NextGen Climate, a lobbying organization selling the theory of global warming, recently sent an email out to the masses trumpeting how they had offered to meet with 2016 GOP presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio. Though 501(c)4 organizations are supposed to be non-partisan, their email specifically attacked the Republican party, Mr. Rubio and anyone who hasn’t bought into the “sky is falling” approach of global warming alarmists.
Their communique begins by taking to task Republican politicians “and their favorite supporters, the Koch brothers” as though legally contributing time, money and effort to conservative political causes is the greatest sin imaginable. They neglect to mention that NextGen itself is the pet project of a liberal billionaire who spends and enormous amount of time and money on Democratic candidates and left wing causes. Apparently big money is OK for them, but not for the right.
Unable to win over the populace on the supposed dangers of global warming, team Obama is now framing it as a public health issue. That's according to a new article published yesterday in the 'Fiscal Times.' With a number of states and utility companies taking the EPA to court for onerous regulations being placed on fossil-fueled power plants, Obama is using this new study, published in Nature Climate Change, in its ongoing public relations campaign. The study used computer modeling to predict the impact on human health from power plants, specifically soot and ozone.
Since 1988, global warming has become a cause célèbre for many Democrats and a handful of scientists, with computer model predictions flying fast and furious on the devastating impacts from a warming world. Except none have come to fruition. From size and frequency of hurricanes to increased tornadoes to more droughts to less snow to more rainfall, global warming has turned out to be all fizzle and no pizazz. Even the satellite datasheets show no increase in temperatures for the last 18.5 years, better known on the streets as the global warming hiatus.
Like Paul on the road to Damascus, Al Gore had a revelation that he could become Catholic. Not because he’s had any religious revelation, but because of Pope Francis’s concern over global warming.
“I think Pope Francis is quite an inspiring figure really,” Gore said during an event at the University of California, Berkeley. “A phenomena. I’ve been startled with the clarity of the moral force that he embodies.”
“Well I’ve said publicly in the last year, I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, I could become a Catholic because of this Pope,” Gore said. “He is that inspiring to me. And I know the vast majority of my Catholic friends are just thrilled to the marrow of their bones that he is providing this kind of spiritual leadership.”
Time to take a quick look at the sea ice situation down under, as I must have missed it on BBC News. According to NSIDC, a new record high has been set for April, beating last year. Ice is above average virtually all around the continent. Meanwhile, according to Bob Tisdale, Southern Ocean surface temperatures continue to plunge. It really does not take a genius to add two and two together. --Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 3 May 2015
Falling oil and gas prices have short-circuited rollouts of renewable energy and alternative vehicle use, setting back progress toward reaching climate goals, the world’s top energy body said Monday. Many analysts had been hopeful that renewable investment could withstand the price drop brought about by America’s shale oil and gas boom. But the IEA says it’s not happening. --Rob Wile, Fusion, 4 May 2015
The issue of global warming is once again becoming a topic of hot debate in news headlines, among the scientific community and even in the halls of Congress. As the president is pushing for the most restrictive standards on emissions from fossil fuels in history, voices on both sides of the issue are speaking out.
However, modern journalists and some doomsday scientists regularly suppress any evidence or opinions that do not support their prophecy of a fossil fuel induced apocalypse. An honest look at valid data is rare within the “global warming” community.
It was eight years ago this month that the United Nations said we had eight years to do something about global warming. If not, the planet would be in trouble. Well, here we are, and no climate disaster has befallen Earth. And none is on the horizon.
Since the United Nations' forecast, in fact, new science suggests that the threat posed by human-caused climate change is substantially less than previously thought. The U.N.'s climate chief even admitted that the fight against global warming "is my religion and my dharma."
Many of us have heard the assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is being caused by emissions of greenhouse gasses that result from our modern lifestyle. Since some have questioned the validity of that statistic, this article seeks to understand where the 97 percent figure comes from.
Back in April 2013, an article was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters by John Cook, et. al. that claimed that “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% [percent] endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” This finding came from a meta-analysis of 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011.
For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” — the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.
It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.
Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.
According to a new paper in the journal 'Science Magazine,' the Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting at an accelerated rate, which the authors attribute to a warming climate. There's only one problem: According to the National Space Science & Technology Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), atmospheric temperatures across Antarctica haven't moved up or down since 1979 (See graph right).
Paul Homewood, of the popular site Not A Lot Of People Know That, writes that "the [temperature] trend is a statistically insignificant 0.02°C/decade." He also notes that "sea surface temperatures have been plunging in the last decade," and not rising. According to this paper, the sea ice that is supposedly melting sits on this ocean water, ruling that out as a factor.
In the previous blog post, I have exposed my disdain for the hype surrounding mass production of something as ordinary as lithium-ion batteries. Electric power has been used for a very long time – one comparable to that of the combustion engines. It works but whether it should replace the combustion engines or fossil-fuel-driven power plants should be left to the free markets and those shouldn't be distorted by subsidies.
The same thing holds for the hydrogen fuel cells. They are actually an old paradigm, too. In fact, they were first proposed in 1838. However, until recently, the technological hurdles have been huge and that's why hydrogen fuel cells still sound as science-fiction of a sort. For many years, you could have driven hydrogen-fueled hybrid buses produced in Pilsen but you didn't expect to buy a hydrogen fuel car yourself.
In his 1971 handbook, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, the godfather of community organizers, Saul D. Alinsky, asserted that the "basic requirement for the politics of change is to reorganize the world as it is."
To Alinsky, the world and its history were all about revolution.
Saul Alinsky radicals who are all about revolutionary change ("we are the ones we've been waiting for" kind of change) have now seized control of an issue that can more quickly bring about that change – "climate disruption," as expressed in community-organizer lingo.
If Alinsky were alive today, he would likely fit right in with the current activist climate scientists. Alinsky would probably see that the challenge is to convince enough of the "Have-Nots" that their privation stems not just from racism, sexism, classism, and all the other social -isms used to divide people, but also from what some have called "climatism."
Ensconced in political power, today's Alinsky-style radical elites running roughshod over pure scientific practice can force societal change predicated on unfounded predictions of climate doom. They seem willing to use any means necessary to realize their society-remaking goal. After all, to such radicals, the ends justify the means.
All sensible people are environmentalists. We want to enjoy clean air, land and water and we like to think that future generations will live in an even better environment.
So why is it that, according to a Gallup poll released last month, Americans’ concern about environmental issues now rates near its lowest since the late 1980s?
While Gallup proposes several causes of the decline — a more positive view of the state of the environment, increased economic concerns, politicization of environmental issues — one explanation should trouble environmental strategists: they are, in effect, focused on the wrong issue.