tackling climate change, a week after the landmark deal in Paris. Britain's Conservative government has been reining in spending on all renewables subsidies since it took power in May, saying the cost of technology has come down sharply and subsidies should reflect that. Thursday's cuts came a day after it allowed the use of fracking to extract shale gas below national parks and protected areas and as it is expected to announce the winners of new onshore oil and gas licenses. --Reuters, 17 December 2015
President Reagan once said, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.” The omnibus budget package being negotiated on Capitol Hill is a perfect example.
The wheeling and dealing is too complex and fast-moving for anyone to follow or understand. But much of it centers on trading an end to the 40-year-old oil export ban in exchange for extending and perpetuating renewable energy programs and President Obama’s dictatorial Clean Power Plan.
It is especially maddening when supposed Republican fiscal conservatives are supposedly in charge of Congress and the purse strings. It’s especially despicable when the energy policies are based on lies and fraud about “dangerous manmade climate change,” and on blatant crony corporatism that gives coerced taxpayer subsidies to companies that then make campaign contributions to helpful legislators. It makes it perfectly clear why voters are spitting mad, and “outsiders” have an inside track on presidential races.
Republicans made a promise to American taxpayers that no money would go toward the United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF), yet the new $1.1 trillion spending bill unveiled this week has earmarks that do the exact opposite. In exchange for lifting the ban on exporting oil to other countries, the new budget would allow President Obama to shunt millions of taxpayer dollars into the UN's slush fund to fight global warming. This is causing a bit of an uproar on Capital Hill, but few see a chance to put the brakes on a spending bill that would keep the government running. Not before Christmas, at least.
Expected to be voted on Friday, the bipartisan spending bill wending its way through congress puts no limitations on how the president can spend money from certain earmarks. Senator Rubio told Fox News Channel today that this omnibus bill is being "rushed" and "rammed down people's throat" and he "plans to slow it down." A slower pace, he says, will allow more Americans to learn what's in the trillion dollar spending bill and voice their opposition to congressional representatives. But with the clock ticking, a majority could overrule any amendments or objections and force it through anyways.
NPR's Ari Shapiro speaks to Mike Halpert, NOAA's deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center, about the odd weather caused by El Nino and if climate change has a role.
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
And I'm here in Washington, D.C., where people have been outside, walking around in shorts and flip-flops. We've got Mike Halpert on the line. He's deputy director of the Climate Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And Mr. Halpert, what temperature should it be in Washington in the middle of December?
MIKE HALPERT: Middle of December, we oftentimes see highs roughly in the mid-40s, lows - somewhere just below freezing.
SHAPIRO: The other day, I saw lilacs blooming.
HALPERT: Well, it certainly a - been a very warm period that we've had here in December. I know. I was talking with other colleagues - certainly quite unusual.
The statement comes after a landmark climate change deal in Paris with the approval of India, China and the U.S., after days of tough negotiations with the legally-binding pact seeking to limit global warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius.
Reuters reports that the deal, which will only come into effect in 2020 following a 55% vote in, marks the most important climate agreement since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It commits rich and poor nations to rein in rising carbon levels and seeks to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions from human activity this century.
Minister for Power, Coal and Renewable Energy, Piyush Goyal, saidIndia's contribution to global greenhouse gases emissions was just 2.5 percent with 17 percent of the world's population, while developed countries contributed a fifth of emissions with just 5 percent of the world's population.