Much has been said in recent weeks about how bigger snowstorms in Boston are (supposedly) just what climate models have predicted. “Global warming” is putting more water vapor into the air, leading to more “fuel” for winter storms and more winter precipitation.
While this general trend is seen in climate models for global average conditions (warming leads to more precipitation), what do the models really predict for Boston?
And what has actually been observed in Boston?
The European Union Sunday said it expects India and other emerging economies to contribute to the Green Climate Fund after 2020, stating that "geopolitical realities have changed significantly". South Africa, speaking on behalf of G-77 plus China, and supported by BASIC, LMDC and other groups of small nations, warned that "any attempt to re-negotiate, re-write or re-define" the basic principles of the UNFCCC would delay the process of reaching the Paris agreement. --Press Trust of India, 9 February 2015
Climate change negotiations started at Geneva on Sunday, working to draw the rough blueprint for the global Paris agreement, which will be agreed upon by the end of the year. The signs of solidarity over select issues, which had emerged in the developing country block, G77+China, at Lima last year, reverberated at the Geneva venue too. On Monday several of the groups that fall within the umbrella of the G77 demanded that the ‘Loss and Damage’ track of negotiations be treated separately from the talks on the issue of adaptation. At the same time, the European Union (EU) demanded that the preamble of the Paris agreement not have any reference to the existing provisions of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change or to historical responsibility of the developed countries. --Nitin Sethi, Business Standard, 10 February 2015
Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple. Apple is wildly successful, but we don’t know how much of the credit should go to Cook and how much to the legendary Steve Jobs, who died 3-1/2 years ago. Cook has become a sort of Silicon Valley philosopher, using his platform at Apple to pontificate on this and that.
Cook likes to pontificate about climate change (formerly known as global warming). Are his pontifications greenwashing -- to make Apple seem to be with it to the residents of trendy places like Palo Alto or Mill Valley? Maybe the problem is that Cook spends too much time talking to Al Gore, the high priest of global warming nonsense. Al Gore is on Apple’s board of directors. Cook’s public statements make it clear that he is incredibly ill informed concerning global warming and auxiliary topics like solar energy.
This year, the United States Supreme Court is going to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s outrageous rules for mercury emissions from power plants, and hopefully the Court will see through the Agency’s patently absurd reasoning.
The EPA’s mercury rule is yet another example of the Obama administration’s extreme bending of the law in service of its perseveration on global warming. In this case, the point of regulating mercury emissions — which are miniscule — is to further the administration’s goal of shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the country, even though they currently supply about 40% of America’s electricity.
A new article written by Christopher Booker titled ‘The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever’ published in The Telegraph claims that official temperature records were systematically adjusted to show that the earth has warmed much more than the actual data justified.
The article’s theme is that scientists manipulated the data on purpose to exaggerate global warming.
In the article, Booker claims that readings from thermometers in Paraguay were adjusted by climate scientists to make them look like the temperature is increasing, when the measurements off the detectors actually show the opposite.
Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.
EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook.
Shoveling out from under the United States Northeastern snowfall is putting a lot of backs out of kilter, as well as pronouncements that a new pattern is emerging: climate change is causing more snowstorms.
The global warming doomsters didn't wait long to chime in on the Northeast’s heavy snowfall, blaming it on excessive moisture in the atmosphere collected from warmer bodies of water, and portending it will be a record breaker. The problem with that scenario is that it doesn’t stand up to the observed data. And it flies in the face of the peer-reviewed literature they are so apt to quote.
From Perfect Science:
Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo, said, “The environment in which all storms form is now different than it was just 30 or 40 years ago because of global warming.”
He added that due to climate change, snowfall will increase in future as the atmosphere can hold 4% more moisture for every 1-degree increase in temperature. So, there will be more snow than rain provided the temperatures stay just below freezing.
Liberal Party Leader Justin TrudeauWhat does Justin Trudeau really think about Alberta and the oilsands and the people who work there?
The real answer is he probably doesn't think a lot about it -- or any other policy area. Trudeau is more about looking dreamy. He leaves the grown-up stuff, like policy, to someone else. In this case, to Gerald Butts, his "principal adviser."
Butts has quite a lot to say about the oilsands. For years, he was the boss of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, an environmentalist lobby group that took hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign interests to campaign against the oilsands. Never against OPEC oil; only against Canadian oil.
After leading and establishing historical climatology during the 1960s, Hubert Lamb [pictured] became the founding Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU). What is not widely known is that, in contrast to current research directions at CRU, its founding director was an early and vocal climate sceptic.
Against the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were (or would soon be) noticeably warming the planet, Lamb raised objections on many levels. “His greatest concern was not so much the lack of science behind the theory,” Mr Lewin said, “it was how the growing preoccupation with man-made warming was distorting the science.”
Lewin said that “Lamb was already sounding this warning as early as 1972; soon after that the entire science would be transformed.”
Weaver - WikimediaYou can read the court's full decision here. From The Star:
Climate scientist Andrew Weaver has won a closely watched defamation lawsuit against the National Post, after a B.C. Supreme Court found the newspaper was “careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts” in a series of articles published in 2009 and 2010.
Justice Emily Burke awarded Weaver, a former University of Victoria professor and current B.C. Green Party MLA, $50,000 in damages.
She also ordered the Post to remove the offending articles from its websites and electronic databases, as well as publish “a complete retraction” of the defamatory statements, “in a form agreed to by” Weaver.
The same group of suspects who recently that found that Republicans were upset by global warming has discovered the same about Hispanics:
According to a poll conducted last month by the New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future, Hispanics are far more likely than whites to view global warming as a problem that affects them personally. It also found that they are far more likely to support policies, such as taxes and regulations on greenhouse gas pollution, aimed at curbing it.
So now we know what Hispanics -- all Hispanics -- think of global warming. We don't, however, know what blacks or Asians think of global warming; what if blacks and Asians fear global cooling? What then is a consensus-seeking politician to do?
I’m a firm believer in climate change. Heck, there have been several ice ages and warming periods, so it’s obvious that temperatures shift over time.
And while I’m not particularly qualified to assess such matters, I’m also willing to believe that human activity has an effect on climate.
Moreover, even though I much prefer warm weather, I’m also open to the idea that global warming might be a bad thing that requires some action.
But here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are nuts.