Washington Post published a bizarre Op-ed by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, identifying herself as the past president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, saying it is “morally evil” for skeptics to disagree with her on global warming. For people of faith who may take a quick glance at Thistlethwaite’s asserted credentials and assume that she speaks for conservative or mainstream Christians and a Biblical point of view, beware of Thistlethwaite in sheep’s clothing.In the latest iteration of the mainstream media fawning over left wing activists disguised as conservative or mainstream Christian leaders, Tuesday’s
By Flanders & Swann (my comments to follow after video & lyrics):
(the actual song starts at about 2:05…but the lead up is great to listen to as well)
It was inevitable that the climateers and their hand-wringing handmaidens of the media would pronounce Typhoon Haiyan is proof of climate change. So hand over your car keys and turn your thermostat down! It is tedious and boring to have to deal with this, but, like hauling the trash to the curb every week, somebody has to do it.
For example, here’s one general assessment of the issue:
Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.
Typhoon Haiyan and even Superstorm Sandy were not simply caused by global warming. They were the result of “moral evil,” according to one theologian.
“These ‘superstorms’ aren’t an ‘act of God,’ but an act of willful disregard for God’s creation, and the neglect of the human responsibility to care for the planet,” writes Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, professor of theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary and a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.
“There is moral evil to be seen in these ‘superstorms,’ I believe, on two levels,” she added. “First, there is the moral evil of continuing to pump fossil fuels into the atmosphere, producing global warming. Second, however, is the moral evil of climate change denial, that is, those who would continue to deny, in the face of mounting evidence, that violent climate change is upon us and it is accelerating.”
A new report from the National Weather Service says that wind farms have some unfortunate negative impacts on the ability of Doppler radar to track storms.
“Wind farms affect … radars in several ways; first, the turbines can block a significant percentage of the radar beam and decrease the radar signal power down range of the wind farm, particularly if the wind farm is within a few miles of the radar. Second, the wind farm can reflect energy back to the radar system and this appears as clutter or false reflectivity data. This reflectivity can create false precipitation estimates and disrupt precipitation algorithms used by the radar and other software programs. Finally, wind farms can significantly influence velocity and spectrum width data, which can cause bad data sampling of rotating storms and false storm motions, along with impacting algorithms used by the radar to process this data. Since the wind turbines have motion and produce reflectivity, schemes designed to filter out the clutter do not work properly.”
US officials fear that international climate change talks will become focused on payouts for damage caused by extreme weather events exacerbated by global warming, such as the category 5 Typhoon Haiyanthat hit the Philippines last week killing thousands of people and causing what is expected to be billions of pounds of damage. An official US briefing document obtained by the Guardian reveals that the country is worried the UN negotiations, currently under way in Warsaw, will "focus increasingly on blame and liability" and poor nations will be "seeking redress for climate damages from sea level rise, droughts, powerful storms and other adverse impacts". --Stephen Leahy, The Guardian, 13 November 2013
In a new book released by Donna Laframboise, a freelance investigative journalist, she exposes how the IPCC and its chairman have been playing fast and loose with the truth and global-warming evidence. "Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize" is a collection of essays written by Laframboise between early 2010 and August 2013 and available now. She reveals the inner workings of the IPCC, from Chairman Pachauri claiming to have two Ph.D.'s to the IPCC's fountain of funding.
In one essay, Laframboise shows how Pachauri improperly bestowed Faux-Bel laureates to IPCC personnel, which resulted in hundreds of scientists "padding their resumés" by claiming to be Nobel laureates. She shows how nothing could be further from the truth and why it took the IPCC five years to correct the record. Her writing is clear and concise and you'll find yourself turning the pages (or swiping your iPad) as if you're reading a "deep-throat" conspiracy thriller.
The consensus may be moving away from global warming and towards global cooling: Scientists have been looking at different lines of evidence suggesting that the globe is in the midst of a slight cooling trend for at least the last decade or so.
Whether it’s decreasing sunspots or natural climate variations, some scientists are revisiting older theories from the 1960s and 1970s that the Earth is actually cooling off — bucking the mainstream consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.
UN Advisor Jeffrey Sachs Claims Current Energy Policies 'Partly Caused' Typhoon–Those who disagree have 'blood on their hands'
Sachs is Director of The Earth Institute & Quetelet Prof. of Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is Special Advisor to UN Sec.-General Ban Ki-moon.
Sachs on MSNBC: 'We’re causing this because there are more and more of these storms, because of the way that humanity is changing the world’s environment.' -- 'This kind of event will happen more frequently unless we change the way we run our energy system. This is what humanity is doing. This is very, very hard to come to grips with.'
Sachs thinks that people responsible for opposing 'green' energy plans are guilty whenever someone dies from a natural disaster. Sachs tweeted on Nov. 10 that 'Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.'
The Obama administration is among a handful of governments backtracking on a $100 billion promise they made to help poor countries fight climate change, a report finds.
As the United Nations gathers in Poland this week to assess international efforts to fight climate change, a report from development advocacy group Oxfam says there has been a lot of confusion and “smoke and mirrors” about who promised what.
“What is needed is certainty in uncertain times,” Oxfam spokeswoman Kelly Dent said. “The U.S. needs to provide certainty to developing countries that it is actually serious about the 2020 commitment and it needs to increase its commitments to reach the 2020 goal.”
In my first post, I criticised Peter Stott for muddling the IPCC’s definition of climate change. It seems that I owe Stott an apology: it’s not he who got the definitions confused, it’s the IPCC itself.
I gave a link to the IPCC’s definition of climate change, from the 2007 AR4 synthesis report. This states that
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
So it’s quite clear that when the IPCC says climate change, it means either man-made or natural change. And this is what the IPCC studies, since of course CC = “climate change”. The closest thing I can find to a definition in AR5 is Chapter 1 page 5, which again refers to any change, regardless of cause.
In the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, opinion leaders across the world are arguing that we will see more frequent and more severe extreme weather due to man-made global warming. This makes no sense. If increasing greenhouse gas emissions were to cause the world to warm significantly, an unlikely scenario, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see less extreme weather in a warmer world, not more.