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.
Californians are experiencing their third year of drought. One news outlet summarized the conclusions of a group of environmentalists this way: "California's severe and ongoing drought is just a taste of the dry years to come, thanks to global warming."
Let's examine a few drought facts. California experienced eight major droughts in the 20th century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. They ranged from two years to as long as nine years, such as that which occurred from 1928 to 1937.
Our scientific method and traditions of free speech and open debate are under assault as never before, by intolerant inquisitors in our media, universities, government agencies, and even Congress and the Vatican.
They threaten our most basic rights and freedoms, our political and scientific processes – and ultimately our continued innovation and invention, energy reliability and affordability, job creation and economic growth, and modern living standards, health and welfare.
Congressman Grijalva and Senators Markey, Boxer and Whitehouse sent letters to universities, think tanks and companies, demanding detailed information on skeptics’ funding and activities – in an attempt to destroy their funding, reputations and careers, while advancing “crony climate alarm science.” Equally intolerable, Democrats and the White House are blocking efforts to ensure that environmental regulations are based on honest, unbiased, transparent, replicable science that accurately reflects real-world evidence.
Five years ago today the Guardian was celebrating one of the most glorious moments in left-wing history since the erection of the Berlin Wall. I refer, of course, to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill – a tragedy which the Guardian and the rest of the left-liberal media milked so hard that had it been a cow it would almost certainly have had to be put down by a vet, quite likely causing the newspaper’s environment team to be imprisoned for gross animal cruelty and beaten with rubber truncheons by black-uniformed officers of the RSPCA.
Here’s just one example of the kind of enviro porn I mean. See how droolingly it quotes experts from the usual, parti-pris conservation bodies like Pew Environment Group, the National Audubon Society, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature about all the species that might lose their lives: “the brown pelican, state bird of Louisiana”, the American oystercatcher, Wilson’s plover, snowy plover, the Caspian tern, royal tern, laughing gull, black skimmer…
A new report from seasoned meteorologists says the sun is “almost completely blank” as the center of the solar system enters its weakest cycle in more than a century.
“The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” according to Virginia-based weather forecaster Vencore Weather.
IT HAS been brought to my attention that for no apparent reason, in a letter of April 23, Dr Martin Rodger criticised me for having “attacked” the Royal Society and NASA in 2009 and for having “a history of climate-change denying”.
I don’t know anyone who denies that the climate changes; history and geology have shown us that the climate has always changed.
As a physicist with many years experience in the fields of fluid flow, heat transfer and thermal-hydraulics, I have a deep understanding of the physical processes which drive the climate.