Have you ever Googled ‘climate sensitivity’ in order to find a clear definition? I have. One can then get plunged into a jungle of meaningless verbiage, specially designed by charlatans for charlatans.
If we are to deal with language alone, there is no way that climate can be sensitive. Climate is an abstraction. Climate is supposed to be the average – that beloved word of the woolly-minded – of weather in a particular location. So there is no way that climate, an abstraction, can be sensitive.
If I were to pour a cup of hot coffee into your lap, I guess you would see the stain, you would smell the aroma, you would feel an unwelcome hot sensation in your nether regions as well as a sensation of hot dampness. That is sensitivity.
It’s such a benign sounding name, Friends of the Earth. This multi-million dollar international organization is a network of environmental organizations in 74 countries. If its agenda was adopted and enacted much of mankind would lose access to the energy sources that define and enhance modernity or the beneficial chemicals that protect food crops from insect predators and weeds.
I am on FOE’s mailing list and the most recent email informed me and the thousands of others who received it that “the oil lobby and the Republican leadership in Congress are plotting a full frontal assault on our environmental protections…” I bet you didn’t know that the Republican Party was an enemy of the environment. That’s curious because it was a Republican, Richard M. Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency with an executive order!
A new paper making the rounds in the mainstream media show that wheat yields will decline as temperatures increase. The part they leave out is that this study is actually based on a computer model and doesn't reflect real-world studies.
Senthold Asseng, a UF professor of agricultural and biological engineering, used a computer model to reach the finding that temperature increases resulted in decreased wheat production. It was unclear if the computer model took into account the concomitant increase in CO2 levels.
Real-world studies, however, show that increased CO2 levels have actually caused wheat yields to thrive, even when nighttime warming temperatures were increased.
As noted here and elsewhere, Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont, wants an amendment included in the Keystone Pipeline bill that asks whether lawmakers agree with the consensus science that says, "climate change is impacting the planet and is worsened by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions."
To which I say, Congress is exactly where "consensus science" belongs. Real scientists do not work under the auspices of consensus science, but rather under the scientific method. Real scientists don't give a fig about politics, and they certainly don't mix politics with science.
You're most likely to find consensus-science thinkers in academia or in science-y sounding organizations, where the majority of these "keepers of knowledge" take it upon themselves to write "position statements" on behalf of the very people doing the real work. These worker bees follow the scientific method assiduously, and if their data doesn't conform to the consensus, the consensus says "no."
Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot:
“Climate change is of course real; change being the normal state of affairs in climate Climate change has caused catastrophic problems on occasion throughout the earth’s history While man may have contributed somewhat to climate change in recent years, his contribution to the above is highly questionable, and continues to be debated.
Moreover, the incidence of severe events shows no particular deviation from historical expectations.Attempts to claim otherwise represent an attempt to hijack science for political purposes.In the case of Bernie Sanders, a socialist, he is undoubtedly dreaming about nationalizing the energy industry.
The good news? Sen. Barbara Boxer is retiring from the senate. The bad news? Activist and newly reformed greenie Tom Steyer can afford a one-way ticket into the Senate. From the LA Times:
Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer on Tuesday made his first public remarks on why is weighing a bid for the seat that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is leaving.
“Holding office is a sacred trust in our society, and I am honored that so many colleagues and friends have encouraged me to consider entering this race. One thing is clear — Washington needs to be shaken up and we need climate champions who will fight for the next generation,” Steyer wrote in the Huffington Post. “California Democrats are blessed to have a deep bench of talent, and I will decide soon based on what I think is the best way to continue the hard work we have already started together to prevent climate disaster and preserve American prosperity.”
The Obama administration on Wednesday will announce an aggressive new plan to combat global warming by targeting the methane emissions released through oil and gas production, according to a summary of the initiative obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
The proposal seeks to cut those emissions -- a major driver of climate change -- by as much as 45 percent by 2025. A White House briefing paper describes methane as "a potent greenhouse gas, with 25 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period."
Methane accounted for nearly 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012, and the amount of the gas released into the atmosphere is projected to rise substantially amid the boom in domestic oil and gas production.
A just-released study by MIT adds to the exponentially increasing amount of data and research that substantiates the most basic tenant of the Plate Climatology Theory: that natural geological forces have the power to dramatically affect our climate.
The MIT study theorizes that since the year 2000 natural aerosols emitted from active continental volcanoes have cooled the earth’s atmospheric temperature by 0.05 to 0.12 degrees Celsius. These emissions were primarily from numerous small, unmonitored volcanoes that spewed droplets of sulfur-rich aerosols into the upper atmosphere which then acted to reflect a significant amount of sunlight away from Earth.
CAGW proponents have a long-held belief that CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the Antarctica continent along with the surrounding oceans...further, this out-of-control warming is quickly melting sea ice and the South Pole's massive ice sheets...turns out, it's a case of unrepentant denial of climate reality.....
Way back in 1988, a NASA climate expert gave testimony that the 'high latitudes' (i.e. polar) would experience greater warming due to growth of human greenhouse gases (GHGs), including CO2 emissions.
This prediction was seized upon by global warming advocates as "proof" that the South Pole's unprecedented warming would melt sea ice and cause melting ice sheets to collapse, raising ocean levels and thus submerging worldwide coastal areas.