Notable Quotes

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change...

...But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

David Whitehouse

The evidence is clear

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

James Hansen

Admittedly I have not been keeping up with the global warming news nearly as closely as I used to, I pretty much have just been keeping up with the headlines and "big" stories.

One of those recent "big" stories has been about various 'alarmist" and alarmist institutions back pedaling from their normal doomsday claims and admitting that there has been a "slow down" in warming, see quote above by the "godfather" of the global warming fraternity as an example.

Then there was the rather detailed article in the Economist a publication that previously had taken the alarmist view of global warming where they admitted, well, the obvious.

"Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,"

It is sure nice that the fear mongers have quit denying the truth, but I have a rather simple question which I have not seen asked since this new "revelation" has taken hold of the climate community. It is simply this:

"If temperatures have remained flat over the past decade or more, what about all the stories over the past decade about the negative effects of global warming on well....everything?

I mean wasn't  it just this past fall when climate change/ global warming caused Superstorm Sandy?

Consider this story from the Washington Post. This would be considered  an attempt by the author to have an even handed look at the science regarding global warming and Superstorm Sandy.  But given the "big" story outlined above, it really is just  fiction

Here are a couple of the fair and balanced  points the writer makes:

1) Sandy should not be “blamed” on climate change. Climate change does not cause storms and did not cause Superstorm Sandy. Storms form when certain weather ingredients come together. The historic record shows violent storms, some even more severe than Sandy, have struck the Northeast repeatedly..

2) While climate change did not cause Sandy, it may have been a performance enhancer like a steroid, injecting it with somewhat more energy and power.

3) Sea level rise from manmade climate change increased the water level along the Northeast coast 6 to 8 inches and, as a result, somewhat worsened the coastal flooding from Sandy.

I might be going out on a limb here, but if temperatures have been flat for the past 10-15 years, not only can Superstorm Sandy not be blamed on climate change, there was no climate change to be blamed!

It could not have "enhanced" Sandy and whatever sea level rise they claim, can not be the result of man made climate change/global warming simply because, there has not been any and the scientist and their allies are admitting it.

So the whole premise of the story, written less than six months ago, is false. As is almost every story attributing some occurrence or event to global warming. If there has been no global warming, then all the multitude of dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications of the result of some other cause, like nature. Consider this from the once prestigious National Geographic titled

Effects of Global Warming
Signs Are Everywhere

Well when you attribute everything to something that is not actually happening, then I guess you can find signs everywhere, can't you? They go on an alarmist tangent about all that is happening to our world while temperatures  have been "flat" for over a decade.

The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.

They tell us that some of these things are happening now, among the examples I found interesting was this

Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Spruce bark beetles may have boomed in Alaska, but it has nothing to do with global warming, Alaska has been cooling over the past 15 years. But you wouldn't expect the National Geographic to have their facts correct now would you? not when the narrative is so much more dramatic.

How many stories have you read in the past decade about something being caused by global warming? Hundreds?  Thousands? You know all those increased diseases,  those endangered species,  those droughts, the excessive flooding, the heavier snowfall, more tornadoes , hurricanes. All  those thousands upon thousands of article written about what global warming was causing, not in the future but now, those articles are to put it mildly.... bogus.

As bogus as the theory itself.

Because you see the corner has now been painted into. If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to "climate change" can not be true.

Oh there was a superstorm Sandy and perhaps the Arctic sea ice has melted more than it used to and perhaps in some areas of the globe there has been more droughts, or flooding or whatever.  But the scientist are now telling us that it was not the result of global warming. How could it be?

They are now telling us the globe did not warm.

Yet they still teach it to the children, don't they?

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

The evidence is clear?

Yes the evidence is clear, the world has been the victims of the greatest hoax, no that isn't right, a hoax is not malicious enough a term for what we have suffered through at the hands of corrupt scientist, politicians and their multitude of allies. With few exceptions we, the people of the world, have been robbed, lied to and brain washed by men and women who put their monetary gain and prestige over the most precious asset in the world, the truth.

Because you see if the temperatures have been flat this past decade plus, it is not like they have not known it, is it? They hyped the theory of what they projected to happen and made wild outlandish claims about events and occurrences which they knew could not be attributed to something that was not happening, global warming.

They fed off our tax dollars, they set themselves up as the protectors of the world, they destroyed those that dissented, and they initiated policies that were not only unnecessary but actually counter productive. They wasted valuable resources, they burned food for fuel and they indoctrinated our children with lies, the list of what these frauds have done could go on for pages.

The evidence is clear, they perpetrated crimes against humanity and they have just confessed.

Climate Change Runs Up Against Green Fatigue

FROM-Science 2.0


By Hank Campbell

Environmental activists make money telling us all how terrible things are; climate scientists appreciate the help promoting their data, we do have a bit of a train wreck coming at us emissions-wise, but climate scientists also know there is a risk of backlash if there are too many hyperbolic claims, and that 'green fatigue' will set in if every change in temperature and every storm is attributed to global warming. That's why even the IPCC, no wallflower when it comes to using media talking points, wishes media would not attribute local weather to climate change.

And then there is the money aspect to just taking a 'sequester' approach to emissions. While activists seem to believe a sequester approach to taxes and spending - egalitarian, across-the-board cuts without regard to merit - is bad, they have an idealized vision of what it will do in the economy regarding emissions. We should just do it, they insist. When activists said America just 'needs' to get down to early 1990s levels of emissions, they painted a perfect scenario where everyone would somehow be employed in either green energy production or white-collar environmental awareness jobs. Yet America is back at early 1990s levels of emissions right now - and the economy we have is what that looks like. Stagnant business climate, high chronic unemployment and food stamp recipients are numerous enough to pick a president, but the stock market is up so the government claims that higher stocks and higher taxes will eventually help poor people who bridge a wider chasm from the rich than ever.

The ironic downside for activists who have gotten the lower emissions they wanted is that in the hierarchy of needs, broad environmental issues are not all that important. When people can't pay the rent or meet lots of other basic necessities, the last thing they want to hear is how they are killing the planet but developing countries like China, India and Mexico are exempt. And so concern about environmental issues, including climate change, is now at a 20-year low, even in America, despite the full-court press by the media in late 2012 to say that the Sandy storm was caused by climate change. What else happened 20 years ago, the last time people didn't care about the environment? A president got thrown out due to the "It's the economy, stupid" movement. Not having money makes people think about their world, not the world.

So studies may predict the impact of climate change but people losing their homes are not worried about 50 years from now; the activists who want a full-stop on CO2, more regulations, more penalties, more taxes and then more subsidies for their pet 'green' projects are living in their own fantasy world, where if they mandate and subsidize something like wind power, capitalism will take over and make it viable. The 13th century is not the answer to 21st century energy issues but they are against both fossil fuels and every viable alternative.

Result: People begin to stop caring.

Read entire article

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak

From: The Australian 

LETTERS
Global warming error


THE global warming industry made a tactical error in putting all its eggs in the one basket, in the cause and effect hypothesis.

Carbon tax, emissions trading schemes, solar and wind generation are all predicated on the certainty that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activity is the cause, and rising global temperature is the effect and the belief that, by manipulating the cause, we can modify the effect.

The pause in rising temperatures shows a disconnection between human activity and increasing global temperatures. The human activity has not ceased but the effect has. We are now back on solid scientific ground, where the sceptics and deniers have been all along, namely that climate changes - always has and always will - and what we are experiencing is within historical fluctuations.


Frank Pulsford, Aspley, Qld

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Letters to the Editor and other People Speak


FROM-OC Register

Letters: That chill in the air isn't global warming


DANA POINT, Larry Hamlin, retired Southern California Edison vice president of power production, former state energy construction czar under Gov. Gray Davis (2001):

In the article, “Less snow, more blizzards may be in store” [News, Feb. 10], Seth Borenstein, again, uses erroneous information and results from unvalidated climate models to mischaracterize recent weather events occurring in the U.S.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration empirical temperature data shows that U.S. winters have cooled in the past 15 years in all nine U.S. climate regions. Thus, Borenstein’s most basic and fundamental premise, that global warming makes winters warmer, is wrong, based on reviewing actual temperature data.

North America snow extent empirical data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab for the fall, winter and spring seasons from 1967 through 2012 show virtually no change in total snowfall during this period. Thus, again, one of the article’s most fundamental claims, that global warming results in less snow, is wrong, based on reviewing actual snowfall data records.

Borenstein also claims that global warming results in more winter storms but NOAA winter storm data clearly shows increased storms during cooler periods, which is the opposite of Borenstein’s claims.

The number of winter storms in the past decade is consistent with the number of storms that occurred in the cooler-winter decade of the 1960s versus the fewer number of storms that occurred in the warmer-winter decades of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

This article, unfortunately, is another example of climate alarmists making unfounded claims that are easily refuted using empirical data. Further, the article relies on results from unvalidated climate models whose “projections” are based on unproven assumptions of man-made links to climate change.

As Blizzard Nemo Strikes, Global Warming Won’t Be Far Behind

FROM-Town Hall

John Ransom

Blizzard Nemo is bearing down on the Northeast- hence the term nor’easter to describe it- so prepare for the folks at Fashion Week, now being held in New York City, to be out in force battling the storm.

“The organizers of New York's Fashion Week,” reports the CSMonitor, “a closely watched series of fashion shows held under a big tent – said they will have extra crews to help with snow removal and will turn up the heat and add an extra layer to the venue.”

We can only hope that they wear furs.

Because we’ll need blizzards of hilarity to withstand the up-and-coming storm, which will be the worst storm ever since, well, the last “WORST-STORM-EVER!”

However, we won’t have to brace against the snow per se; there have been plenty of monster winter storms in the Northeast that have been shrugged off, shoveled out from and tobogganed on.

Even in the midst of an outbreak of global warming, snow still, after all, eventually melts. Even in New England.

“Yes,” said Mark Twain, a resident of Connecticut, “one of the brightest gems in the New England weather is the dazzling uncertainty ofit.”

So, the biggest storm we’ll face won’t be Nemo, in other words; it will be the blizzard of pseudo-scientific, trash journalistic, moralizing, hypocrisizing and hyperventilating rain of ink that will tie the storm to the effects of global warming.

Al Gore can’t fart sideways today without the gas being caused by global warming.

By definition, global warming can now be defined by anything that disturbs the comfort and security of anyone who lives on the Eastern seaboard.

Read entire article

Another case study in climate change alarmism

People who have payed attention to the alarmist narrative of global warming are seldom surprised when yesterday's apocalyptic predictions are suddenly transformed into today's far less dire scientific study, usually found on the back page.

This pattern of shouted alarm morphing into ho hum is becoming so common it is a wonder that the the climate community doesn't just close up shop in shame and embarrassment. But the hubris necessary to actually perpetrate such a false narrative is such that they simply change the theory to fit current climatic conditions.

A recent example of a alarmist narrative suddenly wiped away with little notice has to do with the Amazon. Reuters brings us the good news that

"Amazon forest more resilient to climate change than feared - study"

The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday. 

The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.

The fact that CO2 is a "plant fertilizer" seems to be a new realization to the wizards of smart who have been keeping the world on edge these past couple of decades as they cash their tax payer funded checks. After years of demonetization of CO2. Reuters felt compelled to reluctantly and briefly explain that yes carbon dioxide actually does play a very significant and beneficial role in nature, as anyone over thirty years old remembers from grade school science knows, though who knows what is taught today.

Plants soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it as an ingredient to grow leaves, branches and roots.

This grade school biology has finally made its way into the calculations of climate scientist and they have now issued a reprieve for the world's largest rain forest. Not only that but we are being informed, again reluctantly, that CO2 far from being a negative to the Amazon is actually a net positive.

It estimated that the damaging effects of warming would cause the release of 53 billion tons of carbon stored in lands throughout the tropics, much of it in the Amazon, for every single degree Celsius (1.8F) of temperature rise.

The benefits of CO2 fertilization exceeded those losses in most scenarios, which ranged up to a 319 billion ton net gain of stored carbon over the 21st century. About 500 to 1,000 billion ton of carbon are stored in land in the tropics.

As if increased heat would not also be beneficial to plant growth....in a jungle environment. Oh well we will take what we can get from the scientific community, they have such a hard time admitting what to most people is common sense.

"I am no longer so worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature. "In that sense it's good news."

Gee thanks Prof, we were really worried about it, especially after you and your peers put out stories like this just four short years ago.

From the UK Guardian in 2009

"Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say" 

Global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon rainforest, according to a devastating new study which predicts that one-third of its trees will be killed by even modest temperature rises.

I guess these scientist did not take grade school science and did not know about the whole "plant fertilizer" properties of the demon gas carbon dioxide. They were all to worried about CO2 induced warming killing off the Amazon and made sure that as the Reuters article pointed out that the "die off because of global warming ...[is] widely believed."

And why is the Amazon rain forest die off so widely believed? From the 2009 Guardian article

Chris Jones, who led the research, told the conference: "A temperature rise of anything over 1C commits you to some future loss of Amazon forest. Even the commonly quoted 2C target already commits us to 20-40% loss. On any kind of pragmatic timescale, I think we should see loss of the Amazon forest as irreversible."

You got that? One of the hottest most humid environments on Earth was going to be "irreversibly lost" due to global warming. Even 1C rise in temperature was predicted to reek havoc on our South American jungles.

It is a good thing that good old Professor Cox came along and set them straight. Oh wait what is this ?

Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, said the effects would be felt around the world. "Ecologically it would be a catastrophe and it would be taking a huge chance with our own climate. The tropics are drivers of the world's weather systems and killing the Amazon is likely to change them forever. We don't know exactly what would happen but we could expect more extreme weather." Massive Amazon loss would also amplify global warming "significantly" he said.

"Destroying the Amazon would also turn what is a significant carbon sink into a significant source."

So the reason people believe that global warming is going to destroy the Amazon and create a global "ecological catastrophe" is because that is precisely what Peter Cox was telling the world four years ago.

Of course the good professor and his like minded peers would simply say that recent scientific studies have superseded their previous conclusions. Of course the whole tenor of these people is like kids who set off fire crackers in a crowded theater then after the panic has created mayhem point out that they are innocent because it was not a real machine gun after all.

But science or truth was not the purpose in the first place was it? If you think about it, the scientific knowledge to reach the conclusion they reached in 2009 as opposed to what they know today is not that much different. As a matter of fact the only thing that changed is what they put into their models.

The scientists said the study was a step forward because it used models comparing forest growth with variations in the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So all that they did different in this study was factor in forest growth as a result of increased CO2, which leads one to believe that they did not previously factor this into their models. 

In other words the previous catastrophic model scenarios were based on the warmer temperatures that CO2 is believed to cause without determining what affect that same CO2 would have on plant growth which every scientist knows CO2 generates, (we would hope)

This in a nutshell is exactly how modern science operates when it comes to "climate change". Look for and factor in only the negative impacts while ignoring or hiding the positive and limiting factors in order to promote worse case scenarios thus creating alarm. Then as with this new Amazon study, when the truth can no longer be hidden, quietly and without shame, tell the truth.

But the damage is done, the agenda has been pushed "Forward", the narrative has been established and the lie has circled the globe for four years before the truth has even put on its shoes.

Thank you Professor Peter Cox for being case study in climate change alarmism.