The global warming cult drives policies which lead the world in the wrong direction
Some of the more severely insane policies that have been forced on society by the climate cult will take a generation or more to undo. But perhaps the greater harm is that we may not only be adopting wasteful policies to fight a non existent threat; we may be adopting policies which will result in harming the planet.
Before the onset of the carbon dioxide panic, governments and citizens pretty much took climate, like weather, as it came. We were, in a very real sense, always prepared because the only thing you could prepare for was the unexpected. Nobody claimed to know what the weather was going to be next month, let alone decades into the future.
Even today, nobody would cancel a June Caribbean cruise in December, for example, because someone predicted there would be a hurricane along the ship’s route; nobody would postpone an outdoor wedding because of projected rain three months in advance. We know that such predictions are not possible, yet the climate cult has convinced policy makers to formulate long term policies based on their theory and model projections of a future climate.
The widespread acceptance of the global warming “theory” by governments and policy makers in many institutions has had a profound effect on society. This will become even more pronounced if the direction we are currently heading is the opposite of what the future actually brings. There already have been examples of this disconnect between theory and reality, some small, some large, which are affecting people in very real ways whether they recognize it or not.
This past winter, the United States experienced one of the coldest winters in forty years. This had a drastic effect on the Southeastern United States where cold and snow events unlike any endured in a generation left citizens unprepared. From New Orleans to Atlanta, traffic was crippled and life came to a standstill. It is easy to blame current government officials for not being prepared. But on the other hand, for decades governments have been more likely to produce studies on how to prepare for sea level rise or on how to protect the loblolly pine from devastating global warming than actually prepare for the occasional rare snow storm. Snow storms, which they have been assured, will soon be a thing of the past in their neck of the woods.
This is an example of an easy problem to solve. If governments use common sense to prepare for climate and weather events rather than rely on theoretical projections of future climate, or if they just admit they do not know what future weather will be, they would be better served than preparing in the wrong direction. But as long as the climate cult sets the agenda for government priorities, the problems will multiply and compound themselves.
A half a decade ago when few would even consider anything but a warming world, Dr. Pal Brekke a senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo put it this way:
We could be in for a surprise it’s possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.
There is much evidence that the sun’s high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun’s activity is of great significance in determining the earth’s climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans. In that case we could find the temperature levelling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year period”
Not only has Dr. Brekke’s warnings of a “quiet” sun come true, evidence is mounting that we may be at the beginning of a global cooling pattern. ...
Melting glaciers in Glacier National Park as a poster child for the claim “white man brought climate change”. But just how old are those glaciers?
Glacier National Park | Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons
Melting glaciers ranks near the top with the polar bears as a symbol used by the climate cult to “prove” global warming, man-made of course. The hyperbole over melting glaciers has gotten the cult in trouble on more than one occasion.
There was Al Gore’s famous assertion in An Inconvenient Truth that the snows of Mt Kilimanjaro were melting which turned out not to be caused by carbon dioxide induced warming but rather a real environmental problemdeforestation around the mountain. Then there was the IPCC claiming in their “authoritative” fourth assessment report (FAR) that the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035. A claim that was not only false but showed just how shoddy and unscientific the IPCC and their fellow cult members truly are.
When it comes to the United States and glaciers, there is nothing more iconic than Glacier National Park, so of course the cult and all its minions latch onto the receding glaciers in GNP as “proof” of man-made global warming.
For example a recent USGS “report” on glaciers in Glacier National Park is little more than a propaganda sheet on “global climate change.” However they do make this rather cryptic and unsubstantiated claim:
While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, current glaciers are considered geologically new, having formed about ~7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around A.D.1850.
Perhaps the most important item of note from the above statement is that there are no citations as to the studies which back up the age of the current glaciers. In the rest of the report there are citations to recent studies which predict the continuing demise of the glaciers, but when it comes to scientific studies about the age of the glaciers, there is nothing. That is alright I have some.
But before we get to that let’s take a second to dissect the above paragraph. The last ice age ended 12,000 years ago yet according to this USGS report the glaciers in Glacier National Park are not from that period, they are, they claim, 7,000 years old. Even if this statement is true there is a serious gap of time there.
Left unstated but obvious, is that for five thousand years, from 10,000 BC until 5,000 B.C. there were no glaciers in Glacier National Park. This is no small matter, although 5000 B.C. is ancient history it is not before humankind. In 5,000 B.C. the Mesopotamians were beginning to actually record history and on a more local note the so-called “native” Americans had migrated over the land bridge from Asia to North America at least 10,000 years before and recent studies show that they may have come some 25,000 years ago.
So our Native American ancestors who populated the region around Glacier National Park must have lived in a climate similar to the one we are warned of in our future. They lived in a time when there were no glaciers in Glacier National Park. That of course is if the glaciers in Glacier National Park are really 7,000 years old, but are they?
Well perhaps some very tiny bit of the glaciers formed that long ago, even the most recent USGS report notes that “These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 A.D…” but the USGS is being modest. You see the USGS study on the Glaciers in Glacier National Park is quite extensive,
Let me give you a few excerpts from this study that speaks to the age of the glaciers in Glacier National Park.
Obama uses non-existent health threats to push for Environmental Protection Agency regulations at National Children’s Hospital
Obama|Photo Credit Wiki Media
This past Friday President Obama visited the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington D.C. and met with children who suffered from asthma. The event was planned to promote Monday’s release of new EPA regulations on carbon emissions. At the children’s hospital Obama made the following comment,
“As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing. Right now, there are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe. None.”
The problem with the comment is that so-called carbon pollution is literally air we breathe. Every living being exhales the carbon (dioxide) that Obama and his administration is wanting more control over. In addition asthma has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide, the children who have it, bless their hearts, are not affected one bit by increased CO2 from power plants.
We have noted before that labeling carbon dioxide a pollutant is obscene:
…CO2 is not toxic, not pollution and not even that “smokey” substance coming out of smoke stacks or car exhausts you see every time a news agency does a report on “climate change.” Carbon dioxide is a harmless invisible trace gas that is vital for all life on planet Earth. Does the term “carbon based life” ring a bell?
Everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements – all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 elements it seems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon. It would be impossible for life on earth to exist without carbon. Carbon is the main component of sugars, proteins, fats, DNA, muscle tissue, pretty much everything in your body…
Carbon dioxide, the element that gives the climate cult so much distress is life itself, yet Obama, the EPA and like minded members of the climate cult have convinced themselves and the naive that follow them that it is pollution. But it is worse than that, when it comes to climate “science” it always is.
It seems that Obama has taken a leap off the reality cliff. It is one thing to say that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which heats the atmosphere, it does, it is quite another thing to say that it is a pollutant that will directly affect people’s health.
Going to the hospital in a blatant attempt to link carbon dioxide to children’s health is like blaming water for drowning fish. No more can a child be harmed by breathing carbon dioxide than a fish can be harmed from “breathing” water. A reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have absolutely no direct effect on these children’s asthma or any other human health issue, yet here is the President of the United States claiming that it will, how can he possibly make such an absurd connection?
Although this is an obvious attempt to make people think that carbon dioxide poses a health threat to humans which it does not, Obama is just using the same old climate cult playbook to deceive the public. Think Progress the progressive media outlet explains half the deception when they admit that CO2 is not really a direct health threat.
However, the direct health effects of greenhouse gases were never the problem. The problem is the indirect effects — they’re the primary driver of climate change, which leads to hotter, longer heat waves, threatening the health of the sick, poor and elderly. Greenhouse gas emissions also lead to increases in ground-level ozone pollution, which is linked to asthma and other illnesses.
In the last sentence Think Progress is attempting to link all greenhouse gasses to ground-level ozone which is a separate gas (O3) which is not carbon “pollution” at all. Ground level ozone like all real air pollutants has decreased in the United States over the past few decades and is now at or below the EPA’s own national standards. What Think Progress, Obama and the EPA are actually saying is that the threat of carbon “pollution” to public health is the indirect “harm” caused by global warming.
Putting aside the economic implications of the EPA regulations which are immense and of questionable constitutionality, there is no science to back up the policy, literally.
In a stunning admission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy revealed to House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) that the agency neither possesses, nor can produce, all of the scientific data used to justify the rules and regulations they have imposed on Americans via the Clean Air Act. In short, science has been trumped by the radical environmentalist agenda.
In the case of carbon dioxide and the global warming connection, the “science” that is depended upon is not based on any actual evidence but on the hypothetical model projections of future warming, warming that exists solely in agenda driven climate scientists computers.
…if you can not prove your theory with the past, or with the present you boldly go where no one can prove you wrong, the future.
Not only does the use of climate model “projections” of the future have the advantage of being unverifiable, they are a gold mine to the scientific community.
Future warming in climate models is also a gold mine for politicians who can use an unverifiable threat to enact policies and promote their agendas. When you can use sick little children as a backdrop to that agenda it is an unscrupulous politician’s dream come true.
The Obama administration blames U.S. economic downturn on severe winter while pushing global warming agenda
Global Warming engulfs The White House|Photo Credit Wiki Media Commons
It is natural that this should happen since liberalism as practiced by the modern Democratic Party has become a never-ending balancing act of trying to enact leftist agenda driven policies to solve imaginary problems. So it is not surprising that the imagined world of the left to the real world awaits only a peek behind the curtain to be exposed. That being the case there still has seldom been such an obvious conflict in liberal orthodoxy as that which is taking place in the upper levels of the U.S. Government.
In order to deflect attention away from the Obama Administrations many failure and scandals while simultaneously ginning up support from an influential and powerful segment of the Democratic base, environmentalists, the administration has made a big push on climate change policy, aka global warming.
This of course is in direct contradiction to the theory of global warming which predicts that winters are going to be warmer. In fact the second paragraph of the Overview of that much touted National Climate Assessment states
Winters are generally shorter and warmer.
Well, except when they are not in which case harsh winters are a good cover for a shrinking economy brought on by Democratic policies. Which “coincidentally”in the same time frame saw the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) not to mention the threats of and recently implemented environmental policies that will needlessly hurt businesses,
While the administration is out pushing a “climate” report that claims that the winter of 2012 was one of the warmest ever, they fail to note that the winter that had just ended was one of the coldest on record. In fact the previous year (2013) was cooler than normal for the United States.
Much of the U.S. saw cooler-than-average and wetter-than-average conditions in 2013, according to the government’s official annual climate report released Wednesday.
It is undeniable that the severe winter of 2014 hurt the U.S. economy, colder weather always hurts the economy, which makes a thinking person wonder why the purveyors of doom and gloom attack warmer weather. What is not being mentioned however is that we have had many cold and severe winters in our history but it is only when you are hovering near zero economic growth will colder weather throw the economy into the below zero range as has happened in the first quarter of 2014.
But the real charade is the Obama administration blaming a severe winter for a shrinking economy while simultaneously warning that global warming is having and will have a severe impact on the US economy now and into the future. Irony is just so ironic.
Extreme global warming and temperature extremes are not only nothing new, they are our experience
Miami|Photo Credit J.D. Brown
Al Gore, the world’s number one purveyor of doom and gloom once wrote:
Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
This really is the argument isn’t it? That the temperature increase that the climate cult led by their high priests such as Al Gore are prophesying is caused by mankind and their nasty CO2 which will destroy conditions for humans and other life forms on Earth. Because of this Gore says that we are jeopardizing some idyllic climate condition :
…while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.
So enamoured was Gore of this “pleasant” temperature he considers so important to the human race that shortly after writing this he went out andbought a $9 million mansion in Southern California where the average temperature is very close to his “pleasant 59.” As Noel Sheperd observed at the time, “Certainly not bad for a guy who supposedly was worth between one and two million dollars in 2000.”
Most of the rest of the world’s inhabitants are not able to live in such “pleasant” temperatures simply because the Earth is really not a “pleasant 59 degrees.” The global temperature is as diverse as the people who live on it.
Toronto Canada is the 52nd largest metropolitan area in the world with a population of over six million people in other words by Gore’s standards we would consider it “habitable”. About 1500 miles to the south of Canada’s largest city is Miami an American city of comparable size, Miami is the 58th largest metropolitan area in the world. Like all of the world’s large cities these two cities have many similarities but one thing they do not have in common is their climate.
Toronto has an average temperature of 45.9 degrees while Miami’s average temperature is a balmy 77.2 degrees a difference of 41.3 degrees. This is their average temperatures when you look at the extremes the differences are even more noticeable. The coldest temperature ever recorded in Toronto is -31.4 degrees while the warmest temperature ever recorded in Miami is 98 degrees an amazing difference of 129.4 degrees. These extreme conditions exist in cities where people are obviously able to live and function normally.
Consider that the average annual temperature in Helsinki, Finland of 41 degrees is eleven degrees colder than the coldest temperature ever recorded in Bangkok, Thailand. Residents of Helsinki live in an environment where the average temperature is 41 degrees while in Bangkok the resident’s live in an average temperature of 84 degrees neither of which is anywhere near Gore’s “pleasant 59.”
But you do not have to travel “around the world” to find extreme differences in temperatures, my experience proves this. Years ago I lived in the “great plains” of northeast Montana. One January an Arctic blast came sweeping down from Alberta and for several days we experienced temperatures well below 0. In fact for three days in a row the air temperature reached a low of -31 degrees and with the wind chill it was close to -50. But remarkably, but actually not, just six months later in July of the same year the temperature reached a 103 degrees. That is a 134 degree difference in temperature, not in different global “climate zones” but in the same location and in the same year. Now that is climate change!
The climate alarmist have conditioned us to look at minor changes in temperatures with foreboding. A half of degree celsius temperature increase over the course of more than a century is represented as some sort of harbinger of a coming global apocalypse. The fact that humans have survived even thrived in divergent climates so far removed from the temperatures they warn us of is laughable.
A group of retired generals have released a climate change report that claims that weather is a threat to national security. What climate change is that exactly?
General Donald J Hoffman | Photo Credit Wiki media Commons
Perhaps you may recall when former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen testified before congress and claimed that America’s greatest national security threat was our national debt. Such sentiments, however true, are no longer in line with a liberal administration whose answer to every problem begins and ends with government spending.
A new threat is needed so a group of ex-military officers have stepped forward if to not exactly to serve their nation then at least to serve the current Commander and Chief’s political talking points. Forget the debt, forget the Iranian mullahs, the former KGB colonel with a Napoleon complex, or even suicidal maniacs that consider the United states “The Great Satan,” the growing threat to American national security is climate change.
One irony in the report put out by a group calling itself the Center for Naval Analysis’ Military Advisory Board is that while the left for years has vociferously objected to using our military for “nation building” they have absolutely no problem in utilizing that same military for, well, nation building.
The U.S. military should plan to help manage catastrophes and conflicts both domestically and internationally….
That US military managing catastrophes and conflict “domestically” is a bit disconcerting as well.
One of these retired military officers who is out campaigning for the Obama agenda is retired Air Force General Don Hoffman who is currently on a speaking tour warning of the threat posed by climate change to our national security. In a recent interview he made an observation which caught my attention.
“We find ourselves increasingly responding to natural disasters,” said Hoffman, who retired in 2012 as commander of Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. “The military is there and was in the past. The intensity and frequency has gone up. What used to be a 100-year event is now a decade event. It’s going to take more and more time and consumption and ability for the military to respond to that. I think we will but that’s less training for our day job, which is national defense.”
The first point that must be noted is that the use of our military in dealing with “natural disasters” is purely a policy and priority choice. The general makes this point himself when he points out that in dealing with these disasters the military is short changing their actual purpose, national defense. If an administration chooses to use our military to help with “natural disasters” rather than train for their “day job” that choice itself is the threat to national security not the disaster. There are plenty of federal and state agencies that are and can be tasked with dealing with natural disasters without using the military. In fact it is the traditional role of a state’s National Guard to deal with natural disasters without the need to call in the 101st Airborne.
But the more important question that needs to be answered is what exactly are the increased “natural disasters” that the military is being called upon to deal with? Which disaster’s “intensity and frequency has gone up?” Let’s look at some actual facts.
When discussing the alleged increase in natural disasters, it is very important to remember that even if you” believe” in the climate change meme, many natural disasters can not be attributed to climate change. Only the unhinged fringe of the climate cult would blame tsunamis, earthquakes or volcanoes on climate change and these three disasters are among the largest challenges faced by humans when dealing with natural disasters.
One natural disaster that requires a great deal of manpower and logistical expertise to deal with and where the military might be a benefit, though state National Guards have done a wonderful job over the years, is hurricanes. Are hurricanes increasing in “intensity and frequency”?Despite the cover of Al Gore’s book and the posters for his docudrama, hurricanes in the last decade are actually less frequent and particularly where the United States is concerned, less intense.
Not only is the Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) a metric that measures both the intensity and duration of cyclone activity at historic lows
In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.
But as regards to the United States, the last major hurricane (category 3,4,5) to strike the United States was Wilma in 2005. This drought of major hurricane strikes on the United States is the longest period since the Civil War. So much for the military having to deal with increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes.
What about tornadoes? When discussing weather events and the “records” surrounding them it is important to realize that the historical record is often quite short and where they may be longer they are obviously less accurate the further back in time you go. The official record on tornadoes as an example only goes back to 1950, not exactly enough time to determine whether or not a season is “historic.” So we will just let a real climate scientist who is an expert on tornadoes answer the frequency intensity question. What say you Harold Brooks, a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory?
No one knows whether tornadoes have increased in number or intensity, since the aforementioned changes in reporting practices “make the intensity question harder to answer,” Brooks said, adding, “If you take the dataset of reports at face value, it appears intensity has decreased over the years, but there are a number of things that have led to lower ratings for the strongest tornadoes.”
So our military has not been needed for more frequent or intense tornadoes, at least as far as the scientists can determine. So that leaves what? Floods and droughts? I really don’t know what the military could do about droughts, haul water? But let’s get it out of the way. Here is the official drought record for the United States from NOAA. Please note that the “dry” condition is below the dotted line.
Are Scientists who do not use scientific principles to reach conclusions really scientists?
Natural ice cube l Photo Credit Wiki Commons
Let me propose a science experiment, don’t worry you don’t actually have to perform the experiment, this is the best kind of science, you can do it in your mind using only good old common sense. First take two identical ice cubes outside and place one in the sun and one in the shade, which will melt faster? Technically they are both in the same air temperature the sunshine hitting the surface of the ice is not air temperature.
Everyone knows that the ice-cube in the sun is going to melt much faster than the one in the shade. Just for kicks and giggles I actually performed this experiment. At the time that I sacrificed my two ice cubes to science it was a clear sunny day and my digital thermostat said it was 86 degrees Fahrenheit outside. Both cubes were placed on the same surface, grass. The cube in the sun melted, in just over 21 minutes. The cube in the shade however held on for 37 minutes. Of course you knew this would be the case because you have common sense.
Let’s take our common sense experiment a little further. Let’s take two more imaginary ice cubes and place one in a refrigerator where the temperature is probably around 36 degrees. How long would it take that ice-cube to melt? Well my test cube is still in my fridge after 48 hours and looks like it will be there for longer than I care to wait to write this article. Do I even need to mention what happens to an ice-cube in a freezer or will we all just stipulate that without the sun beating down on it that ice kept below freezing will not melt.
So let’s review, ice above freezing temperatures melts faster in the sun than ice melts in the same temperature without sun. Ice near freezing temperature without sun melts very slowly but with sun will melt faster. Ice below freezing will not melt without the sun, period. Childish review of the known properties of ice but I think necessary when reviewing modern climate cult narratives.
Now check out the graph below which I will explain in more detail after you have looked at it for a minute, or skipped it and gone to the text below. Unlike the NSA I have no way of monitoring your compliance.
Arctic Temperatures Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degree North (2013). from DMI Center for Ocean and Ice
This is a graph from the Danish Meteorological Institute of last years temperatures above 80 degrees North latitude which is considered the high Arctic. Being a scientific institution and all the DMI measures temperatures in Kelvin (K) but to make it simple for us lay people they put a blue line at 273.5 K which is the freezing mark (32 degF). To further identify what we are talking about, 235 degrees Kelvin is the same as -36.67 degrees fahrenheit, or very, very cold.
The green line is the average temperature for this region between the years 1958-2002. Before I get into deeper “scientific” analysis I would have you note that in 2013 the summer months in this northern most Arctic region were much colder than “normal.” If you look at the charts going back to the beginning of the series in 1958 few years were as cold as it was this past summer in the “Polar Circle.” Perhaps this is why the “polar vortex” which attacked the United States this winter was so cold? What you will also note is that there are actually very few days where the temperature, even in a normal year, reach above freezing. In an average year about 90 days are above freezing and despite global warming in 2014 there were less than half that number! This all means that, on average, for 270 days a year this region is below freezing where ice will not melt unless exposed to the sun. Remember though the Sun is not directly causing global warming “man-made” CO2 is, or so the story goes.
A new report from the research center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks reveals that the 49th state of the union has cooled by 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 2000.
The drop is described as a ‘large value for a decade,’ in the academic paper ‘The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska.’
This was not some idle speculation but as I said a widely reported throughout the scientific community and in the popular press worldwide.
As the story from the UK Daily Mail points out, a drop in temperatures of 2.4 degrees over a decade is significant and a decade worth of data is more than just a simple anomaly. The report’s own title calls the past decade a “cooling trend”. The current climate science community will often use yearly or even seasonal anomalies to alarm the public and here we have an entire decade long trend of cooling.
Furthermore we are not talking about some random decade but rather the last decade when global temperatures especially in the northern latitudes were prophesied to rise. But rather than rising it has been been proven using the “warmist’ communities own records that temperatures in Alaska actually dropped significantly over the past decade. These findings have not been disputed.
What may have happened in previous decades although possibly significant as well does not change the fact that the current climate in Alaska is experiencing a cooling trend. This is a fact based on actual data and research, plain and simple. All of this was brought to the worlds attention in the first week of January 2013.
So why is it that the National Wildlife Federation at the end of January issued a report which states the following ? (emphasis in original)
Alaska has warmed about twice as much as the continental United States and warming is severely altering the Arctic landscape including melting permafrost. In the face of this unprecedented warming, many uniquely polar habitats—like the sea ice that polar bears, seals, and walrus require to hunt—are shrinking fast.
In what time frame is this purported warming supposed to have occurred? Obviously they can not be referring to the most recent available data since again as has been widely reported, Alaska temperatures are decreasing. The NWF must simply be ignoring recent long term changes in Alaska’s climate in order to make such a statement.