Biggest science scandal: Official temperature records were systematically adjusted by climate scientists

arcticA new article written by Christopher Booker titled ‘The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever’ published in The Telegraph claims that official temperature records were systematically adjusted to show that the earth has warmed much more than the actual data justified.

The article’s theme is that scientists manipulated the data on purpose to exaggerate global warming.

In the article, Booker claims that readings from thermometers in Paraguay were adjusted by climate scientists to make them look like the temperature is increasing, when the measurements off the detectors actually show the opposite.

Paul Homewood, anti-climate change activist stated that changes were made in published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay.

Homewood checked other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the suspicious “adjustments”.

First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC).

These institutes use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Homewood added that world relies on these records for its understanding of global warming.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada and the heart of Siberia.

He again found the same one-way adjustments made by scientists to show warming up to 1 degree C or higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.

Traust Jonsson, who formerly ran Iceland’s climate research, was shocked to see how the new version records completely ‘disappears’ Iceland’s ‘sea ice years’ around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

Source

Continue Reading 1 Comment

Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

turbinesGlobal warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.

EDF has assembled what it believes to be the 10 most powerful global warming assertions in the alarmists’ playbook, yet each assertion either backfires on alarmists or has been proven false. While reading how flawed EDF’s assertions are, remember these are the very best arguments global warming alarmists can make. Open-minded readers should have very little difficulty dismissing the mythical global warming crisis after examining the top 10 assertions in the alarmist playbook.

Alarmist Assertion #1

“Bats Drop from the Sky ‚Äì In 2014, a scorching summer heat wave caused more than 100,000 bats to literally drop dead and fall from the sky in Queensland, Australia.”

The Facts

Global warming alarmists’ preferred electricity source ‚Äì wind power ‚Äì kills nearly 1 million bats every year (to say nothing of the more than 500,000 birds killed every year) in the United States alone. This appalling death toll occurs every year even while wind power produces just 3% of U.S. electricity. Ramping up wind power to 10, 20, or 30% of U.S. electricity production would likely increase annual bat kills to 10-to-30 million every year. Killing 30 million bats every year in response to dubious claims that global warming might once in a great while kill 100,000 bats makes no sense.

Just as importantly, alarmists present no evidence that global warming caused the summer heat wave in a notoriously hot desert near the equator.  To the contrary, climate change theory and objective data show our recent global warming is occurring primarily in the winter, toward the poles, and at night.

Australia’s highest recorded temperature occurred more than half a century ago, and only two of Australia’s seven states have set their all-time temperature record during the past 40 years. Indeed, Queensland’s 2014 heat wave paled in comparison to the 1972 heat wave that occurred 42 years of global warming ago. If global warming caused the 2014 Queensland heat wave, why wasn’t it as severe as the 1972 Queensland heat wave? Blaming every single summer heat wave or extreme weather event on global warming is a stale and discredited tactic in the alarmist playbook. Objective science proves extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and droughts have become less frequent and less severe as a result of the Earth’s recent modest warming.

Alarmist Assertion #2

“Lyme Disease Spreads” ‚Äì Warmer temperatures are contributing to the range expansion and severity of tick-borne Lyme disease.”

The Facts

Lyme Disease is much more common in northern, cooler regions of the United States than in southern, warmer regions. Asserting, without any supporting data or evidence, that a disease that prospers in cool climates will become more prevalent as a result of global warming defies objective data and common sense. Moreover, a team of scientists extensively researched Lyme Disease climate and habitat and reported in the peer-reviewed science journal EcoHealth, “the only environmental variable consistently association with increased [Lyme Disease] risk and incidence was the presence of forests.”

Granted, alarmists can argue that forests are thriving under global warming, with the result that forest-dwelling ticks will also benefit. However, expanding forests are universally ‚Äì and properly ‚Äì viewed as environmentally beneficial. Alarmist attempts to frame thriving forests as harmful perfectly illustrate the alarmists’ proclivity to claim anything and everything ‚Äì no matter how beneficial ‚Äì is severely harmful and caused by global warming.

Moreover, even if global warming expanded Lyme Disease range, one must look at the totality of global warming’s impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme Disease “is rare as a cause of death in the United States.” According to the CDC, Lyme Disease is a contributing factor to less than 25 deaths per year in the United States. Indeed, during a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, “only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme Disease.” Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans who are killed by the flu each year. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have documented how influenza is aided and abetted by cold climate. Any attempt to connect a warmer climate to an increase in Lyme Disease must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of a warmer climate’s propensity to reduce influenza incidence and mortality. The net impact of a warmer climate on viruses and diseases such as Lyme Disease and influenza is substantially beneficial and life-saving.

Alarmist Assertion #3

“National Security Threatened ‚Äì The impacts of climate change are expected to act as a ‘threat multiplier’ in many of the world’s most unstable regions, exacerbating droughts and other natural disasters as well as leading to food, water and other resource shortages that may spur mass migrations.”

The Facts

The alarmists’ asserted national security threat depends on assertions that (1) global warming is causing a reduction in food and water supplies and (2) migrations of people to places with more food and water will increase risks of military conflict. Objective facts refute both assertions.

Regarding food and water supplies, global crop production has soared as the Earth gradually warms. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential to plant life, and adding more of it to the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop production. Longer growing seasons and fewer frost events also benefit plant growth and crop production. As this column has repeatedly documented (see articles here, here, and here, for example), global crops set new production records virtually every year as our planet modestly warms. If crop shortages cause national security threats and global warming increases crop production, then global warming benefits rather than jeopardizes national security.

The same holds true for water supplies. Objective data show there has been a gradual increase in global precipitation and soil moisture as our planet warms. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn stimulates more frequent precipitation over continental land masses. The result of this enhanced precipitation is an improvement in soil moisture at almost all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. If declining precipitation and declining soil moisture are military threat multipliers, than global warming is creating a safer, more peaceful world.

Alarmist Assertion #4

“Sea Levels Rising ‚Äì Warmer temperatures are causing glaciers and polar ice sheets to melt, increasing the amount of water in the world’s seas and oceans.”

The Facts

The pace of sea level rise remained relatively constant throughout the 20th century, even as global temperatures gradually rose. There has similarly been no increase in the pace of sea level rise in recent decades. Utilizing 20th century technologies, humans effectively adapted to global sea level rise. Utilizing 21st century technologies, humans will be even better equipped to adapt to global sea level rise.

Also, the alarmist assertion that polar ice sheets are melting is simply false. Although alarmists frequently point to a modest recent shrinkage in the Arctic ice sheet, that decline has been completely offset by ice sheet expansion in the Antarctic. Cumulatively, polar ice sheets have not declined at all since NASA satellite instruments began precisely measuring them 35 years ago.

Alarmist Assertion #5

“Allergies Worsen ‚Äì Allergy sufferers beware: Climate change could cause pollen counts to double in the next 30 years. The warming temperatures cause advancing weed growth, a bane for allergy sufferers.”

The Facts

Pollen is a product and mechanism of plant reproduction and growth. As such, pollen counts will rise and fall along with plant health and vegetation intensity. Any increase in pollen will be the result of a greener biosphere with more plant growth.  Similar to the alarmist argument, discussed above, that expanding forests will create more habitat for the ticks that spread Lyme Disease, alarmists here are taking overwhelmingly good news about global warming improving plant health and making it seem like this good news is actually bad news because healthier plants mean more pollen.

Indeed, NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions. For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, however, a greener biosphere is terrible news and something to be opposed. This, in a nutshell, defines the opposing sides in the global warming debate. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions. Global warming realists understand that a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is not a horrible thing simply because humans may have had some role in creating it.

Alarmist Assertion #6

“Beetles Destroy Iconic Western Forests ‚Äì Climate change has sent tree-killing beetles called mountain pine beetles into overdrive. Under normal conditions those beetles reproduce just once annually, but the warming climate has allowed them to churn out an extra generation of new bugs each year.”

The Facts

Alarmists claim warmer winters are causing an increase in pine beetle populations. This assertion is thoroughly debunked by objective, real-world data.

As an initial matter, alarmists have responded to recent bitterly cold winters by claiming global warming is causing colder winters. One cannot claim global warming is causing colder winters and then turn around and simultaneously claim global warming is causing warmer winters. Global warming activists’ propensity for doing so shows just how little value they place in a truthful debate.

Objective scientific data verify winters are not getting colder, which counters the key prerequisite to EDF’s pine beetle claim. NOAA temperature data show winter temperatures in the United States have been getting colder for at least the past two decades. Pine beetles cannot be taking advantage of warmer winters if winters are in fact getting colder. Moreover, recent U.S. Forest Service data show pine beetle infestations have recently declined dramatically throughout the western United States.

Forests and plant life are expanding globally, and particularly in the western United States. Pine beetles are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Expanding pine forests can support more beetles. The predictable increase in pine beetles is largely a product of, rather than a foil against, expanding pine forests. One can hardly argue that western pine forests are “destroying iconic Western forests” when western forests are becoming denser and more prevalent as the planet warms.

Also, beetles have bored through North American forests for millennia, long before people built coal-fired power plants and drove SUVs. Beetles are not dependent on warm winters, as evidenced by their historic prevalence in places such as Alaska.

Finally, pine beetles tend to target dead, unhealthy, more vulnerable pine trees rather than healthy trees. Decades of over-aggressive fire suppression policies have caused an unnatural buildup of older, denser, more vulnerable pine forests. These conditions predictably aid pine beetles.

Alarmist Assertion #7

“Canada: The New America ‚Äì ‘Lusher’ vegetation growth typically associated with the United States is now becoming more common in Canada, scientists reported in a 2012 Nature Climate Change study.”

The Facts

Only global warming alarmists would claim that lusher vegetation and more abundant plant life is a bad thing. Playing on a general tendency for people to fear change, EDF and global warming alarmists argue that changes in the biosphere that make it richer, lusher, and more conducive to life are changes to be feared and opposed. If barren ecosystems constitute an ideal planet, then the alarmist fears of more plant life make sense. On the contrary, global warming realists understand a climate more conducive to richer, more abundant plant life is beneficial rather than harmful.

Alarmist Assertion #8

“Economic Consequences ‚Äì The costs associated with climate change rise along with the temperatures. Severe storms and floods combined with agricultural losses cause billions of dollars in damages, and money is needed to treat and control the spread of disease”

The Facts

Severe storms, floods and agricultural losses may cost a great deal of money, but such extreme weather events ‚Äì and their resulting costs ‚Äì are dramatically declining as the Earth modestly warms. Accordingly, EDF’s asserted economic costs are actually economic benefits.

As documented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and here at Forbes.com, severe storms are becoming less frequent and severe as the Earth modestly warms. This is especially evident regarding hurricane and tornado activity, which are both at historic lows. Similarly, scientific measurements and peer-reviewed studies report no increase in flooding events regarding natural-flowing rivers and streams. Any increase in flooding activity is due to human alterations of river and stream flow rather than precipitation changes.

Also, the modest recent warming is producing U.S. and global crop production records virtually every year, creating billions of dollars in new economic and human welfare benefits each and every year. This creates a net economic benefit completely ignored by EDF.

Regarding “the spread of disease,” as documented in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” objective evidence shows global warming will thwart deadly outbreaks of influenza and other cold-dependent viruses.

Additionally, the alarmists’ desired means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions ‚Äì more expensive energy sources ‚Äì make economic conditions even worse. Forcing the American economy to operate on expensive and unreliable wind and solar power will have tremendous negative economic consequences. President Obama acknowledged this fact when he promised that under his global warming plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The economic consequences of Obama’s global warming policies can already be seen in electricity prices, which are currently the highest in U.S. history.  Remarkably, Obama’s global warming policies are increasing electricity prices even while new natural gas discoveries, revolutionary advances in natural gas production technologies, and a dramatic resultant decline in natural gas prices would otherwise spur a dramatic decline in electricity prices.

Alarmist Assertion #9

“Infectious Diseases Thrive ‚Äì The World Health Organization reports that outbreaks of new or resurgent diseases are on the rise and in more disparate countries than ever before, including tropical illnesses in once cold climates.”

The Facts

Outbreaks of “new or resurgent diseases” are occurring precisely because governments have caved in to environmental activist groups like EDF and implemented their anti-science agendas. For example, DDT had all but eliminated malaria in the United States and on the global stage during the mid-20th century. However, environmental activists championed false environmental accusations against DDT and dramatically reduced use of the life-saving mosquito killer throughout much of the world.  As a result, malaria has reemerged with a vengeance and millions of people die every year as a result.

Also, as documented above in “Alarmist Assertion #2,” global warming will reduce the impact and death toll of cold-related viruses such as influenza. In the United States alone, influenza kills 36,000 people every year, which dwarfs all heat-dependent viruses and diseases combined. Few people other than global warming alarmists would argue that it is better to have 36,000 people die each year from influenza than have a few people die each year from Lyme Disease (which, as documented above, isn’t even related to global warming).

Alarmist Assertion #10

“Shrinking Glaciers ‚Äì In 2013, an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago broke off the Pine Island Glacier, the most important glacier of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And at Montana’s Glacier National Park glaciers have gone from 150 to just 35 over the past century.”

The Facts

Calling attention to anecdotal incidents of icebergs breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet, while deliberately ignoring the overall growth of the Antarctic ice sheet, is a misleading and favorite tactic of global warming alarmists. Icebergs break off the Antarctic ice sheet every year, with or without global warming, particularly in the Antarctic summer. However, a particular iceberg ‚Äì no matter how large ‚Äì breaking off the Antarctic ice sheet does not necessarily result in “Shrinking Glaciers” as EDF alleges. To the contrary, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has been growing at a steady and substantial pace ever since NASA satellites first began measuring the Antarctic ice sheet in 1979. Indeed, during the same year that the EDF claims “an iceberg larger than the city of Chicago” broke off the Antarctic ice sheet and caused “Shrinking Glaciers,” the Antarctic ice sheet repeatedly set new records for its largest extent in recorded history. Those 2013 records were repeatedly broken again in 2014. The Antarctic ice sheet in 2013 and 2014 was more extensive than any time in recorded history, and yet the EDF pushes the lie that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking.

The EDF’s assertion about Glacier National Park is also misleading. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park and elsewhere have been receding for over 300 years, since the Earth’s temperature bottomed out during the depths of the Little Ice Age. The warming of the past 300 years and the resulting recession of alpine glaciers predated humans building coal-fired power plants and driving SUVs. Moreover, opening up more of the Earth’s surface to vegetation and plant and animal life would normally be considered a beneficial change, if global warming alarmists had not so thoroughly politicized the global warming discussion.

***************

There you have it. These are the 10 best arguments global warming activists like EDF can make, along with the objective scientific facts that prove them wrong.

No wonder global warming alarmists are so terrified of people having access to both sides of the debate.

Source

Continue Reading 2 Comments

Northeastern Snow is breaking backs, not records

snowShoveling out from under the United States Northeastern snowfall is putting a lot of backs out of kilter, as well as pronouncements that a new pattern is emerging: climate change is causing more snowstorms.

The global warming doomsters didn’t wait long to chime in on the Northeast’s heavy snowfall, blaming it on excessive moisture in the atmosphere collected from warmer bodies of water, and portending it will be a record breaker. The problem with that scenario is that it doesn’t stand up to the observed data. And it flies in the face of the peer-reviewed literature they are so apt to quote.

Continue Reading

Trudeau’s carbon scheme targets Alberta

Liberal Party Leader Justin TrudeauLiberal Party Leader Justin TrudeauWhat does Justin Trudeau really think about Alberta and the oilsands and the people who work there?

The real answer is he probably doesn’t think a lot about it — or any other policy area. Trudeau is more about looking dreamy. He leaves the grown-up stuff, like policy, to someone else. In this case, to Gerald Butts, his “principal adviser.”

Butts has quite a lot to say about the oilsands. For years, he was the boss of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, an environmentalist lobby group that took hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign interests to campaign against the oilsands. Never against OPEC oil; only against Canadian oil.

When he was at the WWF, Butts compared government oilsands defenders to tobacco executives. Here’s the first few lines of a column he wrote for the Toronto Star, Canada’s largest newspaper: “Keep smoking, kids. We need the tax revenue. Trust us, we will cure cancer by the time you get it. So goes our national political leaders’ myopic view of the tar sands.”

{source}
<object id=”flashObj” width=”480″ height=”270″ classid=”clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000″ codebase=”http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0″><param name=”movie” value=”http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1″ /><param name=”bgcolor” value=”#FFFFFF” /><param name=”flashVars” value=”videoId=4041338758001&playerID=867119956001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true” /><param name=”base” value=”http://admin.brightcove.com” /><param name=”seamlesstabbing” value=”false” /><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true” /><param name=”swLiveConnect” value=”true” /><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always” /><embed src=”http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1″ bgcolor=”#FFFFFF” flashVars=”videoId=4041338758001&playerID=867119956001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true” base=”http://admin.brightcove.com” name=”flashObj” width=”480″ height=”270″ seamlesstabbing=”false” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowFullScreen=”true” allowScriptAccess=”always” swLiveConnect=”true” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash”></embed></object>
{/source}

In 2012, Butts was asked about the Northern Gateway Pipeline. His answer was blunt: “Truth be told, we don’t think there ought to be a carbon-based energy industry by the middle of this century… The real alternative is not an alternative route, it’s an alternative economy.”

Canada is the second-largest country in the world, one of the coldest countries in the world. But Butts believes we should simply stop using oil or gas, and rely on expensive, experimental green technology to heat our homes and move around. It’s bizarre, it’s deeply unserious.

Yet is clearly animates Trudeau’s approach to the oilsands. Trudeau visited Calgary against last week and he outlined his plan for a carbon tax. He said we have to do it, because the oilsands have shamed our country internationally.

“You get a lot of people around the world who are worried about climate change who are looking for something that they can point to or something to do. And the lack of environmental responsibility on the world stage by Canada has led to people being able to point to our oilsands and make them, entirely unfairly, the poster child for climate change.”

You stupid, greedy Albertans. You have shamed us internationally. You have brought this carbon tax upon yourself.

“If we want to restore our international reputation, something we need to create jobs and spur investment, we must take action and we must do it now …And that starts with a mature and honest conversation about carbon pricing.”

It’s not true, of course. Canada is actually the most reputable country in the world, according to an international survey of 27,000 people done by the Reputation Institute.

And our carbon emissions – which have decreased under Stephen Harper’s government – just aren’t something other people care about. The liberal Pew Research Centre did a poll just last month asking Americans about their priorities. “Climate change” ranked 22nd out of 23 possible choices. No one cares. Global warming doesn’t even register in polls of Third World countries – that’s a made-up problem for rich white folks. Like Trudeau.

Trudeau says he’ll bring in a law requiring provinces to “price” carbon – that’s code for taxing it. When Sun News Network asked him three times if he would penalize a province that doesn’t go along with it, he refused to answer, three times.

But when you’re trying to end Canada’s international shame, and eliminate an entire carbon economy, what’s a little Alberta-baiting?

Source

Continue Reading

Hubert Lamb And The Transformation Of Climate Science

lambAfter leading and establishing historical climatology during the 1960s, Hubert Lamb [pictured] became the founding Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU). What is not widely known is that, in contrast to current research directions at CRU, its founding director was an early and vocal climate sceptic.

Against the idea that greenhouse gas emissions were (or would soon be) noticeably warming the planet, Lamb raised objections on many levels. “His greatest concern was not so much the lack of science behind the theory,” Mr Lewin said, “it was how the growing preoccupation with man-made warming was distorting the science.”

Lewin said that “Lamb was already sounding this warning as early as 1972; soon after that the entire science would be transformed.”

As research into man-made warming began to dominate climate studies, Lamb worried that the recent advances in our understanding of natural changes were falling into neglect.

A foreword by eminent climatologist, Professor Richard Lindzen, explains how, “in this new paradigm, the natural variability that Lamb emphasized was now relegated to ‘noise’.”

Speaking from his own experience, Lindzen says that “Lamb’s intellectual trajectory is typical of what many other senior climate scientists around the world experienced.”

Bernie Lewin is an historian of science investigating the global warming scare in the context of the history and philosophy of science. Over the last 5 years he has published many essays on various sceptical blogs, including his own, Enthusiasm Scepticism and Science.

Full paper (pdf)

Contacts
Bernie Lewin
bernardjlewin@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Free Speech in Canada exhales its last breath

weaverWeaver – WikimediaYou can read the court’s full decision here. From The Star:

Climate scientist Andrew Weaver has won a closely watched defamation lawsuit against the National Post, after a B.C. Supreme Court found the newspaper was “careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts” in a series of articles published in 2009 and 2010.

Justice Emily Burke awarded Weaver, a former University of Victoria professor and current B.C. Green Party MLA, $50,000 in damages.

She also ordered the Post to remove the offending articles from its websites and electronic databases, as well as publish “a complete retraction” of the defamatory statements, “in a form agreed to by” Weaver.

However, in the first court decision in Canada to address the issue of whether a newspaper can be liable for reader postings on its website, she sided with the Post, which had argued it was not the publisher of the comments, and had removed them.

…snip…

Post lawyer Daniel Burnett, said it is still “too early” to say if his clients will appeal.

Burnett described Burke’s order for the Post to remove the offending articles from the Internet, which includes withdrawing consent given to third parties to re-publish the stories, and requiring these third parties to cease re-publication, as “unusual.”

The defendants, who include Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as columnists Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster and Kevin Libin, have 30 days to file an appeal, which would be heard at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Reached by phone on Friday, Weaver said he is “ecstatic” about the outcome of a lawsuit he claims “was never about money.”

Continue Reading

The Authoritative Hispanic View of Global Warming

group diverseThe same group of suspects who recently that found that Republicans were upset by global warming has discovered the same about Hispanics:

According to a poll conducted last month by the New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future, Hispanics are far more likely than whites to view global warming as a problem that affects them personally. It also found that they are far more likely to support policies, such as taxes and regulations on greenhouse gas pollution, aimed at curbing it.

So now we know what Hispanics — all Hispanics — think of global warming. We don’t, however, know what blacks or Asians think of global warming; what if blacks and Asians fear global cooling?  What then is a consensus-seeking politician to do?

Among Hispanic respondents to the poll, 54 percent rated global warming as extremely or very important to them personally, compared with 37 percent of whites. Sixty-seven percent of Hispanics said they would be hurt personally to some degree if nothing was done to reduce global warming, compared with half of whites.

The whole poll, of course, is ridiculous. Hispanics are not a single group of people, they can be from many different countries and backgrounds. Chileans and Mexicans and Spaniards will be the first to tell you that they are very different people. Also, the takers of the poll were hardly unbiased, and we don’t even know how the question was asked (or pushed). Did they even make certain to poll American citizens? Or were some of their respondents as undocumented as global warming?

Experts say that climate change is growing rapidly as a concern for Hispanics, who are likely to be more physically and economically vulnerable to the effects of global warming, such as more extreme droughts and floods, lower crop yields, and hotter temperatures.

Are Hispanics more likely to work near oceans or on farms than white people? Are Hispanics really more vulnerable to hotter temperatures? Would white people from Michigan really cope with summers in Costa Rica better than the natives? I don’t think so.

“There’s a stereotype that Latinos are not aware of or concerned about these issues,” said Gabriel Sanchez, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico and director of research at Latino Decisions, a survey firm focused on the Hispanic population. “But Latinos are actually among the most concerned about the environment, particularly global warming.”

There’s a stereotype that Latinos are not concerned with this issue, so now they are creating the opposite stereotype to counter it.

One reason, Mr. Sanchez and others said, is that Hispanics often live in areas where they are directly exposed to pollution, such as neighborhoods near highways and power plants.

What does living near pollution have to do with global warming?

Tony Vazquez of San Jose, Calif., a poll respondent and a former truck driver who now makes nickel plates for car parts, said in a follow-up interview that he would support policies such as national taxes on greenhouse gas pollution, even if that raised the cost of gasoline and electricity from fossil fuels. “Where I live, you don’t know what you’re breathing — smog and pollution from refineries, ships, diesel trucks,” Mr. Vazquez said. “You’re breathing it all. They need to do something about air pollution.”

Ah ha! So fear of smog=fear of global warming. The problem is that while one kind of pollution is real, and measurable, the other is not. (There is no global warming — no global increase in temperatures for 17 years, unless you count the falsified temperature records. And even if there was global warming, there is no evidence or even viable theory that it is caused by human activities.)

President Obama has proposed spending $3 billion on a global Green Climate Fund intended to help poor countries adapt to the effects of climate change

Thanks, Obama! Feel free to wrap up every person in the third world in layers of tinfoil and scuba gear to protect against sunstroke and floods. Just don’t do it with our money.

I thought the liberal media was constantly telling us how amnesty was the biggest concern of Latinos. But if global warming is really their chief concern, then Latinos should be against amnesty. The more people who come to America, the more resources they use and the more carbon-based fuels they use up. A community truly alarmed by imaginary global warming should want fewer, not more immigrants.

Congratulations, New York Times, you’ve just turned Hispanics against amnesty! (If, indeed, they were ever really for it).

Source

Continue Reading

Arrogant statism of global warming fanatics

Polar Bear AlaskaI’m a firm believer in climate change. Heck, there have been several ice ages and warming periods, so it’s obvious that temperatures shift over time.

And while I’m not particularly qualified to assess such matters, I’m also willing to believe that human activity has an effect on climate.

Moreover, even though I much prefer warm weather, I’m also open to the idea that global warming might be a bad thing that requires some action.

But here’s the catch. I don’t trust radical environmentalists. Simply stated, too many of these people are nuts.

Then there’s the super-nutty category.

But you know what’s even worse than a nutty environmentalist?

What terrifies me far more are the very serious, very connected, and very powerful non-nutty environmentalists who hold positions of real power. These folks are filled with arrogance and hubris and they have immense power to cause damage.

If you think I’m exaggerating, here’s some of what was contained in a release from the United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe.

By the way, remember that these excerpts are not the unhinged speculation of some crazy conservative or libertarian. These are actually the words – and stated intentions – of the U.N. bureaucracy. They want central planning on steroids.

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC,  warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement:

…”This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

“That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 ‚Äì you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

Wow. These people want to “intentionally…change the economic development model” that has produced unimagined prosperity.

And they want to replace it with central planning by people who have never demonstrated any ability to generate wealth.

I’m not joking. If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page, you’ll see that she has even less experience in the private sector than President Obama.

Yup, just exactly the kind of pampered (and tax-free) global bureaucrat who should have the power to treat the global economy as some sort of Lego set.

Thomas Sowell has made the very important observation that there’s a giant difference between intelligence and wisdom and Ms. Figueres is a perfect example.

To give you an idea of her cloistered and narrow mindset, she was quoted by Bloomberg as expressing admiration for China’s totalitarian regime over America’s democratic system merely because it ostensibly produces the policies she prefers.

“China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said. …China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said. …The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.”

And the icing on the cake, needless to say, is that China’s environment is a catastrophe compared to the much cleaner air and water that exist in the United States!

Though you won’t be surprised to learn that Ms. Figueres is a great admirer of President Obama, even if he does represent a backwards democracy.

“The climate chief even held up President Obama as a shining example of steps countries can take to tackle global warming.”

Reminds me of a saying about birds of a feather, though I’m not sure how a bird with two left wings can get off the ground.

And don’t even get me started on all the exaggeration and hyperbole that is generated by the radical environmentalists. Though this Jim McKee cartoon is too good not to share.

P.S. Environmentalists are also grotesque hypocrites, as you can see here and here.

P.P.S. But to close on an upbeat note, we have some decent environmental humor here, here, here, and here.

Daniel J. Mitchell, a long standing contributor to The Commentator, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, the free-market, Washington D.C. think tank. His articles are cross-posted on his blog by agreement

Source

Continue Reading

“Snowmageddon” threatens Massachusetts global warming forum

houseThe record-shattering snow that has shut down Boston’s public transit system threatens to white out a global warming forum organized by Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg (D, Amherst).

Rosenberg scheduled the forum for 1 PM Tuesday beneath the golden dome of the Massachusetts State House in Boston.

Rosenberg said the state has already seen how climate change is manifesting itself in the state with stronger storms, extreme temperatures, and a changing environment.’

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has declared a state of snow emergency and has shut down “non-essential” state services and buildings in four counties on Tuesday, including Suffolk County where the Boston global warming forum is scheduled to take place.

Inconveniently, Boston is in the midst of its snowiest winter in a century.  The city hit 73‚Ä≥ inches of snow on Monday placing this year on the top ten list for snowiest winters on record, surpassing the 72.9‚Ä≥ recorded during the winter of 1903-1904.

WCVB TV reports that, ‘Boston also set a record with the most snow in 30 days with 60.8 inches.’

The previous record was 58.8 inches that fell before, during and after the Blizzard of 1978. However, this time, that record was set in 17 days, not 30.’

No word yet on whether the “environmental activists, local health officials and public planning experts” scheduled to meet with Rosenberg will manage to find private transportation and hold their global warming forum today, or whether the record snow and bitter cold will force it to be rescheduled.

The record snow burying Boston this winter remains within the bounds of natural weather variability.  It is weather, not climate, and neither proves, nor disproves the theory of global warming.

Such events are, however, terribly inconvenient for the global warming narrative.  In 2000 climate scientist David Viner of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) famously proclaimed that snow was increasingly a thing of the past, saying “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”  Fourteen years later Boston’s schoolchildren have run out of snow days.  Officials are considering cutting short their spring breaks to compensate.

Remember the next time team warming tries to hype a hot summer’s day, drought or flood as climate, rather than warming.

Did Senate President Rosenberg’s climate forum bring down the full frozen wrath of the “Al Gore effect” and shut down Boston?

Source

Continue Reading

Last Man Standing: The Governator is Back

arnoldThe Republican formally named as Arnold Schwarzenegger is at it again, this time calling climate change the “issue of our time.” Forget militant Islamists, ISIS, Iran developing a nuclear weapon right under John Kerry’s patrician nose, North Korea, Crimea, Putin, border security, the world economy, our feckless response to terrorism, just to name a few.

Schwarzenegger, who never found a klieg lamp he didn’t like, took center stage both physically and rhetorically at the Munich Security Conference on Sunday, urging governments to act independently of each other to combat the non-existent threat of global warming. Having spent a career playing fictional characters, Schwarzenegger seems unwilling to recognize that a. he will never be president of the United States and b. he’s still basking in the burnt afterglow of his governorship in California, where he tore down the very fiscal walls that were holding its economy together.

When he left office, Schwarzenegger gave the keys of the sunshine state to Jerry Brown, who took the state’s already deplorable economy and flicked its spending switch to ON, which he quickly realized was never OFF, and plunged the state further into draconian taxation and misery. With California once more in the proverbial crapper, Schwarzenegger is again taking center stage (and not for the last couple of awful movies he’s starred in), utilizing his nascent legacy as the Green Gov to speed things along to prevent the climate from changing. From MSNBC:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Republican governor of California and Austrian-born American actor, called climate change “the issue of our time” at a security conference Sunday in which he called on governments to act independently to combat global warming.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, the Hollywood star drew on his experience leading the Golden State to argue that adopting green energy creates jobs and increases energy independence. He introduced a new policy paper to the group, titled, “The Future of Energy,” The Associated Press reported.

Schwarzenegger cheered international efforts to reduce carbon emissions, but said there is no need for individual governments to wait on summits and treaty agreements.

…snip…

In his speech Sunday, former Gov. Schwarzenegger said that addressing shared environmental threats should not be a political issue. “We should be fighting climate change right now,” he said. “We all breathe the same air.”

Note that the same half-truths and lies were told, and more predictions were made (weather forecasts, actually), and if you didn’t notice yet, the air you breathe is akin to inhaling sludge. The amount of CO2 that makes up our atmosphere is so minuscule it’s almost impossible to comprehend. Yet it is described and decried as a weapon of mass destruction from actors to charlatans to politicians.

Talking about carbon dioxide as if it had become this new and exotic gas and the singular cause of everything is nothing more than the hobgoblin of little minds.

Continue Reading

Changing My Mind about Global Warming, Part Six

volcano futureShortly after I posted Part One of this article series, I received an upbeat email from Jerry Modisette, a scientist who’s contributed a number of thoughtful letters to the Daily Post over the past couple of years. Mr. Modisette remarked on my comment that, while skeptics of human-caused global warming theories have been assigned the derogatory name, “Climate Deniers”… we don’t have a correspondingly denigrating name for people who believe the “Global Warming” theories.

Apparently, the appropriate name is “Warmists.”

From Mr. Modisette:

Welcome aboard!

I’m one of the so-called climate change deniers. We call ourselves skeptics, in particular skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. (AGW)

We have a name for them: warmists. The word was suggested by Fred Singer who, at age 90, is the leading skeptic. When at age 12 I was beginning to think about becoming a scientist, Fred was recognized as one of our young national geniuses and was a hero to people like me. 20 years later, when I was Chief of NASA Houston’s Space Physics Division, I was privileged to meet Fred.

We’ve had global warming for the past 300 years, since the peak of the little ice age. A few hundred years before that the descendants of Eric the Red were growing wheat and raising cattle in Greenland. Surely the world was warmer then.

Another thing happened when I was 12. I watched a guy fry an egg on an iron water heater cover warmed by the sun in Shreveport, Louisiana.

People trying to establish trends in things like the global average temperature dismiss what happened in Shreveport and Greenland as anecdotes. Our lives are successions of anecdotes!

NASA and NOAA just gave out press releases announcing that 2014 was the warmest year on record, by about 0.2 degrees F. In a separate report NASA said the probability of 2014 being the warmest year was 38%, which isn’t quite the same thing as knowing it was the warmest. In any case, the claim was based on surface measurements. Satellite measurements of the atmospheric temperature, which are generally agreed to be the most consistent, have not shown any global warming for 18 years.

Surface measurements have a lot of problems, such as people building cities or concrete runways next to them, producing what’s called the heat island effect.

The US Satellite Weather Service which makes the satellite measurements was founded by Fred Singer.

We do have climate change problems: the Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is getting colder, the Southwest is getting dryer. The $2.5 billion climate change budget should address the real problems.

Jerry

Unlike Mr. Modisette, I am not a scientist. And I mean that in a very definite sense, much in the same way that I can say I’m not a Buddhist. The Buddhist religion has some lovely aspects, to be sure, but it’s based on certain unverified, and unverifiable, theories that I, as a mortal human, must accept on faith if I am to call myself, “a Buddhist.” Accepting certain “Buddhist truths” as a matter of faith could allow me to join the gang, assume a “Buddhist” lifestyle, and consider myself an integral part of a like-minded community. But I was raised to be a skeptic, so when someone says to me, “The world will be a better place if you would simply believe these things on faith,” I can’t help but perceive that this very statement is in itself an unverifiable theory.

I’m one of those weird types who feels more comfortable accepting the unique limitations of my own verifiable existence… and embracing, instead, the likely scenario that I will never know “The Truth” in this lifetime.

300 years ago, most European scientists accepted, as “The Truth,” the idea that our planet was approximately 10,000 years old. That age was clearly verifiable, because it was calculated from an historical and true document: the Holy Bible. Based on the same document and the descriptions of human activity contain therein, every European scientist naturally assumed that the earth’s climate had not changed significantly in those 10,000 years. Most certainly, no one believed in monstrously large reptiles, or ice ages, or other such nonsense.

Nowadays, scientists are prone to quote the earth’s age as about 4.5 billion years. They generally accept the idea of dinosaurs, and 20,000-year climatic periods when the northern hemisphere has mainly covered with sheets of ice a mile thick.

Is the big golden sun primarily responsible for the huge climate changes that have happened over the past 4.5 million years? (If indeed these current scientific theories about ice ages are accurate?) Does the presence of water vapor and methane and CO2 and other gases and particles in our atmosphere play a role larger than the sun’s role?

Choose your religion, folks.

But I will confess that my primary interest in climate change is not basically a religious one. It’s a political one. I mentioned in Part One that the government-sponsored “Climate Change” debate reminds me of the alarming stories I was told as a child about the impending nuclear war between Russian and the U.S.

It wasn’t just children who were taught to believe in that horrible threat. The American people, in general, accepted the idea that America needed bigger and bigger weapons to protect us from the Red Menace. When I was born in 1952, the U.S. military was accounting for about 15 percent of all federal government spending. When my mother was born in 1925, the U.S. military had accounted for only about 1 percent of the federal budget.

Who benefited most from the fear drummed into our heads from 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991? I don’t believe it was the ordinary man on the street. Maybe the defense contractors? The folks building those bigger and bigger weapons?

Who might be benefiting most from the apprehension people experience when they worry about “Global Warming?” Who has a motive to spread fear and anxiety among the ordinary people, based on questionable “climate models” and predictions that are not currently coming to pass?

In 2008, the Gallup organization conducted a worldwide poll in 128 countries, to see if ordinary folks were concerned about “Climate Change.” According to Wikipedia, people in different countries responded very differently when asked if they perceived “global warming” as a personal threat. 85 percent of those polled in Portugal perceived “climate change” as a serious threat; in Greece, 82 percent felt threatened; the number in Japan and Korea was 80 percent.

On the other end of the scale, only 18 percent saw “global warming” as a threat, in Afghanistan, Zambia and Nigeria.

The U.S. came in near the high end, back in 2008: 63 percent felt threatened.

Six years later, in October 2014, the Pew Research Center asked Americans if they saw “global climate change” as a threat to the U.S. Only 48 percent agreed.

Turns out, most Americans are now fearful of a completely different threat: ISIS.

You have to keep the people frightened, if you want to control them.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Continue Reading

Activists Use Polar Bear Costume To Protest Offshore Drilling… In The Mid-Atlantic?

bearEnvironmental activists will protest outside a Washington, D.C. hearing Monday on the Obama administration’s latest offshore drilling 5-year plan. One activist is even dressing up as Frostpaw the dancing polar bear to highlight how global warming is shrinking the Arctic.

Environmentalists are particularly angry with the Obama administration’s proposal to have one offshore drilling lease sale in the Mid-Atlantic along with three off the coast of Alaska. This is the first time President Obama has proposed opening the Atlantic to drilling since before the BP Gulf Coast oil spill in 2010.

Activists are angry with the administration for potentially holding lease sales in the Atlantic, though many eco-activists were happy to see huge areas of the Arctic made off-limits to drilling.

So how will environmentalists oppose Obama’s proposed offshore drilling plan? By protesting outside the D.C. offices of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. But that’s not all, protesters will be joined by Frostpaw the polar bear, who will rage dance over the proposed leases.

“Putting our oceans up for sale to oil companies is not the path toward solving the climate crisis. We’re telling Obama to take his own advice on climate change and stop expanding dirty fossil fuels in our oceans,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity — the group that invented Frostpaw the dancing polar bear.

Frostpaw is intended to illustrate the animal life that will be threatened by drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic. The Center for Biological Diversity says “[r]amping up offshore drilling raises the risk of disastrous spills, puts wildlife in harm’s way, and deepens U.S. dependence on the fossil fuels driving the global climate crisis.”

There’s just one problem: there’s no evidence of polar bears ever being killed by oil and natural gas drilling, despite billions of barrels of oil being produced in the Arctic region. Not to mention the fact that no polar bears live in the Mid-Atlantic region, except maybe in zoos.

“I have heard of no such deaths on record,” Dag Vongraven, chair of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, told The Daily Caller News Foundation last fall. “I have checked quickly with senior members of the PBSG, and they all concur. None know of any such deaths confirmed.”

“The risk remains but there is no knowledge of any spills that have been confirmed to influence bears at present,” Vongraven told TheDCNF.

…snip…

Current estimates put the global polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 bears, living in the Arctic regions of the world. But even those estimates likely undercount the true polar bear population.

Read rest…

Continue Reading