Archive

Tag Archives: eco-bullshit

Mark Steyn has a guest piece on Climate Change Dispatch about the ineptocrats in our government spending time and energy focusing on an issue that continues to be disproven statistically. Why is John Kerry talking about climate change when ISIS continues to gobble up the Middle East unabated? Why is the Secretary of Defense even talking about global warming climate change global cooling? Don’t we still have troops actively involved in conflicts overseas? Shouldn’t winning those be his first priority? Shouldn’t they leave the fear-mongering on “climate change” to some other government functionary, like our useless president?

Judith Curry had an excellent piece in The Wall Street Journal the other day called “The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown (subscription required)”:

A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.inconvenient-truth-global-warming-hoax-political-poster-1286997141

Just so. With every month, the alarmist thesis seems more obviously insufficient, and the recent, very belated explanation for the 18-year-old warming “pause” – that the heat is merely hiding Godzilla-like in the ocean depths, biding its time – isn’t holding up too well either.

The science may be increasingly unsettled, but the politics permits no doubts. Last week, John Kerry gave a speech on “climate change” at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and dismissed the skeptics:

What happens if they’re wrong? If they’re wrong – catastrophe. Life as you know it on Earth ends.

John Kerry is America’s Secretary of State. That’s to say, he presides over a department whose abandoned diplomatic compound in Tripoli is currently a playground for Libyan jihadists, whose consular officials facilitated the entry into the United States of an Ebola-bearing Liberian, whose continued occupation of the most expensive embassy in the history of the planet is dependent on ISIS stopping its annexation of Iraq at the gates of the Green Zone …but John Kerry is focused like a laser on climate change.

So too is Chuck Hagel:

Drastic weather, rising seas and changing storm patterns could become “threat multipliers” for the United States, vastly complicating security challenges faced by American forces, the Pentagon said in a new report on the impact of climate change released Monday…

In remarks released alongside the 20-page report, Hagel said the Pentagon is nearly done with a survey that will assess the vulnerability of its military installations to climate change. He cited the Hampton Roads region of Virginia as an example of an area that has both military bases and recurrent flooding, adding that defense officials are developing plans to address a projected sea-level rise of about 1.5 feet in the next 20 to 50 years.

Chuck Hagel is America’s Secretary of Defense. That’s to say, he presides over a department whose desultory air strikes can’t prevent ISIS taking Kobani and slaughtering thousands …but he’s focused like a laser on “developing plans” to address sea-level rise in the Hampton Roads area circa 2050.

via Do As I Say, or the Planet Gets It | CCD.

Advertisements

Funny, data continue to flummox the eco-bullshitters who constantly wail “climate change”. Al Gore is busy crafting spin right now that explains how this phenomenon is related to “warming.” Facts are stubborn and uncooperative things when you’re trying to advance an agenda. No matter – they’ll just lie about it, or fudge the data.global-warming-hoax-is-polar-bear-crap-300x256

Antarctica continues to defy the global warming script, with a report from Meteo France, that June this year was the coldest Antarctic June ever recorded, at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station. According to the press release, during June this year, the average temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever – only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F). June this year also broke the June daily minimum temperature record, with a new record low of -34.9c (-30.8F). Other unusual features of the June temperature record are an unusual excess of sunlight hours (11.8 hours rather than the normal 7.4 hours), and unusually light wind conditions. Dumont d’Urville Station has experienced ongoing activity since 1956. According to the Meteo France record, there is no other weather station for 1000km in any direction. http://www.meteofrance.fr/web/comprendre-la-meteo/actualites?articleId=8990197

via Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded | Watts Up With That?.

global warming hoax is polar bear crapJohn Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia came up with the oft-quoted number, based on an examination  he conducted of scientific papers. Members of the media and others, who consider his methodology questionable, want to see his research and the papers he used to cook up his claim, but the university is suing to block access.

If he’s right and his methods are on the up-and-up, what’s he got to hide? Sounds like a case of eco-bullshit to me. Obama, and other alarmists like him, want to scare the benighted masses into going along with massive carbon-control schemes and other programs designed to cripple the use of fossil fuels, and crush our economy.

Cook’s paper has been touted by environmentalists and the Obama administration as evidence that virtually all scientists agree that global warming is a man-made threat.

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” President Obama said last year announcing his climate plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

But Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.

Queensland’s legal fight with Schollenberger comes while UK news outlets are reporting that one of the world’s top scientific journals rejected a study from five climate scientists for political reasons.

The UK Times reported that a reviewer with the journal Environmental Research Letters rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, told the Times.

Bengtsson was one of the study’s authors and recently joined the camp of scientists skeptical of global warming.

via Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Come From? | The Daily Caller.

Making Obama the greeeeeenest president ever, or something.Obama-Solar-Panels-3-2012

The Obama administration had some solar panels installed (again – Jimmy Carter did it back in the ’70s) on the White House roof, presumably to demonstrate his commitment to wasting money pushing a green agenda green energy initiatives. Various media outlets and administration officials swooned over this huge leap forward:

 (Washington Post) Back in 2010, Chu said, “This project reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to U.S. leadership in solar energy and the jobs it will create here at home. Deploying solar energy technologies across the country will help America lead the global economy for years to come.”

…help America lead the global economy for years to come – is that some kind of joke? Not to the inside-the-liberal-bubble folks in DeeCee. Here’s the scoop on how much energy efficiency they’ll be getting out of those solar panels:

A solar panel array now adorns the roof of the White House and will produce an elephantine amount of solar power when the sun is actually shining: about 44 kilowatt hours of electricity a day.Updated May 12 with corrections: If 44 kilowatts hours sounds like a lot of energy, it isn’t. The average home consumes about 30 kilowatt hours kWh of power each day. The average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,837 kWh according to the EIA for 2012 or 30 kWh per day average.Slightly less than the 44 kilowatt hours per day that will be produced by the new solar panels adorning the White House. According to data from TradeWind Energy, one 100-watt light bulb running for 20 hours will use two kilowatt-hours of electricity 100 watts x 20 hours = 2,000 watt-hours = 2 kWh.In other words, the White House installed enough solar panels to power twenty-two 100-watt light bulbs for 20 hours each day. And if you’ve ever been inside the White House, or seen it from a distance, you’ll notice it’s lit up like a klieg light.

I’m guessing, based on the research that I’ve done about the cost of solar panels (we actually -for about 30 seconds- considered putting some on our house, but the break-even was about 30 years) that it will be many, many years before those 22 light bulbs save enough money to pay for the cost of installing the panels. If they ever do – some future re-roofing project will probably relegate them to the scrap heap, like Jimmy Carter’s.

Don’t we have anything better to waste taxpayer money on? Oh yeah – what are they doing running 100-watt bulbs? I thought those were banned or something. Maybe that was just for the little people.

via They’re Back! Solar Panels now atop the White House | Climate Change Dispatch.

That would be the Church of Climatology, and its high priests ARE the government. Despite having a really crappy record of prognostication, the climate doomsayers still insist we’re doomed (my bold emphasis in the quoted section) if we don’t pay Mother Gaia tribute by destroying our economy and returning to the 18th century.algore hypocrite

Yet a new religion has been imposed upon the citizens of this country.  It  emanates from the highest federal levels; it has found its voice in the White House bully pulpit.  It is promulgated with a religious fervor reminiscent of the fictional Elmer Gantry.  This religion is complete with warnings and admonitions of coming days of doom for mankind lest the new tenets be rejected by anyone.

In this era of electronic communications, this new religion’s commandments have been dispersed via the internet, which obviated the inconvenience of another trip to Mt. Sinai.  The 2014 tablets bear the title of the third “National Climate Assessment (NCA)” report.

At over 800 pages, this federal document of secular religion – based on human guilt and the presumptive sin of having eaten excessively of fossil fuel – outstrips the Ten Commandments by a mile in word count.  Man-made carbon dioxide has been targeted by the high priests of the profane as some sort of original sin staining the purity of the virgin Earth, thereby bringing the wrath of devil-like climate change in punishment.  Heat waves, excessive rainfall, floods, ocean rise, crop failures are retributions awaiting mankind should the new Federal religion be violated by human-caused carbon dioxide emanations. Lacking a true Biblical source, the high priests of this federal climate religion have relied on their man-made computers to foretell these days of doom, should mankind not renounce this essential, life-giving gas…carbon dioxide.

The reality of years of climate observations has not supported the prophecies of these priestly climate computers.   Two federal agencies, NOAA and NASA, both confirm that there has been no increase in global temperature for the past 17 years, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased over 9 percent.  Risking running afoul of Voltaire’s admonition – “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong” – McKitrick, Spencer, and others have published the failures of these foundational computer engines of the new federal climate dogma.  Heck, even the ancient Oracle at Delphi had a better track record of forecasting, albeit with the benefit of a few whiffs of earthly hydrocarbon gases, including ethylene.

via Articles: That Old Time Religion; That Old Time Science.

While you celebrate Earth Day being green, or whatever it is that people to on Earth Day, read a little about the interesting history of the great day. I especially like the part of how, despite no proof of any ill effects on humans or animals, DDT was banned. Millions of third-worlders have died as a result. But, have no fear, you can still assuage your guilt by raising money for mosquito nets.(Graphic by SooperMexican, click to view full size)

EARTHDAY-infographic-10

Oreskes study on AGW consensus with IPCCYou’ve probably heard that figure plenty of times. Some eco-doofus gets the all-too-frequently-granted media platform to spread hysteria and says “the science is settled; 97% of scientists agree that global warming climate change whatever they’re calling it this week is caused by man.” Well, it’s not true, there IS NO CONSENSUS. Actually, only 1-3% of scientists responding to a survey agree explicitly with the IPCC view.

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a “consensus” exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.” Read More