Tag Archives: greenhouse gas

Politics

Is the global warming /climate change hoax coming to an end?

6 Comments

These things take time, especially when the public was so thoroughly inundated with falsehoods for so many years.  But the facts are becoming too much for the global warming climate change (aka the “weather”) scientists to hide.  This article from the Economist (hardly a right-wing fundie nutjob anti-science rag) gives a fascinating glimpse into how they finally make key concessions yet still cling to their faulty conclusions.  But they are showing progress!

Via Climate science: A sensitive matter:

The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away.

 

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.

I bolded that part for good reason.  Everyone should be forced to read that over and over — especially if at any time you saw or agreed with climahypocrite Al Gore.  Fifteen years of flat temperatures!  No warming.  Yes, we had some weather during that period, and any evidence of normal phenomena (hurricanes, tornadoes, snow, etc.) that deviated from the strict averages was considered evidence for “climate change.”

The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Yep.  More flatness.

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion.

Delusion is a strong word, but perhaps accurate in this case.  They were doing great on the facts but they shifted back to their assumptions that (1) there is a problem even if there was additional warming, (2) that it is man-made and (3) that it could be solved by man.  By their own admission they don’t have a warming problem and even if they did they are far too presumptuous on the other topics.

Please continue to spread the news about this farce.  The consequences are huge.  Countless jobs are lost and unnecessary expenditures are made based on this false issue.

And worst of all, it leads to an unprecedented governmental power grab.  No matter how much power you give to the government, they’ll always want more.  If the “problem” is solved, then they’ll want more power because it was obviously government actions that solved it.  And if the “problem” isn’t solved, they’ll want more power because you didn’t give them enough in the first place.  It is a wildly destructive tautology: More government power or more government power.

If you drank the global warming Kool-Aid, it is a great time to repent.  You always look better admitting you were wrong sooner rather than later.  And don’t feel bad, the media, government and climate change lobby fooled a lot of people.  Just expand your media horizons and be a little more skeptical next time.

Politics

Reminders about the Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change hoax

12 Comments

Significant global warming / global climate change isn’t true, but if it was, it wouldn’t necessarily be bad.

Even if it was true and bad, we don’t have evidence that humans are causing it

Even if it was true and bad and true that humans were causing it, it still doesn’t mean we can make China and the rest of the world change things to make a difference.

Oh, and did I mention the hypocrites like Al Gore living in multiple mansions, flying personal jets, fathering 4 children, etc., who make hundreds of millions off of this scam, all the while telling you not to do those things?

Why does the Leftist skepticism disappear with those who want to give the government a permanent and unlimited blank check to control your lives?

Why do these people exhibit such transparent coveting?  Remember, coveting isn’t just wanting more, it is wanting to have more than others.  Think about all the politicians and profiteers who have so much yet don’t want the poor of the world to improve their lot in life.

Oh, but X% (insert really big number for “X”) of “real” scientists agree about global warming!!  Yes, they say that because they know their careers will be destroyed if they don’t.

From Ann Coulter:

CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” — including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.

. . .

Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.

This video is a great overview of the issue.  Get educated, folks!

Hat tip: Red State

Politics

Some comments deserve their own post: Great questions for climate alarmists

4 Comments

I appreciated RightKlik‘s comments on the Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change: Still a hoax by any name post so much that I wanted to highlight them here.  I urge you to keep these handy to politely ask the climate alarmists you meet.  Oh, and read his blog, too.  Consistently good stuff.

Too bad the mainstream media doesn’t ask questions like this.  Instead, expect them to just ask “gotcha” questions to make Republicans look like they are environment-hating baby seal killers.

For anyone fortunate enough to ask a politician/candidate at a town hall meeting, here are a few suggested questions:

How cool do you want the world to be? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?

Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?

How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth’s temperature don’t backfire, resulting in a larger-than-intended drop in the earth’s average temperature?

At what temperature would the earth be too cold?

Can you be sure that reductions in CO2 emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?

What if industrial and automotive CO2 emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm…what do we do then?

Some have said that “It’s not called American warming, it’s called global warming.” What if heavily industrialized nations manage to make painful cuts in CO2 emissions only to see those cuts dwarfed by increases in emissions by China and other developing economies?

How long should man try to control the world’s average temperature?
A. For the next hundred years?
B. For the next thousand years?
C. Forever?

Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren’t mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky ― you know ― the sun?

Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty. Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?
A. 50 percent?
B. 80 percent?
C. 95 percent?

I would emphasize the question above about how to deal with countries that don’t reduce emissions.  What should we do, go to war with them until they do as we say?

And I would add this question: Will there ever be a time when we won’t need the government to micro-manage all of our personal energy consumption, or is this unlimited power grab going to be permanent?

Politics

Human-caused Global Warming / Global Climate Change: Still a hoax by any name

7 Comments

See Where’s the warming? « Hot Air.  Ask yourself, why is the media so keen to be on board with the Global warming fraud? Answer: Follow the money and the power.

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Also ask yourself why this will be one of the few promises Obama will keep:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

And electricity prices won’t just hurt one of your bills.  The impact of higher energy costs will impact nearly every element of the economy.

Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump?  That will be just the appetizer.  Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit andNewsalert):

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

Elections matter, folks.  A radical leftist community organizer was elected Senator and then President and this is all part of his plan: More government control of everything.

You’d think they’d be alarmed that so many companies are claiming they’ll stop providing healthcare to employees when ObamNeycare is fully implemented, but you’d be wrong.  That is exactly what they want: More decisions controlled by the government.  Because you can totally trust them to have your long-term best interests at heart, right?

Politics

Capitalism even helps the religion of global climate change

Leave a comment

For the sake of discussion, assume that we are completely convinced that human-driven CO2 emissions must be reduced and that we, as a society, are willing to spend some of our limited funds for that.  Key word: Limited.  (If you can make the case that we have unlimited resources I’d like to hear it). 

If that is the case, wouldn’t it be logical to ask which programs are most cost-effective in reducing emissions?  Courtesy of Forbes Magazine, consider this disparity in the cost per ton of avoided CO2:

A. The Cash for Clunkers program — $1,700

B. Subsidizing electric cars — $250

C. Pay an electric utility to reduce coal consumption by burning clean natural gas — $20

Unless you like spending 10 times or upwards of 100 times as much as you have to for something, I’d encourage you to go with the last option.  You won’t release as many endorphins and get as much press, but you’ll be doing the right thing.