Science mag is publishing a blockbuster paper today, on June 4. Oh boy! Get ready to watch yet another big fight about climate change – this time mainly among different groups of climate alarmists. Is there a “pause”? Did global climate really stop warming during the last dozen years, 18 years, or even 40 years – in spite of rising levels of the greenhouse (GH) gas carbon dioxide?
The renowned National Climate Data Center (NCDC), a division of NOAA located in Asheville, NC, claims that the widely reported (and accepted) temperature hiatus (i.e., near-zero trend) is an illusion – just an artifact of data analysis – and that the global climate never really stopped warming. If true, what a blessing that would be for the UN-IPCC – and for climate alarmists generally, who have been under siege to explain the cause of the pause.
Last April, in a short, narrated YouTube series titled Black Swan Climate Theory  (BSCT), irrefutable evidence was presented that sometime between 2011 and 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had on two occasions rewritten its own version of Maine’s statewide climate history. The gist of my findings was that I believe I caught NOAA purposefully using computer code (algorithms ) to lower historic temperatures to promote present day temperatures as the warmest on record. The image above is from the new YouTube series posted after NOAA’s acknowledgement that they had indeed made improvements to Maine’s climate history.
Presidential nominee Rick Santorum (R) has a message for Pope Francis: "Leave the science to the scientists" and stop buying into the global warming debate. Santorum made these comments during an interview on Monday with WPHT after host Dom Giordano mentioned that the Pope would be weighing in on the climate change debate later this summer. This comes after a late-April climate conference that was sponsored by the Vatican and closed to anyone who dissented from the man-made global warming narrative.
Santorum, who is a "big fan" of the pope and also a Catholic, believes the nabobs of the liberal media have been misrepresenting the views of the pope by implying he's more liberal than the popes that preceded him. The pope "is as committed to the nuclear family as I am," the senator said. "I’m a huge fan of his and his focus on making sure that we have a healthier society." Santorum mentioned that the church should move forward with caution as it has not been on the right side of science a few times in the past.
“Legacy” or something.
The Obama administration is set to announce that it will require new rules to cut emissions from airplanes, expanding a quest to tackle climate change that has included a string of significant regulations on cars, trucks and power plants.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to report as early as Friday its conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes endanger human health because they significantly contribute to global warming, although people familiar with the agency’s plans said the announcement could slip into next week.
President Obama's stance, expressed in his 2014 State of the Union address, is that the debate is settled, and climate change is a fact.
Obama is by no means unique in that view. Former Vice President Al Gore declared that "the science is settled."
This "settled science" vision about climate is held by many, including those in academia.
To call any science settled is sheer idiocy.
As the commencement speaker at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on May 20, President Obama warned that climate change is a growing and “serious threat” to national security. He linked severe weather to the rise of international instability and to threats such as the extremist group Boko Haram in Nigeria and the civil war in Syria.
The president invoked tired metaphors of hazards at sea: “When you’re on deck, standing your watch, you stay vigilant. You plan for every contingency. And if you see storm clouds gathering, or dangerous shoals ahead, you don’t sit back and do nothing. You take action — to protect your ship, to keep your crew safe. Anything less is negligence. It is a dereliction of duty. And so, too, with climate change.”
I’ve heard more stirring middle school valedictory speeches.
Europe’s appetite for wood pellets could lead to more carbon pollution for decades to come, while also putting some of the East Coast’s most productive wildlife habitats at risk. In Georgia, where most of the trees for wood pellets are grown on pine plantations, natural forests are rapidly disappearing as landowners see new opportunities to make money, said Ben Larson, forestry and bio-energy program manager for the National Wildlife Federation. --Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, 2 June 2015
(h/t amirlach) The headline read: “Liberal MPs hold press conference on muzzling of scientists.” As usual, the headline differs from the story. The real story is the most egregious use of bureaucrat scientists for a political agenda in Canadian history. It is part of a larger problem of bureaucrats establishing policy and running governments. Mary McCarthy explains, “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”
Three Liberal MPs are singing the same song as the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, the largest multi-professional union in Canada with 60,000 members. This Union held public rallies a week before the MPs protestations about government interference. An anonymous bureaucrat set out the claim against the Harper government as follows:
Climate change has achieved what Bob Geldof and Live Aid failed to do by ending the drought in the Sahel region of Africa that killed more than 100,000 people in the 1980s, a study has found. Rising greenhouse gases caused rains to return to the region south of the Sahara, from Senegal to Sudan, boosting crop yields since the 1990s and helping the population to feed itself without relying on foreign donations. The study, in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that Sahel summer rainfall was about 10 per cent, or 0.3mm, higher per day in 1996-2011 than in the drought period of 1964-93. --Ben Webster, The Times, 2 June 2015
In spite of the gloomy predictions of even more frequent and severe droughts and famines caused by global warming, vegetation in the Sahel has significantly increased in the last three decades. This has been a very welcome and very beneficial development for the people living in the Sahel. The increase in rainfall, which was probably caused by rising temperatures and rising CO2 concentrations might even - if sustained for a few more decades - green the Sahara. This would be a truly tremendous prospect. --Philipp Mueller, Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 August 2011
I wrote recently about seven big failed environmentalist predictions, from global cooling to the population bomb (which the New York Times, always on the cutting edge, has just noticed was a complete bust). But it’s not only the big scientific theories they’ve gotten wrong. When science gets harnessed for a political cause, it tends to produce a running series of oversold theories that don’t bear up under further examination.
Here are five examples that recently crossed my desk.
1) Electric cars aren’t all that “green.”
Electric cars, like the ones produced by Elon Musk’s Tesla, a darling of the environmentalist crowd, are not the first step to a post-industrial utopia. They are a product of heavy industry and are resource-intensive and energy-intensive. I’m not just referring to the “long tailpipe,” in which the energy used in an electric car spews its exhaust through the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant hundreds of miles away. I’m also referring to reports like this one.
When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, the 2016 GOP frontrunner who hasn’t declared his candidacy yet, visited New Hampshire this weekend for a fundraising cruise, the Institutional Left embarrassed itself when it tried to protest his opposition to the lefties’ position on global warming.
Before Walker went on a fundraising cruise on Lake Winnipesaukee, Americans United For Change (AUFC)—a liberal organization—announced it would be organizing a counter-protest to Walker’s cruise. A couple things made this different than any normal protest, however. First off, the people “protesting” Walker on global warming—who they called “climate change voters”—would be dressed as moose. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they’d be on a “floating iceberg” behind Walker.