Recent polling numbers may induce Republicans on the November ballot to turn certain Democrats’ obsession with global warming into a Republican weapon, slamming Democrats for ignoring much more important issues.
Several Democratic politicians and funding groups are attempting to make global warming a key issue in the November elections even though the public considers global warming a very low priority. To date, Republicans in such elections have assumed a low-key approach, trusting the global warming attacks will not find much political traction. Recent polling numbers, however, may induce Republicans to be bolder on the issue.
Science is a method, not a set of dogmas. The scientific method is pretty simple: you suggest a hypothesis, calculate what facts in the real world must be true if the hypothesis is correct, and then check the hypothesis against reality. If the hypothesis implies false propositions of fact, it is wrong. Case closed.
Climate alarmists stand the scientific method on its head. When their theories, as expressed in climate models, conflict with reality, they conclude that something must be wrong with reality. The heat that their models hypothesize must be “hiding” deep in the oceans, or whatever. This isn’t science: it is a combination of politics and religion. A proposition that cannot be falsified by experience is not a scientific proposition.
A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.
Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.
If I need my car repaired, I do not take it to a dentist. If I am seeking advice about the climate I check out what climatologists and meteorologists are saying, at least those who have not sold their souls to the global warming/climate change hoax.
On September 3 The Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Edward P. Lazear titled “The Climate Change Agenda Needs to Adapt to Reality: Limiting carbon emissions won’t work. Better to begin adjusting to a warming world.”
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It’s cooling, not warming.
In a recent column for Troy Media, Univerity of Calgary Professor Emeritus Phil Elder offered up what he called a primer on global warming, citing “recent successes by deniers of (human-caused) anthropogenic global warming (AGW).”
We’d like to challenge his assertions.
Elder claims there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus” on AGW. We dispute that belief in our report 97 percent? NO! Global Warming Math Myths and Social Proofs. While we agree that human activities impact climate somewhat; the evidence shows that natural forces like the sun are more influential.
Elder then describes the greenhouse effect that creates a cozy atmosphere for earth, stating certain greenhouse gases have greater heat-trapping qualities than others. This leads to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming – more of these GHGs should theoretically lead to more warming.
Where in the world is Angela Merkel? Not at the UN climate summit.On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won't attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?
In effect, this is all that's left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
At first, I thought this had to be a joke in the style of “The Onion”. Sadly, no. I have video of this dolt saying this on C-Span. I don’t know who’s more dangerous to humanity, Kerry or ISIS.
At the National Clean Energy Summit, Hillary Clinton said climate change was the greatest threat facing the world. Apparently she's not been keeping up on world events and forgot about ISIS, Al Qaeda, Ukraine, Egypt, Hamas, just to name a few. From Politico (bold added):
At Sen. Harry Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit, Clinton called climate change “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.”
She also cited the potential benefits of producing and exporting natural gas and oil.
Electric cars, despite their hype, have remained more expensive than the average car, and still have a number of drawbacks over internal combustion vehicles. This dilemma has prompted some intrepid amateur mechanics to convert their conventional cars over to electric - a daunting but clearly superior choice.
People haven't limited themselves to purely practical vehicles either. Those who love their luxury cars, but wish they came in an electric version, have taken it upon themselves to make the change. A variety of Porsche 914 sports cars have been converted over to an electrical system, and owners claim that they have even seen an increase in range and top speed. Between 2008 and 2009 a pair in Australia converted a 1983 Mitsubishi Starion over to battery power. This might be seen as the start of the modern DIY trend, since several people quickly followed their example.
The UN has expressed concern that only a handful of countries have ratified an extension to the Kyoto Protocol, more than 18 months after they agreed to do so. Kyoto, the world’s only legally binding global emissions treaty, ran out at the end of 2012. At climate talks in Doha, December 2012, the 144 parties to the treaty agreed to extend the deal to 2020. However, so far only 11 have formally backed the amendment, despite an intervention by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon in February 2013. Until all 144 parties deliver their “instruments of acceptance” to New York, the amendment will not enter into law. --Ed King, Reporting Climate Change, 4 September 2014
Professor Brian Cox is almost certainly the prettiest physicist ever to have appeared on television. A crowded field, I know. But even I would, I suspect, happily married man though I am (and happily married man though he is too), given the right circumstances: those wonderful pouty lips; that winning perma-smile as he delivers his pearls of astronomical wisdom on his charming documentaries; the rock star cool - complete with Charlatans-style, retro haircut - a legacy of his days as keyboard player with Nineties pop band D:Ream.
So yes, I perfectly well understand why the BBC has elevated him to the position of go-to scientist on all matters of import, with TV series like The Wonders of the Solar System, and why he is constantly being invited to deliver TED talks and high profile speeches like the 2010 Huw Wheldon Memorial Lecture and the Douglas Adams Memorial Lecture.
Gina McCarthy, head of the EPAIn recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency has acted less like a part of government and more like an out-of-control arm of the radical green movement. This is another flashing red light for our democracy.
A key House committee has launched an investigation into the EPA's cozy relationship with the radical National Resources Defense Council — a relationship so close that it's often hard to say where the EPA ends and the NRDC begins.
When it comes to the inquiry, it's about time.
It's bad enough that an arm of the American government having such sweeping regulatory powers as the EPA can shut down entire sectors of the American economy with so little input from the rest of us.