So far, so typical. Last week spectators at Wimbledon were being treated for sunstroke as temperatures soared into the 80s.
On Saturday the heavens opened, as they usually do after a heatwave, soaking the motor racing at Silverstone and Henley Regatta.
By the end of this week, the Met Office is predicting it will be Phew, What A Scorcher! time again. It’s called the British summer.
Not according to the Government, it isn’t. Officially, we don’t have weather any more.
We have ‘climate change’, a catch-all excuse for everything from raising taxes and refusing to empty the bins to exploding manhole covers.
That’s right, exploding manhole covers. The Health and Safety Executive has warned pedestrians to be on the alert after a series of manhole cover explosions in London’s West End.
There have been 64 such incidents already this year, compared with just nine in 2011. ‘Experts’ blame the ‘wettest winter on record’ for rainwater damaging underground electric cables.
Add this be-freckled item to the warming list: new research says red heads will be about as common as a dinosaur walking through Times Square. You can blame global warming, scientists say. Is there anything it can't do? From Handbag.com:
According to new research conducted by ScotlandsDNA, if the weather continues to get warmer, the population of red heads may decline.
Having an auburn 'do and porcelain skin has always been a beautiful look, but now it seems it'll become even more unique.
The research showed that the redhead gene came about due to an evolutionary response to lack of sunlight and Vitamin D in the northern isles of the UK.
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. --Albert Einstein
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill,On Liberty, 1859
Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday. One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.” --Ben Webster, The Times, 8 July 2014
Steyer, Steyer, Pants on fire!It’s interesting to see the New York Times finally getting around to telling a story that conservative bloggers have been left alone to tell, notably PowerLine, which is not credited by the Times, but broke the exact same story several months ago. This is a story that makes Democrat sugar daddy Tom Steyer – who bought the Party and its President lock, stock, and barrel this year, with a promise of $100 million in campaign contributions – look very bad. It also makes the Koch-obsessed left wing media look very bad, because they’ve been politely ignoring the incandescently obvious fact that Steyer is what they’ve been accusing the Koch Brothers of being: a self-interested moneybags looking to purchase control over the American political system for his own ends.
The New York Times begins its report by describing a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that’s going to spew eeeeeeeevil carbon dioxide – the Glenfidditch of greenhouse gases – into the atmosphere for decades to come. The project was opposed by some local environmentalists, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s been bankrolled by the biggest environmentalist of them all:
Seeing a pattern yet?No longer content writing rules with "We The People" in mind, Obama's EPA is now letting a radical environmental group do its dictation. The story of green, greed, and Obama's shredded political legacy. From the NY Times:
In November 2010, three combatants gathered in a sleek office here to build a carbon emissions policy that they hoped to sell to the Obama administration.
One was a lawyer who had been wielding the Clean Air Act since his days at the University of California, Berkeley. Another had turned to practicing environmental law and writing federal regulations to curb pollution after spending a summer on a pristine island off Nova Scotia. The third, a climate scientist who is a fixture on Capitol Hill, became an environmentalist because of postcollege backpacking trips in the Rockies.
Someone sent me a clip from John Oliver—a nebbishy British version of Jon Stewart—arguing that global warming skeptics don’t deserve a hearing because 97% of scientists supposedly back the claims of catastrophic man-made global warming.
This video actually demonstrates that lefties like Oliver and Stewart don’t deserve a hearing, at least not on any topic remotely related to science. And the way Oliver dramatized his point turns out to be very revealing about what actually drives the global warming hysteria.
What explains the incredible intolerance, belligerance, and stunning dogmatism of the climate central planners? They really can’t allow a debate, because they will certainly and rightly lose. When that is certain, the only way forward is to rage. If you want tolerance and humility, and a willingness to defer to the evidence and gradual process of scientific discovery, you will find it among those who have no desire to manage the world from the top down. --Jeffrey Tucker, Liberty Me, 19 June 2014
The BBC’s behaviour grows ever more bizarre. Committed by charter to balanced reporting, it has now decided formally that it was wrong to allow balance in a debate between rival guesses about the future. In rebuking itself for having had the gall to interview Nigel Lawson on the Today programme about climate change earlier this year, it issued a statement containing this gem: “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research.” The evidence from computer modelling? The phrase is an oxymoron. A model cannot, by definition, provide evidence: it can provide a prediction to test against real evidence. --Matt Ridley, The Times, 7 July 2014
Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered the eternal conundrum of competing choices. His “Aye, there’s the rub” nicely summarizes the conflicts inherent in the present socio/political/scientific arena of climate discussions.
Years of relentless doomsday prognostications by a variety of public voices spanning the political-scientific spectrum have found their mark in a gullible and guilt-prone public. There is a Medusa-like quality in the serpentine web of doomsday prophets, including members of the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” and the current White House science advisor, John Holdren. In the U.S., Rachel Carson proclaimed DDT to be environmental enemy number one, and inspired Al Gore to discover “Inconvenient Truths,” later found to be not so truthful. Al Gore’s contribution to making climate change a co-equal amongst the four horsemen of the apocalypse is matched by M. Mann’s reinterpretation of global temperature history. Repeated refutations of “faulty” science and failed predictions of climate calamities have not deterred these marketers of doom. Cut the head off, yet it lives on.
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the patrons of conservative Republican politics, after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.
This past April, with the help of a knowledgeable reader, we took a deep dive into the fossil fuel investments of Democratic money man and environmental poseur Tom Steyer in “The epic hypocrisy of Tom Steyer.” Introducing our reader’s report, John wrote regarding Steyer: “Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.”
You read it here first, and in something like a definitive form (taking account of Steyer’s current financial interests), but we now welcome Michael Barbaro and Coral Davenport reporting in the New York Times: “Aims of donor are shadowed by past in coal.” Barbaro and Davenport may induce serious cognitive dissonance among alert Times readers with this, at the top of page A1 today:
College campuses across the country have been abuzz with protests calling for the divestment of university endowments and public pension funds from fossil fuels. As a result of the pressure, Stanford University has begun to divest its $18.7 billion endowment from coal stocks. Union Theological Seminary in New York has begun a divestment process as well. Cities have born the brunt of protests as well, and a growing number of them are making decisions to stop investing city funds in dirty energy.
Conflicts of Interest
Further crippling the campaign is its questionable line of funding. According to a report from Inside Philanthropy and 350.org’s IRS filings, 350.org receives millions of dollars from billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. It has also received at least $350,000 from Jeremy Grantham, a hedge fund manager who oversees more than $500 million in assets for public pension funds in Massachusetts. (The organization declined to state exactly how much money it has received from Steyer and Grantham.)
Fossil fuel and insurance company executives “could face personal liability for funding climate denialism and opposing policies to fight climate change,” Greenpeace recently warned several corporations. In a letter co-signed by WWF International and the Center for International Environmental Law, the Rainbow Warriors ($155 million in 2013 global income) suggested that legal action might be possible.
Meanwhile, the WWF ($927 million in 2013 global income) filed a formal complaint against Peabody Energy for “misleading readers” in advertisements that say coal-based electricity can improve lives in developing countries. The ads are not “decent, honest and veracious,” as required by Belgian law, the World Wildlife ethicists sniffed. Other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) make similar demands.