Global warming is not happening

[The Bobster]

http://news.yahoo.com/latam-hands-climate-bill-rich-world-summit-050003973.html

LatAm hands climate bill to rich world at summit
AFP
By Leila Macor
November 28, 2015 12:00 AM

Montevideo (AFP) - Latin America will demand that the richest and most polluting countries foot the bill for reducing harmful emissions at the world climate summit starting Monday.

Countries in one of the world's poorest and most environmentally diverse regions have failed to agree on many things and do not have a common negotiating position overall going into the talks.

But they do agree that countries in their region suffer more than most from the effects of global warming , and that the big polluters should pay.

Leaders of 195 countries are aiming for an accord to limit global warming at the United Nations climate summit in Paris, which runs until December 11.

They will discuss limits to emissions and funding for the poorer countries who are fighting climate change.

They hope to agree to limit global warming by 2030 to two degrees Celsius compared to the pre-industrial era.

Among the countries attending, seven form the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean: Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay and Peru.

They are promising to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20 to 45 percent by 2030.

Mexico, the region's second-biggest economy, does not belong to the group but shares it objectives. It has promised to cut harmful emissions by 22 percent by 2030.

"We are all pushing to develop early warning systems that will allow us to anticipate (weather) phenomena that are going to occur," said Mexico's environment minister Rafael Pacchiano.

- Key player Brazil -

As Latin America's biggest economy, Brazil is a key player at the summit.

It has promised to halt deforestation and cut greenhouse gas emissions 43 percent by 2030.

The host of the summit, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, said he was counting on Brazil to help seal a global pact.

"Brazil has set an example by making many ambitious commitments and that gives it credibility as a historical partner in the climate negotiations," he said.

Latin America's third-biggest economic power Argentina meanwhile has set a target of reducing its greenhouse emissions 14 percent by 2030. It plans to build more hydroelectric dams and develop its nuclear sector.

Those two countries' neighbor Bolivia says it will present a series of social recommendations after a meeting with other states in the region last month.

It will demand an even tougher target for limiting global warming: 1.5 degrees Celsius.

It will also demand that big industrialized countries pay for the environmental damage caused by climate change.

- Political cost -

Latin American powers "are going to demand more transparent mechanisms for cooperation, for transfer of technology and for financing," said Jorge Caillaux, president of the non-government Peruvian Environmental Law Society.

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa said he will call for "environmental justice."

"The big polluters should pay for that pollution," he said.

"They should compensate for the consumption of environmental resources and compensate the poor countries impacted by climate change caused by rich countries."

The UN has called for countries to ramp up yearly joint funding to $100 billion a year by 2020 to reduce emissions and tackle the effects of climate change such as droughts and hurricanes.

In the past half-century, Latin America and the Caribbean are estimated to have caused less than five percent of carbon dioxide emissions, but they have suffered more than most from extreme weather disasters.

"What has to be negotiated is who will contribute" to the cost of fighting climate change, said Caillaux.

"It is not our countries that should contribute, but the richest and most industrialized ones."

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Glenn-Schwartz-Blog-Climate-Change-Anger-362666561.html

Hatred, Insults and Even Death Threats Over Climate Science?
By Glenn Hurricane Schwartz - AGW Shill
Published 6 hours ago

Here are some actual quotes from mail, emails, and phone messages to climate scientists:

"You and your colleagues … ought to be shot, quartered and fed to the pigs”

“Just a quick note to encourage you to do the right thing and shoot yourself in the head”

“Wanker, you wanker you nead (sic) to be killed”

“Beware of retribution upon yours. Someone somewhere will hunt you down”

“I hope someone puts a bullet between your eyes”

“I hope your child sees your head in a basket after you’ve been guillotined”

We’re talking about scientists here — people who have studied calculus and physics most of their lives, working behind-the-scenes. If they were interested in being celebrities they could have gone into the TV weather field, for example. If they were interested in making a fortune, they could have used their intellect to make millions on Wall Street. If they wanted to change the world, they could have gotten into politics.

Many of those targeted by the above quotes are well-known in the Climate Change world: Michael Mann, Benjamin Santer, Phil Jones, and Katharine Hayhoe. Other climate scientists talk in more general terms about some of their “correspondence”…..

“a climate modeler was delivered a dead rat on his doorstep”

“an MIT hurricane researcher’s inbox was flooded with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife”

“in Australia in 2011, several climatologists were moved to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics began a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing, and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists’ children”

“…involve hastening my demise by inserting some oversized hardware into a secluded part of my anatomy”

Katharine Hayhoe happens to be an Evangelical Christian, and the daughter of missionaries, along with being Director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech. She has authored more than 60 peer-reviewed publications and wrote the book “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”. Time magazine called her one of the 100 most influential people in 2014. She sure doesn’t sound like a left-wing alarmist. But she says she can get “up to 200 emails and letters a day following a media appearance”.

And that’s just the climate scientists. Now, some colleagues in the TV weather field have gotten threats just by talking about climate change ….

My good friend Doug Kammerer, at WRC in Washington, D.C. made a simple comment after talking about the damaging derecho in 2012 that produced 86 mph wind gusts and caused more than a million homes to lose power:

ANCHOR: “Is this something we could see more of in the future?”
DOUG: “Yes. With global warming, more days with heat like this (104 degrees), there is the potential for more storms like we had today”

Reaction came immediately on Facebook and through emails:

“I’m going to find out where you live…..”

“…and kick your ***”

“…you piece of s*** weatherman”

Plus other obscenities. Just for a single, brief ad-lib.

Other TV meteorologists have gotten hate mail, especially ones who used to be skeptics on Climate Change. This simply because they felt that, after years of careful study that the evidence led to a reversal of their positions held for decades. One of them repeated some comments to me…..

“…I would receive what one of the characters in (the movie) Deliverance did, and another that my family would receive the same fate (tortured and killed) that the family of Russell Crowe’s character in Gladiator did.”

So, Why is There So Much Hatred?

Yes, there’s plenty of anger in the world today, especially in the world of social media. It’s easy to make anonymous insults and threats that wouldn’t dare be mentioned face-to-face. And, fortunately, we haven’t seen actual incidents of violence toward climate scientists-yet. But some are indeed concerned that it’s only a matter of time.

It’s interesting, since people don’t generally wish or threaten death or maiming unless there is some DIRECT threat to them, their families, or those too weak to fight for themselves. Murderers, rapists, abusers of women or children-I can understand that level of hatred toward them. But to scientists who do research, and write, or speak publicly, or testify about their area of expertise? It just doesn’t make sense. You can truly hate someone, such as a player for another sports team, without wishing real harm to them or their family.

And, as mentioned earlier, there is a special level of hatred for those who consider themselves “conservative Christians” who have changed their mind on Climate Change. Is it like having a family member becoming an atheist-or joining ISIS? Could it be that those “traitors” would have extra credibility since they wouldn’t have an ideological reason to change their mind? And that would be more of a threat to the rejecters of the consensus?

Hate From the Climate Change Acceptors

I’ve tried to find descriptions of similar threats toward those who reject the climate science consensus, but haven’t found any :ha: (feel free to send me any reports-it would be only fair to mention them). There is obviously some angry and insulting feedback.

Their anger has generally been perceived as an effort to stifle any debate on the issue. Calling anyone who disagrees with the consensus a “denier” is a pretty strong description. There are obviously levels of disagreement, whether it is about the proposed ‘solutions” all the way to those who call it all a “hoax”. Are they all equal in being called “deniers”?

I think I understand the anger on this side. Some truly feel that anything blocking the acceptance of the science is potentially harmful to the future of the planet. “There is no Planet B”, as they say. If we don’t reduce CO2 emissions sharply (and soon), we might pass a “tipping point” where global warming will continue out of control and can’t be reversed. In this case, they’re not protecting themselves or their family, but all of mankind.

Can’t We Be More Civilized?

Not all of those who reject the Climate Change consensus are “deniers”. Some disagree about the amount, speed, and consequences of future warming.

Not all of those who accept the Climate Change consensus care about the issue just out of hatred for the oil and gas industry, or as a way to distribute global wealth. Or any other motive except a concern for the future of the planet.

Yes, it’s an issue that brings out strong emotions. But so do many other issues that don’t involve threats, or attempts to stifle dissent. Can’t we be more civilized about this?

 

[The Bobster]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/e...-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend
4:31 PM 12/17/2015

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.

What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.

Watts’ new paper casts more doubt on NOAA’s temperature adjustments — which always seem to increase the warming trend. Correcting for these poorly-sited stations could also bring surface warming trends more in line with observations from satellites, which show no statistically significant warming for about two decades.

“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations,” according to Watts’ study. “The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.”

Watts says the warming trend at well-sited stations was “found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as U.S. trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.” NOAA data adjustments greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”

NOAA has come under fire in recent months for “homogenizing” the temperature data, a process used by scientists to correct for biases in the data. Scientists go in and either ratchet up or down temperatures from thermometers up or down based on things like changes in the time of day temperatures are observed, the equipment used to take readings, or changes in the actual locations of thermometers. NOAA has defended its data adjustments are necessary to get more accurate data.

But there’s a bigger question: why is NOAA relying on so many poorly-sited thermometers to collect temperature data?

“It’s one of the factors they did not consider,” Dr. John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and co-author of the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Many of the thermometer sites have been contaminated,” Christy said, adding that poor siting “increases the warming rates.”

Christy and his colleague Dr. Roy Spencer created the first satellite datasets to observe global temperature trends in 1989, and have global data going back to 1979. Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite measurements, which collect temperature data from the lower atmosphere, show no statistically significant warming since 1994 — a period of 21 years.

“We prefer satellite data because it’s a measurement of the bulk atmosphere,” Christy said, adding this is where global warming should be most apparent. Satellites also don’t need to go through the level of adjustments surface thermometers do.

Watts’ study is likely to be challenged by the global warming “establishment” because it challenges data they believe supports the idea that greenhouse gases are pushing the world towards dangerous warming.

“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.”

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...ld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
DECEMBER 22, 2015

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.

Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 – NOAA is a component of the Department of Commerce. The timeframe for the requested records is October 30, 2014, through October 30, 2015, and requests all documents and records of communications between NOAA officials, employees, and contractors regarding:

•The methodology and utilization of night marine air temperatures to adjust ship and buoy temperature data;

•The use of other global temperature datasets for both NOAA’s in-house dataset improvements and monthly press releases conveying information to the public about global temperatures;

•The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets; and

•A subpoena issued for the aforementioned information by Congressman Lamar Smith on October 13, 2015.

Judicial Watch is investigating how NOAA collects and disseminates climate data that is used in determining global climate change. NOAA collects data in thousands of ways – from temperature gauges on land and buoys at sea, to satellites orbiting Earth. Considered the “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. In July, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to a controversial climate change study. After the agency refused to comply with the document request, Smith’s committee issued a subpoena on October 13. According to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

Judicial Watch sued the agency on December 2 and served the complaint on the agency on December 8. Less than a week later, on Tuesday, December 15, NOAA finally began to turn over documents to the House committee. That same day, NOAA called and told Judicial Watch that it would begin searching for documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

On November 26, Smith published an opinion editorial in The Washington Times, which accused NOAA of tampering with data to help promote global warming alarmism:

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

“We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration. The Obama administration seems to care not one whit for a congressional subpoena but knows from prior experience that a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit cannot be ignored,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science to advance global warming alarmism.”

Judicial Watch previously investigated alleged data manipulation by global warming advocates in the Obama administration. In 2010, Judicial Watch obtained internal documents from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) related to a controversy that erupted in 2007 when Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre exposed an error in NASA’s handling of raw temperature data from 2000-2006 that exaggerated the reported rise in temperature readings in the United States. According to multiple press reports, when NASA corrected the error, the new data apparently caused a reshuffling of NASA’s rankings for the hottest years on record in the United States, with 1934 replacing 1998 at the top of the list.

In late 2014, Judicial Watch litigation forced out documents withheld in response to another congressional subpoena – one issued in the Fast and Furious scandal. Thanks to the Judicial Watch lawsuit, Congress finally obtained the information it had sought for years on Obama’s gun-running scandal.

 

[The Bobster]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...-disaster-except-the-one-governments-created/

There Is No Climate Change Disaster Except The One Governments Created
Guest Blogger / 2 days ago December 27, 2015
Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

At the Paris Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) we witnessed the biggest display of failed leadership in history from 195 countries. They established incorrect and misdirected policy based on failed and falsified science. It is a classic circular argument on a global scale. They invented the false problem of anthropogenic global warming/climate change and now they want to resolve the problem, but with a more disastrous solution.

Most countries were puppets that aspired to lead the deception but lacked the power so they contributed by serving as lackeys. Either way, all were purchased with promises of money. The majority receives money from successful countries, but all of them have an excuse for another tax. As George Bernard Shaw said,

“A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.”

These leaders are all examples of Lord Acton’s dictum that,

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In fact, the entire quote is even more revealing.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you add the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Obama used the Paris to advance his personal agenda regardless of the evidence. John Kerry said this when he admitted the agreement was not binding. Rules or agreements are meaningless without enforcement mechanisms. Kerry said it was unenforceable because Congress would not approve it. This allowed Obama to blame Congress when it was Russia, India, and China who wanted a non-binding agreement. Kerry knows Congress wouldn’t approve it because as a Senator he voted against the Kyoto Protocol, arguing it would cost jobs and hurt the economy. Of course that did not prevent him claiming the Paris Agreement would create jobs and economic opportunity against all evidence.

The Climate Green Fund (GCF) was a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. As a Senator in 1997 Kerry voted against Kyoto. Technically, they did not vote directly against Kyoto. They voted on the Byrd/Hagel resolution explicitly that said the US Senate would not approve anything that harmed the US economy. Kerry and the Senators agreed 95-0 that Kyoto was harmful. Their green image was faded but intact.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) requires COP act on the science created for them by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is why the leaked emails exposing the scientific corruption were so effective in diverting them away from Kyoto at COP 15 in 2009. They recovered quickly because the following year at COP 16 in Durban they introduced the replacement GCF that became central to the Paris Conference.

What is the situation post-Paris? They created a global policy to take money from a few developed nations and give it to the developing nations. The Paris communiqué says,

Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.

Governments also agreed that a major share of new multilateral, multi-billion dollar funding should be channeled through the Green Climate Fund. At the G7 Summit in June 2015, leaders emphasized GCF’s role as a key institution for global climate finance. Many developing countries, too, have explicitly expressed their expectations from the Fund in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

The acronym INDC is bureaucratese at its best. This charade is an unnecessary waste of taxpayer’s money based on the false IPCC science exposed by the leaked emails. The falsifications continued because the public didn’t understand and as the Senator Cruz hearings demonstrated it is a widely accepted and essentially unchallenged story. The redistribution of wealth continues almost exactly as the Kyoto schemers planned. But the problem is worse than that because the money is to offset warming when all the natural mechanisms of climate change indicate the world is cooling and will get colder.

IPCC proponents realize that this is the trend so they did what they always do, produce a paper claiming another human activity is likely to make their predictions invalid. Gavin Schmidt and the NASA GISS gang did this recently in a paper titled, “Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings.” It produced the intended headlines such as Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA” in the UK Express. Maybe they could blame the government Chemtrail program?

The final socio-economic cost of Paris is almost incalculable. For example, how do you put a value on the loss of credibility of science? What are the lost opportunities for improving the quality of life through science and technology restricted by the extremism of a few Green Luddites?

I recently participated in a Skype interview on a live Nigerian broadcast about Climate Change. I don’t know how the producer got my name, but it was immediately evident that they were not aware or welcoming of my views. Fortunately, they couldn’t shut me off because it was live. However, they did shuffle me off quickly and went to another guest. The other person, as I understand, was a representative of the Nigerian government promoting the real danger of global warming and the dire need for action – send the money.

He began his rejoinder with the phrase, “With all due respect to the good professor…” a euphemism for “What you just heard is completely wrong.” The person is saying I am not qualified to say this, but if I don’t make this argument, my job is gone. I did not hear his entire response, but it was built around the precautionary principle that even if the “good professor” is right, we should act.

Maurice Strong and the drafters of Agenda 21 anticipated such a situation when they wrote Principle 15.

Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This means don’t let facts get in the way of policy. You don’t need evidence just “threats” are adequate reason. My portion of the Nigerian interview began with the host referencing the University of Notre Dame ND – Gain Country Index study that lists the countries of the world and their preparedness for climate change. Figure 1 shows those countries deemed best prepared and Figure 2 those least prepared. Others produced similar measurements and show the results in world maps (Figure 3).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows the ND – GAIN index on a world map. It shows that prepared countries are middle and high latitude while unprepared are in the tropics. Some produced similar indices but with a different emphasis (Figure 3). The map shows regions “most” or “least” at risk. In other words, they need to be the best prepared, but the ND-GAIN index shows they are the least prepared.

Figure 3

The IPCC claim global warming is almost certain, so their policies are designed for that inevitability. They also claim that the greatest warming will occur in high latitudes, so Figure 3 is incorrect. Figure 1 shows that those high latitude countries are best prepared, but that is also incorrect because they prepare for warming.

The predominant message says global warming is a potential worldwide disaster with only negative impacts. Thirty years ago global cooling was presented in a similar singular way. Lowell Ponte wrote in his 1976 book The Cooling

It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

Change one word “cooling” to warming and the governments are exploiting the same fears. On the cover of The Weather Conspiracy prepared by a team of investigative journalists in 1977 it says,

What does it mean? Many of the worlds leading climatologist’s concur. We are slipping towards a new Ice Age. Why is this so? How will it affect food scarcity, rising costs? How much is it a threat to the quality of life – the very fact of our existence on this planet? What is going to happen? What can – and can’t – we do about it?

In the 1970s political pressure for action only came from a general concern about adapting and preparing for the future. In 1973, the US Office of Research and Development (ORD) was confronted with the forecasts of global cooling. Statements like Ponte’s required further research and planning. The CIA produced two reports, one titled “Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate” (Office of Political Research – 401, August, 1974). The report notes,

“The precarious outlook for the poor and food – deficit – countries, and the enhanced role of North American agriculture in world food trade outlined above were predicated on the assumption that normal weather will prevail over the next few decades. But many climatologists warn that this assumption is questionable; some would say that it is almost certainly wrong.”

The CIA used the word climatocracy to describe the role of climate in political action. (Amusingly and perceptively, the spell checker tried to replace climatocracy with cleptocracy). Climatocracy is more applicable today. Political involvement in climate research is global and profound. Demand for action is very strong. Frighteningly, the demand is for action to deal with only one possibility based on the false assumption that today’s forecasts for the next 50 and 100 years are more accurate and certain than the belief in 1970 that cooling was inevitable. That forecast was wrong, as was every forecast the IPCC made since anthropogenic global warming became the scare in the late 1980s.

The sensible policy when you lack understanding is to do nothing. The proper course of action is for governments to face the truth and admit the science is wrong. Unfortunately, the lack of leadership they’ve already demonstrated guarantees that will not happen. They are obliged to do something in response to the hysteria they created.

There is a policy that can salvage something out of this self-inflicted chaos. It is a classic game theory challenge based on the knowledge that cooling is a much greater threat than warming, especially for middle and high latitude countries. It is important for those nations listed as “well prepared” in Figure 1 because they prepare for warming when the probability of cooling is much higher and more threatening. All nations, but especially them, must ready for cooling. If you prepare for cooling, and it warms the adaptations are much easier. If you prepare for warming and cooling occurs the adaptations are difficult and in some instances impossible. But don’t expect any such logical, rational, leadership from the Paris world leaders, they only like games they create and control to improve their image of saving the planet and humanity.

Politics is the diversion of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become more important in the eyes of more trivial men.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/glob...aim-weather-satellites-cant-be-trusted_012016

Global Warming Alarmists Claim Weather Satellites Can’t Be Trusted
January 17, 2016 | Joshua Krause | The Daily Sheeple

Global warming believers always say that climate skeptics are guilty of wishful thinking, and that they’re letting politics and emotions get in the way of indisputable scientific truths. Time and again they say that climate skeptics are cherry picking the data, and are falling for their own confirmation biases. They may be right. Many of the people who believe in man-made global warming are scientists, and scientists are really good at spotting those sorts of things. But they’re also human, so they’re just as likely to be guilty of cherry picking and confirmation bias as anyone else.

Never was this more true, than when NOAA announced earlier this year that the global warming “pause” didn’t happen. For the past 19 years give or take, the official data has shown very little global warming, which as you might expect has perturbed climate scientists ever since.

Then NOAA scientists conducted a study that claimed the methods used to measure ocean temperature in the past were inaccurate , and after compensating the data to reflect newer measuring techniques , they found that the world had been warming this whole time. The global warming pause was just a myth used by climate deniers to fool the public, and themselves.

Of course, this study completely ignored the most comprehensive ocean temperature testing system known as the Argo Array, and the biggest adjustments to the data are conveniently made for 1998-present day time period. So how did they really come to this new conclusion? We don’t know. Many of the adjustments that were made are left unexplained, and when a Congressman asked them to hand over the data and internal memos that were connected to the study, NOAA flat-out refused to do so. If that’s not suspicious, then I don’t know what is.

The study also completely ignored satellite derived temperature readings, which are widely regarded as the most accurate readings for finding global temperatures. The satellite data also confirms the global warming pause.

So what is a global warming believer to do when the data doesn’t match the theories and models? Find a way to discredit the source of the data of course.

The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years.

Turns out the satellite data is lying.

And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)

The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.

Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.

Here’s the video in question, which was released last week. Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment, and assume that these scientists are correct, and that our satellites have failed to give us an accurate portrayal of the Earth’s temperature. What exactly are we left with? Ocean readings apparently weren’t accurate before, but now they are? Satellites were considered the most accurate tool for determining the Earth’s temperature for several decades, but suddenly now they’re not? What about land based weather stations? Oh yeah, those temperatures are riddled with inaccuracies and biases as well.

So what we’re really left with is nothing at all. Doubt has been cast on all of the equipment we use to measure temperature, as well as the people who are collecting data from that equipment. It’s impossible to have any idea about what our planet is up to, much less what is causing it. Somehow, this “settled science” doesn’t sound so settled anymore, does it?

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...t-conspiracy-against-the-taxpayer-in-history/

Climate Change: The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer
by James Delingpole
28 Mar 20163,427

Climate change is the biggest scam in the history of the world – a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracy against the taxpayer, every cent, penny and centime of which ends in the pockets of the wrong kind of people, none of which goes towards a cause remotely worth funding, all of it a complete and utter waste.

Here is an edited version of a speech on this subject I gave last week to the World Taxpayers’ Associations in Berlin.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen; Guten Abend meine Damen und Herren. May I say how grateful I am to Staffan Wennberg and the World Taxpayers Associations for inviting me to speak in Berlin. This is my first time here since 1978.

I was a schoolboy then. I learned my first German: “Was trinken wir? Schultheiss Bier.” Now I’m grown up and married with children even older than I was then. Yesterday I went on a tour and I couldn’t help noticing there seem to have been one or two changes.

When I last came I have to confess that the Wall was the highlight of my trip. So echt Cold War. So Spy Who Came In From The Cold!

I remember taking the U-bahn underneath the wall, passing through the East German side, and seeing empty grey platforms where the train never stopped, and lurking in the shadows grim looking guards with machine guns.

And you know how they say: “If you’re not a communist by the time you’re 18 then you’re heartless and if you’re not a capitalist by the time you’re 40 then you’re brainless.”?

Well I’m afraid I skipped that first stage and went straight to the second. All it took was that little glimpse of East Germany – a place so horrible that if you tried to escape they would shoot you with machine guns – to give me an abiding preference for free markets. Small Government. And low taxes.

Low taxes. To many of us here, I suspect, it seems so obvious why low taxes are a desirable thing.

We know, as Bastiat says: “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”

We’ve seen the performance of low-tax economies like Singapore and Hong Kong and compared it to the performance over the years of high-tax economies like Cuba, North Korea or France. And drawn the obvious conclusions.

It’s obvious to us. The evidence supports it. Why isn’t it obvious to the rest of the world?

Well one of the big problems I think is that over the years taxation has acquired a moral dimension it never had originally.

When bad King John sent his tax collectors round 13th century England, everyone knew it was to fund his unpopular wars with France. No one said as they handed over their hard-earned groats:”Well at least it’s going to make a better society.”

But today you hear it a lot. You hear people say things like “I don’t mind paying a bit extra in tax if it gives us a better health service.”

Celebrities who try to reduce their taxes in complicated offshore schemes are pilloried in the newspaper.

Companies like Google, Starbucks and Amazon which avoid paying taxes find themselves boycotted and the subject of angry campaigns on Twitter.

There’s an idea abroad that if you don’t pay your taxes you’re not being clever and canny – as you would have been considered in John’s day. Rather you’re shirking your moral duty to create a better world.

Well I disagree with this. I couldn’t disagree with it more strongly.

I believe that far from being a moral force for good, taxes are – almost invariably – a force for greed, corruption, profligacy and waste.

As PJ O’Rourke once noted:

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

Nowhere is this truer in the field of the environment which, I sincerely believe – and I’ve been doing a lot of research into this – must count among the biggest wastes of tax money in the history of the world.

Last year Climate Change Business Journal – calculated that the total annual spend on the climate change industry is $1.5 trillion a year.

All those carbon traders, climate researchers, renewables and biofuels experts, environment correspondents, professors of climate science at the University of East Anglia and the Potsdam Institute, sustainability officers on local councils, and so on, add up the cost of their grants and salaries – and $1.5 trillion per year is the ballpark figure you reach.

So what does $1.5 trillion look like in a global economic context?

Well, it’s roughly the amount we spend every year on the online shopping industry.

$1.5 trillion on the global warming industry; $1.5 trillion on the online shopping industry.

But there’s a key difference between these two industries.

One exists to provide buyers and sellers what they want – to their mutual benefit; the other is a sham.

Buying stuff on the internet: it’s really useful, isn’t it? It has had a dramatically transforming effect on our quality of life, the way you can order a book at 11 o’clock on a Sunday night and have it appear on your doorstep the very next day.

But how did this marvellous industry spring up? Was it because of all the special incentives and tax breaks granted by wise governments? Nope of course not. They weren’t necessary. The online shopping industry sprung up and grew and grew because it was what people wanted, where they chose – of their own volition – to spend their money.

Now compare and contrast the global warming industry – which I call a Potemkin industry – because that’s what it is: a fraud; a sham; a conspiracy against the taxpayer.

Do you want to have a guess how much that industry would be worth if it weren’t for all the money funnelled into it via government grants and taxpayer levies and subsidies and regulatory capture?

Pretty close to zero, I’d say. Take wind farms – my hobby horse. The cost of intermittent, unreliable wind energy is roughly twice the market rate for onshore wind; three times the market rate for onshore. Nobody’s going to pay that kind of money in the open market. The only way it’s going to happen if people are mandated by the government to do so: which is what of course has happened across Europe and in the US.

Warren Buffett has said it: “wind farms don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

They’re inefficient; they kill birds and bats; they spoil views; they’re environmentally unfriendly – rare earth minerals from China; they’re hazardous; they’re expensive; they’re ugly (well I think they are….)

And in few countries is the damage these monstrosities have done more obvious than in Germany, home of the hateful Energiewende.

Energiewende means Energy Transition. It has been a disaster, as Rupert Darwall noted in a recent Telegraph article.

In 2004, the Green energy minister, Jürgen Trittin, claimed that the extra cost of renewable energy on monthly bills was equivalent to the cost of a scoop of ice cream. Nine years later, CDU minister Peter Altmaier said Energiewende could cost around €1 trillion by the end of the 2030s. The cost of feed-in tariffs and other subsidies is currently €21.8bn a year; €20bn is being spent on a new north-south high voltage line and investment in other grid infrastructure is likely to double that number.

They cause real people real misery.

In 2013, 345,000 German households could not pay their electricity bills because Energiewende had made them so expensive.

That’s the financial damage they’ve caused. What about the environmental damage? Here we are in Germany, the Greenest nation on earth. Aren’t Greens supposed to care about animals? Well they don’t about bats, clearly.

Bats are special. The reason they’re so heavily protected by so many laws is that they are a K-selected species. That is, they reproduce very slowly, live a long time and are easy to wipe out. Having evolved with few predators – flying at night helps – bats did very well with this strategy until the modern world.

But now we have all those eco-friendly wind turbines. Or as I call them bird-slicing, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes. A recent study in Germany by the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research showed that bats killed by German turbines may have come from places 1000 or more miles away. This would suggest that German turbines – which one study claims kill more than 200,000 bats a year – may be depressing populations across the entire northeastern portion of Europe.

Why would anyone put up such things.
One reason and one reason only: follow the money.

Where does the money come from? Us!

Who made the decision to spend that money? Not us.

Oh definitely not us. Had it been us we might have done a bit of basic due diligence.

Like, OK, so these wind turbines are necessary you say to save the planet from the threat of catastrophic and unprecedented man-made global warming?

Correct.

So has the planet ever been as warm in human history as it is today?

Well, only in the Minoan warming period and the Roman warming period and the Medieval warming period.

Just those. Right. And presumably back then all that CO2 heavy industry was burning was a real problem? No just kidding…Out of interest how much has the planet warmed in the last few years?

About 0.8 degrees C since 1850.

Right so since the end of the Little Ice Age (so called because it was characterised by unpleasant cold) and years like the infamous Year Without A Summer (1816), the planet has heated by less than the temperature increase you’d get on a spring day between say breakfast and mid-morning coffee time?

Ah yes but the computer models…

Indeed the computer models. Those amazing models which have been predicting catastrophic, runaway warming, when there has been no significant warming since 1998 – so for eighteen years there has been no global warming?

Ah yes but the temperatures of February 2016….

Look I could go on like this forever. I’ve been listening to these increasingly desperate excuses for decades. Perhaps some of you here believe them – if so, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you…

But it really doesn’t matter whether you believe in global warming or not because here’s the reality:

All that money we’re being to spend on the global warming industry – that $1.5 trillion I mentioned earlier siphoned straight out of taxpayers’ pockets – it isn’t going to make the blindest bit of difference.

No, I exaggerate. It will make a teeny weeny bit of difference. Bjorn Lomborg has done the calculations. You’re going to love this, if you haven’t heard this before. These figures are just amazing.

So recently you’ll recall there was a big UN climate conference in Paris COP 21 and all the leaders of the world flew in to save the planet from global warming. But before they turned up, each delegate nation made a voluntary agreement as to how much it was going to cut its carbon emissions. Not compulsory, note. So these countries are free at any stage to abandon their carbon reduction targets – as funnily enough South Korea did last week. This is how much – best case scenario – that various countries are prepared to do to combat climate change.

So Lomborg added up all the countries INDCs – that stands for Intended Nationally Determined Contributions – and worked out, using the climate alarmists’ own models, what effect all this would have on global temperature.

Do you want to know how much? (Oh this is the optimistic scenario by the way, not the pessimistic one).

If all the countries do their bit then the total reduction in global warming – by the year 2100 will be 0.170 degrees Centigrade.

As a climate sceptic friend of mine pointed out at the time, you’d experience a bigger temperature increase than that just walking down from the top to the bottom of the Eiffel tower.

So there’s your deal folks: you – and taxpayers like you – are paying $1.5 trillion a year to reduce the world’s temperatures by the end of this century by 0.170.

It’s so perfectly ridiculous it’s almost funny.

And I suppose on a personal level I shouldn’t complain. I call climate change “the gift that goes on giving” because day in day out I get an endless stream of stories to write about the corruption, incompetence, skullduggery of the climate alarmism industry.

But, putting my career aside for the moment, is this really a world we’d like to live in? Can it be right that people who have worked hard for their money should have it taken from them and then wasted in so spectacular fashion?

And it’s not just the waste that’s so bad it’s worse than that.

If it were simply a form of taxpayer-funded welfare scheme for otherwise unemployable environmental sciences graduates that would be one thing.

But this is causing real, lasting harm in any number of ways.

The corrupting effects on science – and the scientific method – which at times are almost redolent of Lysenkoism of the Stalin era.

The brainwashing of schoolchildren such as you might have found with the Young Pioneers.

The economic damage caused by the misallocation of resources, as so frequently happens in Communist countries

The pollution caused by diesel (introduced, on EU recommendation, because it’s supposedly more CO2-friendly) which calls to mind Chernobyl or the poisoning of the Aral Sea.

The human suffering of those 345,000 German households I mentioned who can’t pay their electricity bills.

Does this authoritarianism and corruption and incompetence remind you of anything?

Well it has often been said – and there is much anecdotal evidence to support this – that after the Berlin Wall came down the left had a bit of a problem. Capitalism had won the economic argument. Where could the left go next?

But the solution was there waiting them – the green movement. In the guise of saving the world’s environment they could advance all their usual obsessions – control, regulation, state intervention, puritanism, compulsory immiseration – though this time with a smiling, fluffy face. Watermelons they call them: green on the outside, red on the inside.

So the Berlin Wall came down but it never really went away.

And sometimes I look at the world and what has been happening with the rise and rise of green lunacy and I ask myself: did the right side really win the Cold War or is it just an illusion?

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/#

Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view
John Coleman 4:04 p.m. EDT April 22, 2016

On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.

With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.

The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?

Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.



Weather Channel founder John Coleman has spent more than 60 years as a meteorologist, including seven years as the original weathercaster on ABC’s Good Morning America.

 

[The Bobster]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/joachim-hagopian/global-warming-hoax/

The Global Warming Hoax, Paris Climate Accord and NWO Global Governance
By Joachim Hagopian
April 25, 2016

“Global warming is the biggest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.” - Longtime meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman

With last Friday’s Earth Day marked by the US among 170 nations out of the planet’s 190 nations signing last December’s UN Paris climate change agreement at the United Nations, the topic “global warming/climate change” is once again all abuzz these days. Additionally, in less than a week a documentary entitled “The Climate Hustle” is being released in movie theaters nationwide on May 2nd debunking the notion that humans have caused global warming from the alleged increased CO2 greenhouse effect. This new film arrives as the answered rebuttal exactly a decade after ex-VP Al Gore’s Oscar-winning “Inconvenient Truth” pushed the global warming agenda to unprecedented heights. Gore was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize for his propagandist sci-fi movie. Recall his “true planetary emergency” calling for “drastic measures” to reduce the greenhouse gases before “reaching the point of no return” within ten years. Well, his ten years have come and gone and for all his over-predicting of end-of-the-world crises due to global warming, Gore and his alarmist minions have virtually no evidence of any warming to show for all their doom and gloom catastrophic warnings.

That said, the global warming industry stakes are now worth an annual $1.5 trillion. Yet despite the global elites adapting a climate change agreement, a vast array of critics are blasting their Paris climate accord as merely a $100 billion boondoggle lacking any specific strategies or methods for reducing CO2 levels nor any mandated authority to enforce recommendations hinging on voluntary participation from all nations. Even the father of the global warming movement former NASA climatologist and green activist James Hanson trashes the Paris agreement:

It’s just bulls hit for them to say ‘we’ll have a 2 C. warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s worthless words. There is no actions, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.

The earth’s global warming that Al Gore and his movement attribute to humans burning fossil fuels over the last century has absolutely nothing to do with the global warming presently being observed on every planet in our solar system. Scientists are blaming it on solar warming and the sun’s electromagnetic field is becoming more intense. The fact that solar warming is heating up all the planets strongly suggests that global warming on our planet is not being caused by human activity at all.

Few skeptical scientists on global warming deny that human-generated CO2 does not warm the planet. But the amount of heating caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases has never been scientifically determined and is believed to be minuscule. In contrast, in recent years virtually all of Al Gore’s contentions have been refuted and debunked by actual science. Bill Clinton’s Vice President while campaigning for president claimed that he “created the internet” and of course we all know he conveniently stretched the truth on that one. As a lifelong politician raised by another lifelong politician father, his trademark is bending the truth any time he feels the need to impress his audience. Though Al Gore likes to pass himself off as an altruist out to save the world, as a partner in Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm that invested a billion dollars in 40 different companies, Gore and his partners stand to hugely profit from cap and trade laws that would make him the first carbon billionaire.

Back in 2008 Al Gore made the bold prediction that all the ice in the Arctic Sea would be completely melted by 2013-2015. It clearly hasn’t. The polar icecap has actually grown thicker in 2015 than it was in 2008. Meanwhile, the climate and ice pack on Antarctica is consistently growing thicker and colder at record levels. These polar discrepancies stand in direct contradiction to the global warming alarmist’s original statements as literally the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how Gore’s dire warnings never quite materialize. Hence, in recent years Gore’s political camp quietly and seamlessly renamed their all-important cause from global warming which was disproven to a more benign, less disprovable assertion called climate change.

One of Gore’s “facts” that acts as his basic premise behind his entire theory is the notion that rising CO2 levels cause global warming. This is not true. What scientists do know is for millions of years the earth has taken turns cyclically shifting back and forth between relative short warming periods compared to longer cooling periods. During the last 800 years of a typical 5,000-year ice age, it’s been determined that temperatures rose before CO2 levels did. This lagging anomaly is a scientific fact that disproves climate change contenders’ central tenet that increasing CO2 levels always cause higher temps.

Many scientists maintain that increasing CO2 levels only help to stimulate plant growth since the plant kingdom’s fuel are carbon dioxide.

The clichéd quote so often heard by the alarmists claiming a consensus of 97% of all climate scientists maintain that manmade CO2 levels are causing global warming has also been proven wrong. A closer examination has demonstrated that an extremely minute number of research studies wholeheartedly embrace global warming as fact and that the zealot counting the supposed 12,000 abstracts subjectively misclassified the vast majority as being pro-global warming, in fact, doctoring the results.

On the other hand, 31,487 scientists (over 9,000 with Ph.D.’s) signed a petition confirming that they do not believe that anthropomorphic (human causing) generated CO2 is a valid concern causing any global warming danger. Yet the lies spewing forth from politicized pseudo-science dogma passed all around the world by MSM presstitutes will never admit it.

Falsely inflated high-temperature measurements from urban concrete heat zones in numerous research studies supporting the global warming hoax account for up to 3 degree Celsius difference from readings in rural areas. A couple of favorites used by deceitful alarmists in their desperate PR ploys have pulled on public heartstrings promoting polar bear extinction or dying bleached coral reefs as fearmongering threats.

Early environmentalist scientists spearheaded by founder of the UN Environmental Programme and Canadian billionaire globalist Maurice Strong throughout the 1960’s and 70’s went shopping for research funding that would produce their magic bullet linking CO2 emissions to a disastrous climatic future. In his zealous quest Strong disclosed:

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

Now you can see how the recent globalist manufactured migration crisis and the Paris climate accord committing $100 billion to “fighting CO2” fits right in with Strong’s mission with billions in carbon tax used to codify world governance laws. In 1993 an even more glaring admission to misuse global warming to further advance the New World Order agenda was explicitly declared by the Club of Rome, an elitist think tank comprised of scientists, economists, business and political leaders that often serve as UN consultants of which Maurice Strong himself was a onetime member:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention… and thus the real enemy, then, is humanity itself… believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or… one invented for the purpose.

Thus the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was born, opportunistically latching onto the highly bogus 1998 MBH98 study that included grossly flawed methodology as its smoking gun “proving” global warming with the infamous “hockey stick” CO2 spike pattern used by Al Gore in his acclaimed disinfo propaganda flick. Later researchers debunked the MBH98 findings identifying errors that when corrected to include missing 15th century data showed even higher temperatures than today minus of course any manmade cause back then, thus shattering the myth of human carbon dioxide emissions causing a warmer earth. Additionally, for two straight decades now, satellite derived data records show no statistically significant global warming trend at all. Even surface readings over the last decade have failed to deliver the bad news globalists like Gore were literally banking on. So by default, let’s call it climate change and keep hammering away with more lies until they become accepted science dogma.

The often heard climate change narrative readily cites increasing number of hurricanes and tornadoes as the sought after proof that climate change is real. Yet once again reality fails to back up the claims. For the fourth year in a row, tornadoes fell under the average with 2015 one of the lowest years on record. And regarding killer hurricanes, the US is in the longest drought in its recorded history since records began in 1851. The last category 3 hurricane was Wilma that struck Florida over a decade ago. Furthermore, a University of Colorado study released results last year stressing the need for caution in interpreting extreme weather, warning not to succumb to an obvious temptation to attribute every extreme weather event to global warming. The study concluded that no statistical evidence supports a rise in extreme weather caused directly by global warming or climate change.

In the case of the spike in major earthquakes and active volcanoes (40 now) this year, solar activity, 11-year sun cycles and increased risk of comets and asteroids heading towards the earth are more commonly linked to a potential causal explanation than climate change or global warming. The presence of profound earth changes appear to be occurring on a global scale, but again these changes may well be part of a larger stellar phenomenon unfolding within our solar system and not due at all to anthropomorphic CO2 levels.

Still another controversial and rarely if ever mentioned the factor that is impacting climate and weather events is the widespread geoengineering “chemtrails” that have for decades now been artificially blanketing and poisoning the skies and life on the ground. Chemtrails are likely causing the drought in California. Spraying chemicals have become so pronounced in recent years throughout North America and Europe that in places it has seemingly permanently altered the skyline coloring it a dull whitish grey. A number of heavy toxic metals falling to the ground have been detected including aluminum, barium, strontium, sulfur, all are harmful to human health far more than CO2 emissions. Yet their destruction and increasingly health hazard to animals, humans as well as vegetation (especially scorched trees) intentionally at hidden taxpayer expense is covertly been perpetrated by US and other Western governments.

Temperatures measured at both ground level and lower atmospheric levels are affected by a myriad of factors. Yet the UN agreement and the widespread political dogma masquerading as science that climate change/global warming is indisputably caused by the rise in manmade CO2 levels blindly denies all the other scientifically known factors that influence the planet’s temperatures rendering them all inconsequential. This is totally misleading and downright false. Prevailing global winds, cloud cover, orbital earth changes in tilting of axis, ocean cycles that include growth of microscopic creatures, water vapor, methane gas, volcanic activity, the solar system and the sun all are scientifically-established co-determinants in varying global temps and climate change. It’s an extremely complex interplay of dozens of co-occurring variables that cause climate. Over simplistic analyses based on computer model algorithms insisting that man’s CO2 gases are heating up the planet has been coalesced and co-opted into a unifying political agenda pushed by environmental extremism, the Democratic Party and ultimately globalism and its world governance to use global warming as its prime mover and shaker to bring about the long plotted one world government tyranny.

The bottom line reality to virtually everything today is driven by money, power and control. The climate change issue is no different as it has been politicized to where scientific research funding is predicated on only one thing, producing results that the government desires and demands… be it in the US or research sponsored by the UN’s IPCC. Thus, only researchers that produce the numbers supporting the contention that CO2 is causing rising temps get funded. Honest researching scientists who dare investigate the inconvenient truth simply don’t get financed. And only the pro-global warming scientists are given a credible voice to disseminate their findings through respected journals and mainstream media outlets. Like 9/11 truth-ers and vaccine non-believers, dissenting scientists not bought and paid for by big oil or big government, are typically denigrated and dismissed as fringe conspiracy nuts and crackpots. A global warming skeptic is subject to ridicule, career and reputation assault and harassment threatened with RICO litigation. In other words, science just like mainstream media has become so polluted and prostituted by today’s rampant corruption that it no longer is guided by legitimate scientific inquiry and ethically driven investigation for empirical truth… much like Monsanto and Big Pharma control the FDA and EPA to approve harmful drugs without adequate research trials and/or look the other way with egregious earth degradation and pollution.

But then this is the regressive, Orwellian dark age we’re now living in when dissenting free speech has systematically become criminalized, when our soldiers sent by our government into harm’s way putting their lives on the line come home only to be targeted as the feds’ number one enemy – even more so than the ISIS terrorists the treasonous neocons secretly created and continue supporting, and the mob rule mentality of political correctness that now both trumps and tramples on the constitutional First Amendment. Free intellectual discourse on college campuses has been militantly usurped by angry PC police Nazis acting blindly on emotion to demonize and silence those who dare disagree. If anyone on the planet’s feelings are hurt, PC laws prohibiting free speech are being busily erected to put people exercising their criminalized free speech in jail, be they critics of Islam or so called climate change “deniers.”

The crime cabal government is now an oligarchic fascist totalitarian police state ushering in yet another reign of terror era where truth itself becomes deep state’s enemy. The elite’s covert agenda to misuse and debase the educational system and mass media through pervasive social engineering and mind control designed to diabolically dumb down and brainwash multiple generations into robotically operating completely devoid of any capacity for critical thinking and reasoning, absolutely clueless in discerning truth from 24/7 lies, disinformation and propaganda has been a resounding success. That said, more citizens of the world every single day are ultimately realizing that their own government as the elite’s authoritarian thugs is their true enemy merely carrying out eugenics marching orders amounting to human genocide. Like the sacrificial lambs of the 3000 Americans murdered by the ruling elite on 9/11, we are all targets for extermination, all but a half billion slaves left alive to service the psychopaths in charge.

 

[The Bobster]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/martin-armstrong/real-non-human-climate-change/

Historical Evidence of Climate Change Links to Political Change
By Martin Armstrong
Armstrong Economics
April 27, 2016

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have read your thesis on global warming and that this is only part of a natural cycle. I admit that you have persuaded me whereas the claims are false especially that New York City should have been under water by now according Al Gore. You mentioned that there was global warming which enabled the Vikings to reach America because the ice melted. My question is rather blunt. If we are headed now into a global cooling period, what is the historical evidence that society also declines?

Thank you in advance

PD

ANSWER: I have reported that the peat fires in Borneo and Sumatra have exceeded all the emissions from the entire U.S. economy. This whole movement is to raise taxes based on the bogus theory of global warming. We are not powerful enough to alter the course of cyclical movement of the planet. Bouts of global cooling (ice ages) as well as warming periods predate the combustion engine and mankind. It is rather questionable analysis to claim we have altered the climate. We are capable of polluting things, true. But altering the climate is something beyond our power.

Volcanoes are a major issue in climate change. Yes, studies reveal that the Hawaiian Kilauea volcano eruption discharged between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day, which has been going on for more than 20 years. However, gas studies worldwide by volcanologists have calculated that global volcanic CO2 production on land and under the sea release a total of 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually, but this is really in the absence of any real catastrophic eruptions. Volcanoes emit sulfur dioxide (SO2). When Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980, it produced 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide on that one day, and about 2 million metric tons for the entire event, which is far more than automobiles.

Moreover, volcanic production of CO2 is not really the issue in climate change. Instead of global warming from CO2, the plume of ash in the sky actually blocks the sun and reverses the climate from warm to cold like sitting under an umbrella at the beach. I have discussed Mount Tambora, which erupted in 1815 and threw into the air so much ash that it snowed during the summer of 1816 in New York City. It became known as 18-hundred-and-froze-to-death. I have shown the correlation of that eruption to wheat prices.

Maunder Minimum that sent the Earth into a cold period 300 years ago from the perspective of the cyclical energy output from the Sun. I have also gone into the evolution of science, which has been set in motion by the very discovery of a frozen woolly rhinoceros that altered science in many fields. I have explained how the temperature at the time of the American Revolution was at its lowest point in the cycle.

All of that said, the ice core samples have revealed that there were two major volcanic eruptions in 536 and 540 AD that sent Europe into an ice age and wiped out the Roman civilization. Flavius Odoacer (433–493) was a soldier who in 476 became the first king of Italy (476–493) after deposing Romulus Augustus, the last official Roman emperor in the West.

Odoacer was overthrown by Theodoric the Great (454-526), the Ostrogoth. Odoacer was followed by Athalaric (526-534) and a few others, then finally Baduila (541-552). So while Rome officially ends in the West with Romulus Augustus in 476 AD, the Ostrogoths fade out after 552 due to the climate changes. In the East, the change in climate appears to be linked to the Plague of Justinian (541–542), which was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, especially its capital Constantinople, the Sassanid Empire, and port cities around the entire Mediterranean Sea. I have written about the political turmoil there in Byzantium, which preceded the plague during the Nika Revolt of 532 AD. I have also written about how empires die. It does seem that civil unrest rises when temperatures decline, which also increases the risk of revolution.

When Thera erupted around 1645-1650 BC, it created a climate change and marked the end of the Minoan civilization. They were conquered by the Mycenae who also captured Troy. As the weather turned cold, Greece went into a Dark Age. The Greeks migrated and other places called them the “sea people” since they did not know where they came from as they invaded Northern Africa. Homer wrote about the period before the Dark Age, known as the Heroic Period. Scholars thought this was fiction about Troy and Mycenae until Heinrich Schliemann (1822–1890) set out and discovered what Homer wrote about was history.

The historical evidence is rather extensive. It does appear that as we enter into a global cooling period, governments will fall, the disease will increase, and the risk of Western Civilization declining sharply becomes historically possible.

 

[The Bobster]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/a...al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/

An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate
Michael Bastasch
9:36 PM 05/03/2016

It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.

Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.

Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.

But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?

In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.

Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.

Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.


Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.


Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming

Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.

Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.

Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”


The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse

Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.

“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”

Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.

“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”

But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.

The IPCC found in 2103 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o 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.”

Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.


The North Pole Still Has Ice

Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”

With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.

This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.

The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.

“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.

And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.


A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away

Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.

Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.

“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.”

Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.

Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.

“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/29/climate-change-could-eventually-kill-thousands-a-year-in-nyc-alone/

Climate change could eventually kill thousands a year in NYC alone
By Gabrielle Fonrouge
June 29, 2016 | 11:52am

It’s not all sun and games.

Rising temperatures mean thousands could die from heat exposure in the Big Apple by 2080 if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced, a new study shows.

Scientists from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health examined temperature-related deaths in the city and found more than 3,000 people could die each year by 2080 in New York City alone if efforts aren’t made to reduce greenhouse emissions and adapt to rising temperatures — a 400 percent increase in heat-related deaths.

The biggest perpetrators of emissions? Skyscrapers.

“It’s the huge amount of building stock. Energy used for heating and cooling is the biggest component of greenhouse emissions in the city,” the study’s senior researcher, Dr. Patrick Kinney, told The Post.

After skyscrapers, the next-biggest gas perpetrators are cars, buses and trucks.

The study was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives Journal and is being used by the New York City Panel on Climate Change.

Kinney said that by the 2050s, weather in New York City could feel a lot more like Virginia or Georgia and areas in the South Bronx and East Harlem would be the most affected.

“Parts of the city that have less greenery and parkland and places where more elderly people live alone and where there’s more poor people are the most affected,” Kinney said.

New York usually has about two major heat waves per summer. Kinney said we could be seeing as many as five to seven by the 2050s.

He called the potential rates of death “alarming” and said lawmakers already know what they need to do to fix this.

“If the city works hard to protect the population then we can avoid that … Things like heat warning systems … assisting people with using AC and helping them afford the energy for air conditioning,” Kinney said.

“We know what to do, it’s just a matter of motivating decision makers to do the right thing.”

Heat causes more fatalities in New York than any other weather event. Part of the problem is the “urban heat island effect.”

Heat islands are created in urban areas when surfaces are covered by buildings and other structures. The sun’s rays are absorbed by these surfaces during the day and re-radiated at night, causing temperatures to be on average seven degrees warmer than surrounding areas. Under certain conditions, it can be as much as 10 to 20 degrees higher.

On a sunnier note, researchers found New Yorkers may actually be getting more resistant to the heat.

“New Yorkers are becoming less affected. The effects of a heat wave have diminished a little bit and we’re hopeful that will continue,” Kinney said.

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2016/07/14/eric-schneiderman-subpoenaed-by-gopers-on-climate-change/

Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed by GOPers on climate change
By Post Wires
July 14, 2016 | 2:28am

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
Photo: AP


A Republican House chairman issued subpoenas Wednesday to two Democratic state attorneys general — including New York’s Eric Schneiderman — seeking records about their investigation into whether ExxonMobil misled investors about man-made climate change.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, is pursuing records from Schneiderman and Massachusetts AG Maura Healey. Smith insisted he acted only after they refused for months to give the panel information lawmakers had requested on the ExxonMobil case.

Smith, who is among a large group of congressional Republicans who reject mainstream climate science , said Schneiderman and Healey were pursuing “a political agenda” on behalf of environmental groups fighting ExxonMobil over climate change.

The groups accuse ExxonMobil of hiding early findings showing a link between global warming and the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and gas. ExxonMobil denies that.

Smith and other Republicans portrayed the issue as a matter of free speech, charging Schneiderman, Healey and their allies were trying to intimidate scientists and others who question climate change.

“The actions by the attorneys general amount to a form of extortion,” Smith claimed.

The AGs and their allies want an out-of-court settlement with ExxonMobil “so they can obtain funds for their own purposes,” said Smith, whose 2014 campaign alone got $10,000 from ExxonMobil.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-DNC-Climate-Rally-Vernon-Park-388016482.html

Sarandon, Glover, Woodley to Headline Climate-Conscious Movie Night in Germantown
By Brian X. McCrone

Some of Hollywood's libtarded movie stars are descending on Philly for the Democratic National Convention and the first event of the weeklong gathering is happening at a park in Germantown.

Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover and Shailene Woodley are among the headliners for a movie night and concert at Vernon Park, on Germantown Avenue near West Chelten Avenue, starting 6:30 p.m. Sunday.

A group called NextGen Climate, which advocates on environmental issues, organized the event called "The Climate Revolution is Up to Us."

Another host is Josh Fox, known well in Pennsylvania political circles for his lying anti-fracking crockumentary, "Gasland." It's most remembered for Pennsylvania homeowners who lit their faucet water on fire.

"This rally, the first of a series of rallies across the country, will address the intersectionality of climate, environmental, racial and economic justice issues," NextGen Climate said in a statement. "A dream team of organizers, celebutards, musicians, and environmental, economic and racial justice advocates, including Susan Sarandon​, Shailene Woodley,​Ben Jealous, Josh Fox, Nomiki Konst,​ Kendrick Sampson ​are collaborating to inspire educate and mobilize the progressive movement towards greater climate action and political participation."

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

James Lovelock, Godfather of Green: Climate Change Religion is Bunk
by James Delingpole1
Oct 2016

James Lovelock, inventor of Gaia Theory and godfather of the modern environmental movement, has finally renounced the green religion.

Climate alarmism, he says, is not “remotely scientific”; one volcano could make more difference to global warming than humans ever could; the computer models are “unreliable”; greens have behaved “deplorably”; and anyone who tries to “predict more than five to ten years is a bit of an idiot.”

Though this is not the first time Lovelock has rowed back on his earlier climate catastrophism – in 2012 he was already admitting “I made a mistake” – it’s his most emphatic rejection yet of the green litany.

Lovelock, 97, ascribes the dramatic change in his once fervently alarmist beliefs to the fact that he has “grown up.”

Only ten years ago – when the inventor, scientist and environmentalist was a mere spring chicken of 87 – Lovelock argued in his book The Revenge of Gaia that mankind was doomed.

Because of global warming, he predicted, “billions will die” and the few survivors would have to retreat to the Arctic which would be one of the few habitable places left on earth.

But now he admits to being “laid back about climate change.”

“CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”

Besides, he says, nature is more powerful than the computer models:

It’s only got to take one sizable volcano to erupt and all the models, everything else, is right off the board.

It’s only got to take one sizable volcano to erupt and all the models, everything else, is right off the board.

Lovelock was speaking in an interview with the fervently alarmist Guardian whose interviewer Decca Aitkenhead was naturally somewhat taken aback by his views which she ascribed in part to his temperament as an “incorrigible subversive.”

But Lovelock himself insists that it is simply a question of looking at the evidence.

One experience that has sharply concentrated his thoughts is the cost of heating his home, an old mill in Devon. When the heating bills rose to £6,000 for just six months, he realised that he would have to downsize and has now moved to a smaller cottage on Chesil Beach in Dorset. This claim has brought him into conflict with another green guru, the chunky knit Guardianista George Monbiot.

“I remember George Monbiot took me up on it and wrote that it was impossible, that I had to be lying. But I wasn’t lying, I’ve got the figures.” Monbiot doesn’t quite accuse him of lying, in fairness; just of “talking rubbish” and “making wild statements”. In any case, he says that in the US he found he could heat a house for six months, in temperatures of -20C (-4F), for just £60. As a result, he has withering contempt for environmentalists’ opposition to fracking. “You see, gas in America is incredibly cheap, because of fracking,” he says. But what about the risk of triggering earthquakes? He rolls his eyes.

“Sure enough, that’s true, there will be an increase. But they’re tiny little tremors, they would be imperceptible. The only trouble is that you can detect them. The curse of my life has been that I’ve spent a lot of time inventing devices that are exceedingly sensitive. And the moment somebody can detect something, they’re going to attach a number to it, and then they make a fuss about it.” He chuckles, then pauses. “I’m not anti-green in the sense that I’m in favour of polluting the world with every damn thing we make. I think we’ve got to be careful. But I’m afraid, human nature being what it is, the thing gets exaggerated out of all proportion, and the greens have behaved deplorably instead of being reasonably sensible.”

Besides Monbiot, Lovelock finds time for a little dig at yet another fervent green catastrophist the Prince of Wales:

He was once invited to Buckingham Palace, where he told Princess Anne: “Your brother nearly killed me.” Having read that Prince Charles had installed grass-burning boilers at Highgrove, Lovelock had tried one in his house. “It’s supposed to smoulder and keep the place warm; but it doesn’t, because it goes out, and clouds and clouds of smoke come out.” He giggles. “Princess Anne thought this was hilariously funny.”

His heretical stance on nuclear energy too is likely to alienate many of his former admirers in the green movement:

Even more heretical than his enthusiasm for fracking is Lovelock’s passionate support for nuclear power. But, like fracking, he says, it offers only “a stopgap” solution. “Because in the long term, they’ll use up all the uranium.” How long would that take? He pauses to do some quick mental arithmetic, as casually as I might tot up how many pints of milk to grab from Sainsburys.

“Let’s see … I think uranium that is affordable to extract would last about 50 years, something in that range. It might be 100. When you’ve used all that up, you go to thorium, and that would last you three times as long as uranium – so, shall we say, about 200 years?” The most sensible energy solution would be to cover 100 sq miles of the Sahara in solar panels. “It would supply the whole of Europe with all the energy they needed,” but it won’t happen “because it would be so easy for terrorists to go and bugger it up”. So for now, nuclear energy is the only viable option.

Not that any of this matters much anyway, Lovelock suggests, because by the end of the century robots will have taken over and they probably won’t find much use for us.

The implications for climate change are obvious. “The world that they’re going to be comfortable in is wildly different from the one that we feel comfortable in. So once they really get established, they will – with regret – start losing organic life.” Will they care about rising temperatures? “They won’t give a fourpenny **** about the temperature, because to them the change will be slow, and they can stand quite a big change without any fuss. They could accommodate infinitely greater change through climate change than we can, before things get tricky for them. It’s what the world can stand that is the important thing. They’re going to have a safe platform to live in, so they don’t want Gaia messed about too much.”

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
8 October 2016 • 8:57am

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

For the month of September overall, there was 31 per cent more ice than in 2012, figures released this week from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) show. This amounts to an extra 421,000 (1.09 million square kilometres) of sea ice, making the month only the fifth lowest since records began.

Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of "crying wolf" and harming the message of climate change through "dramatic", "incorrect" and "confusing" predictions.

Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor in the Department of Meterology, at the University of Reading, said: “There has been one prominent scientist who has regularly made more dramatic, and incorrect, in my view predictions suggesting that we would by now be in ice-free conditions.

“There are very serious risks from continued climatic changes and a melting Arctic, but we do not serve the public and policy-makers well by exaggerating those risks.

“We will soon see an ice-free summer in the Arctic, but there is a real danger of ‘crying wolf’ and that does not help anyone.

“As global temperatures rise, we will see a continuing decline in Arctic sea ice extent, although this will happen somewhat erratically, rather like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill.

“Without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the ball will reach the bottom of the hill, meaning the Arctic is 'ice-free', starting with a few days one summer, a few weeks another summer and gradually becoming more and more frequent over the next few decades."

It is the latest example of experts making alarming predictions which do not come to pass. Earlier this week environmentalists were accused of misleading the public about the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" after aerial shots proved there was no "island of rubbish" in the middle of the ocean. Likewise, warnings that the hole in the ozone layer would never close were debunked in June.

Scientists warn that such claims risk detracting from the real issue. Losing Arctic sea ice is a major problem because ice reflects up to 70 per cent of sunlight, while open water reflects just 10 per cent, meaning the rest is absorbed by the planet, which speeds up global warming. A massive melt of freshwater could also disrupt global ocean currents and change weather systems.

For more than a decade, most scientists have accepted that the Arctic will be free ice-free by 2050, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates there is a 66 per cent chance of no ice by the middle of the century if emissions continue to increase annually.

Yet in 2007, Prof Wadhams predicted that sea ice would be lost by 2013 after levels fell 27 per cent in a single year. However, by 2013, ice levels were actually 25 per cent higher than they had been six years before. In 2012, following another record low, Prof Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016.

The view was supported by Prof Maslowski, who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years.

However, far from record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze ever recorded with the extent of sea ice growing 405,000 square miles (1.05 million square kilometres) in just three weeks since the September 10 minimum. The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing is happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.

Andrew Shepherd, professor of earth observation at University College London, said there was now "overwhelming consensus" that the Arctic would be free of ice in the next few decades, but warned earlier predictions were based on poor extrapolation.

“A decade or so ago, climate models often failed to reproduce the decline in Arctic sea ice extent revealed by satellite observations,” he said.

“One upshot of this was that outlier predictions based on extrapolation alone were able to receive wide publicity.

“But climate models have improved considerably since then and they now do a much better job of simulating historical events.

“This means we have greater confidence in their predictive skill, and the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community is that the Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of sea ice in a couple of decades should the present rate of decline continue.”

Prof Myles Allen, of Oxford University, added: “The Arctic was only predicted to be close to ice-free in September by mid-century.”

Scientists said it was clear that sea ice was shrinking but there were large fluctuations between years. For example, 2013 saw a 50 per cent increase from the previous year

Prof Jonathan Bamber, of the University of Bristol, said: “This year's low was the second lowest on record and not as low as 2012. But there is always variability in any part of the climate system so you would not expect a monotonic decline year on year whatever was going on.

“The signal of Arctic sea ice decline is possibly the clearest we have of climate change. That does not mean, by definition, it is manmade, but there is no question that sea ice volume has been declining, on average, over the last 40 years and that all the indications from climate data, satellite observations, etc, are that the decline will continue.”

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, added: “Peter Wadhams has made predictions of the imminent disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice which have not been fulfilled, but the evidence still shows a rapid decline.

“The trend in Arctic sea ice extent is definitely downwards for every single month of the year.

“The most recent IPCC forecast is that the Arctic has up to a 66 per cent chance of being ice-free in September by 2050 for the highest emissions scenario.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, Prof Wadhams admitted that sea ice decline had not happened as quickly as he had predicted. However, he still believes that an ice-free Arctic is still only a "very small number of years" away.

“My view is that the trend of summer sea ice volume is relentlessly downward, such that the volume (and thus area) will come to a low value very soon - in a very small number of years,” he said.

“This is to be contrasted with some of the bizarre predictions made by computer modellers, who have the summer sea ice remaining until late this century, which is quite impossible.”

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2016/10/10/working-families-party-shifts-focus-toward-global-warming/

Working Families Party shifts focus toward global warming
By Carl Campanile
October 10, 2016 | 9:19am

The left-leaning Working Families Party, which has long championed bread-and-butter labor issues, has shifted focus and is now pressuring New York lawmakers to tackle global warming and support a campaign against Big Oil, The Post has learned.

In a questionnaire to candidates, the WFP prods legislators to fight Exxon Mobil in exchange for its endorsement, pointing to a probe underway by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office.

“Recent press exposes in the LA Times and Inside Climate News have revealed Exxon Mobil studied Climate change since the early 1970s while simultaneously funding a network of Climate deniers,” the WFP says.

“Do you support Attorney General Schneiderman’s investigation to determine whether Exxon Mobil deliberately misled investors, elected officials and the public about Climate Change?”

And, “Will you promise to neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from Exxon Mobil?”

The party also asks, “Will you support legislative hearings to further investigate Exxon?”

WFP state director Bill Lipton defended the questionnaire.

“Given the overwhelming evidence that Exxon Mobil knew the facts about climate change but chose to mislead the public and their investors through a massive campaign of climate denial, we strongly support NYS lawmakers taking action to hold them accountable, “ Lipton said.

The WFP supports a plan for New York to reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050.

Exxon has dismissed accusations that it secretly developed an understanding of climate change before covering up the research as “preposterous.”

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...ate-Change-Action_Philadelphia-399056061.html

Battleground Bros.: Concerns Over Climate Change Action
By Vince Lattanzio and David Chang
Published 5 hours ago

A majority of Millennials accept that Climate Change is happening :headbash: and they're concerned about what effects inaction will have on their future. But will the next president take the steps to protect that future? NBC10.com

Vince Lattanzio and David Andrew Chang went to Widener University to hear from young voters about where the environment ranks in #Decision2016.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...could-walk-away-from-decades-of-climate-deals

How Trump Could Walk Away From Decades of Climate Deals
by Joe Ryan
November 10, 2016 — 10:00 AM EST
Updated on November 10, 2016 — 3:22 PM EST

It took more than two decades for nations around the world to forge an agreement to save the planet from global warming. In one year, Donald Trump could leave it in tatters.

Trump, who has said climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, has vowed to “cancel” the Paris agreement brought into force this year by more than 190 other countries. While he can’t rip up the entire accord, the real-estate tycoon and reality-television star-turned president elect has several options for pulling the U.S. out.

A withdrawal could have significant consequences. As the richest nation on Earth and the second largest polluter, the U.S.’s role in the Paris accord is critical, helping to secure participation from China, India and others. A withdrawal by Trump would hobble the agreement’s effort to cut fossil-fuel emissions and could leave the U.S. facing grave diplomatic repercussions.

“There would be huge implications for how other countries view the United States,” said Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-profit tracking the climate talks. “The world is united behind this agreement.”

Anyone’s Guess

While Trump has made it clear he plans to walk away from Paris, his precise exit strategy remains unclear. “I don’t think that’s been decided,” Myron Ebell, the head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team, said in an interview. “Your guess is as good as mine.”

Trump has at least four options. First is to exit the Paris deal, which was signed in December. Yet, the exit clause of the agreement means the U.S would still be bound by it until 2020. Trump must now wait three years to formally submit his intention to withdraw and then another year before the U.S. can exit.

There is a quicker way. Schmidt of the NRDC referred to it as “the nuclear option,” which would allow the U.S. to leave by early 2018. That would entail withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty that established the entire process.

That deal was unanimously adopted by the U.S. Senate and signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. Trump could pull the U.S. out with one year’s notice, Dan Bodansky, an Arizona State University law professor who studies international environmental agreements, said in an interview.

While faster, that option would raise the diplomatic stakes.

“It will negatively impact his ability to get the co-operation of other world leaders on issues he cares about such as trade and terrorism,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group in Washington. “Climate change has become a geopolitical issue of the top order.”

Marrakech Talks

Trump’s election comes as environment and energy ministries from around the globe gather in Marrakech, Morocco, for two weeks of talks on how to implement the Paris deal. Their meeting is organized by the United Nations and established by the 1992 framework convention that Bush signed. The Paris deal calls for 197 countries to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and work toward net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

While Trump’s victory sent shockwaves through the corridors of the conference center, Salaheddine Mezouar, a Moroccan minister of foreign affairs who is presiding over the meeting in Marrakech, said he was hopeful that the U.S. would not pull out of the accord.

“The climate change question transcends politics and concerns the preservation of our livelihood, dignity and the only planet on which we all live. We are convinced that all Parties will respect their commitments and stay the course in this collective effort,” Mezouar said in a statement.

Senate Option

Trump could dispose of the accord by sending it to the Senate, where it would be dead on arrival in the hands of Republican lawmakers , said Ebell, a director at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute. When President Barack Obama’s administration negotiated the Paris deal, his envoys avoided structuring it as a traditional treaty, bypassing the need for approval from two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

“There has been a tradition of shared power in the Constitution,” said Ebell, who has also pushed for the U.S. to stop funding UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. “President Obama has broken that precedent. So it seems to me the Senate can also break the precedent and simply take it up now.”

Finally, Trump could simply ignore the the U.S.’s climate goal under the Paris agreement. He could kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan. And he could refuse to take any steps to reduce emissions. There is nothing in the agreement that would penalize the U.S. for flouting its commitments.

Yet that, too, could hurt the U.S. diplomatically. Countries are required to report their progress annually to the international community. If the U.S. isn’t making good on its promises, other nations will know.

Andrew Steer, president and chief executive officer of the Washington-based World Resources Institute, said the Paris accord would never have been forged without U.S. leadership.

“We certainly hope President-elect Trump recognizes that and acts accordingly,” Steer said.

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2016/11/19/un-climate-talks-end-with-pleas-for-trump-to-join-fight/

UN climate talks end with pleas for Trump to join fight
By Associated Press
November 19, 2016 | 9:33am

Participants at the COP22 climate conference stage a public show of support for climate negotiations on the final day of the conference. Photo: Reuters


MARRAKECH, Morocco — The first U.N. climate conference after the landmark Paris Agreement closed Friday with delegates appealing to Donald Trump to join the battle against global warming and inviting him to see its impacts in Pacific islands.

Suddenly faced with the possibility that the U.S. could withdraw from the emissions pact adopted in Paris last year, countries rallied in support of the deal and said they would forge ahead no matter what.

Moroccan Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar, the host of the two-week talks in Marrakech, said the conference’s “message to the new American president is simply to say, ‘We count on your pragmatism and your spirit of commitment.'”

Trump said during his campaign that he would “cancel” the Paris Agreement and withdraw American tax dollars from U.N. global warming programs.

More than 190 countries, including the United States, pledged in the deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for rising temperatures and sea levels, worsening droughts and heat waves.

Morocco’s Foreign Minister Salaheddine Mezouar(center,) with UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa (second left,) and Council of Europe Goodwill Ambassador Bianca Jagger (second right) at the UN World Climate Change Conference in Marrakech, Morocco November 17th.
Photo: Reuters


In Marrakech, delegates from China to Brazil expressed hope that Trump didn’t mean what he said during his campaign. Some appealed to him directly to change his mind about the issue.

“I renew my offer to President-elect Trump to come to Fiji and see the effects of climate change,” said the island nation’s prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, drawing applause from the conference.

Small island nations are among the strongest advocates for sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions because they fear their survival depends on it. Many are already experiencing the effects of climate change, with rising seas eroding their coastlines and intruding into their freshwater supply.

As the conference drew to a close, German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said it “has demonstrated that the spirit of Paris is alive and stronger than ever.”

With mostly procedural issues under negotiation, countries announced various partnerships and initiatives to show their commitment to a clean-energy transition.

In a symbolic move, more than 40 vulnerable countries including small island nations and drought-hit African countries, declared they would pursue 100 percent renewable energy “as rapidly as possible.”

Many of them would require support from richer countries to switch to renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Some, including the Philippines and Bangladesh, plan to expand coal power, a key source of global warming emissions, to meet their growing energy needs.

Still, the declaration signaled support from even poor countries that previously had said it was up to the West, which historically has polluted the most, to reduce emissions.

“This is a group of countries that are the most vulnerable to climate change, but they are not sitting back and complaining about being vulnerable,” Jennifer Morgan of Greenpeace said. “They are acting and they are setting the pace for the type of change that we need to see in our world.”