Read here. Global warming alarmists and IPCC Climategate scientists predict all sorts of evil doings because of increased temperatures. A very prominent prediction made to frighten the gullible and the ignorant (liberal/progressives, MSM reporters, Hollywood celebrities, etc.) is that "warming" will have negative impacts on food production. Chinese scientist decided to conduct scientific research to determine the validity of this IPCC alarmist claim.
The Chinese research concluded that in the case of wheat, its production increased from 2.5%-6.0% depending on the actual warming conditions, just the opposite of the 5-10% production decrease predicted by climate models and experts.
"...the Chinese researchers [Xiao et al.] say it has been predicted that "the average temperature in the semiarid northwest portion of China in 2050 will be 2.2°C higher than it was in 2002," and they report that based on the observed results of their study, this increase in temperature "will lead to a significant change in the growth stages and water use of winter wheat," such that "crop yields at both high and low altitudes will likely increase," by 2.6% at low altitudes and 6.0% at high altitudes.....Even without the benefits of the aerial fertilization effect and the anti-transpiration effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, the increase in temperature that is predicted by climate models for the year 2050, if it ever comes to pass, will likely lead to increases in winter wheat production in the northwestern part of China, not the decreases that climate alarmists routinely predict." [Xiao, G., Zhang, Q., Li, Y., Wang, R., Yao, Y., Zhao, H. and Bai, H. 2010]
The monumental changes that occurred on November 2, 2010 are simply stunning in the widespread repudiation of radical leftist/progressive/liberal/Democrat politics that has brought the U.S. to the brink of Greece-dom. For sure, the American populace is totally disgusted with the big government, big labor and big business crony capitalism agendas that have been pushed by the country's elites over the past few years, to the severe disadvantage of the average American.
The vast majority of Americans don't want to follow the paths of such banana republics as Greece, California, New York and Illinois. These are failed states, which remain committed to higher taxes, higher spending, higher welfare and higher levels of regulatory control that only benefits special interests, such as big labor, big bureaucracy and big business.
The American revulsion of the left's extremism is best captured in this massive, unprecedentedmodern-day loss by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. That rejection of extremism was embellished with the Democrat loss of 6 U.S. Senate seats, which means Obama no longer has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
The significant swings in the U.S. Congress have basically driven a stake in the UN-IPCC's global warming, faux-science for the next 2 years. But the real tsunami that totally wipes out the extreme green-left-Democrat 'cap & trade' agenda has taken place at the state level. Starting in 2011, at least 58% of U.S. states will have Republican governors in charge, up from 42% pre-election. Likewise, the U.S. voters confirmed their repudiation by a massive makeover of state legislatures: after the election there are now 56% of the state senates controlled by Republicans versus 44% prior to; for the state houses of representatives, Republicans now control 55% versus 31% prior to. A chart recap of this political tsunami at the state level is below.
The likelihood that the global warming activists pushing the anti-growth, anti-consumer, pro-regulation and pro-taxes agenda will be successful after this tsunami cleansing is not one of high probability. (click on images to enlarge)
Note: Bold red represents a change to Republican contol from Democrat control. Bold blue represents a change to Democrat control from Republican control. Nebraska has a unicameral, non-partisan legislature that has a majority of its members affiliated with Republican groups. Light red indicates Republican control; light blue indicates Democrat control.
Interesting video (three-part) synopisis of how the Democrats have been green-corrupted by the base desire of power and money. Certainly after viewing one can appreciate why the 'crook & liar' alarmist scientists are so valued by Democrats.
A clear reminder that Leftists/liberals/progressives cannot be trusted with the reins of government as their goals are anti-property, anti-prosperity and anti-liberty, which enhances their own wealth and economic control. A PJTV production. Update: Did we say corrupt?
Read here. That great Nobel thinker, CO2-spewing, money-grubbing, sex-crazed poodle of a politician, Al Gore, claimed in U.S. Senate testimony that global warming caused peetlands to release more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, which is a "positive" feedback causing additional warming. Is the Gore-science prediction correct?
As usual, the answer is a definitive 'Nope.' In a new peer-reviewed study by Chinese researchers, it was found that peetlands provided a negative feedback mechanism as temperatures warmed. Now, who are going to believe? A selfish, self-centered, prima donna, Democrat political hack or real, peer-reviewed scientists?
"The authors write that peatland ecosystems "play a key role in the global carbon cycle and are influenced by global climate change," within which context the world's climate alarmists say the ongoing warming of the planet will lead to great releases of previously-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and methane, which will greatly exacerbate global warming.....In describing their findings, the four researchers report that "obvious increasing trends in RERCA [recent rate of carbon accumulation (RERCA)] were observed in all peat cores,".....they say that the temporal increase in RERCA in the upper regions of the cores -- which likely corresponded to the warmest segment of their two-century study period -- "changed to a much greater extent in recent decades than in the earlier period of peat formation.".....this most recent study out of China indicates that the world's climate alarmists have got things one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with reality in terms of the influence of earth's peatlands on the planet's temperature. These land types provide a negative feedback to global warming, whereby when they warm, they extract more -- not less -- CO2 from the atmosphere, applying a brake on rising temperatures..."
Over the past week, the Obama administration has introduced the new terminology of "climate disruption" in order to advance the necessary fear-mongering that elites of big government and big business plan to literally prosper from. Much like the war armament merchants of decades past, who hyped the potential of war in order to sell more arms, the merchants of "evil" global warming do the same.
Luckily, modern fear-mongering has become less effective, as evidenced by the recent desperate changes from "global warming" to "climate change" to today's idiotic phrase of "climate disruption." (Note: vote for next scary Obama/Democrat phrase to be used when "climate disruption" is thrown under the bus.) Obviously, this newest terminology now allows the merchants to claim any weather event as human caused (ie, caused by human CO2 emissions), which liberal Democrats hope to enrich and empower themselves by using.
The good news for the world's populace though, is that severe, extreme weather events have caused less fatalities over the past two decades, which includes events defined as tropical cyclones. If modern global warming is causing more disastrous and fatal climate cyclonic disruptions as claimed and predicted, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
Read here. Seriously, one has to wonder about the sanity of psychologists and their stunning inability to distinguish between the hysterical alarmist claims of truly crazy people and green groups that proselytize global warming, versus the actual, real scientific evidence regarding global warming - helloooo....global warming is not unprecedented, nor accelerating, nor global.
Instead of challenging the fanatical greens, the anti-democracy, the anti-growth, the anti-poverty, and the alarmist anti-science forces that promote the global warming hysterics, both UK and American psychologists want to develop propaganda and manipulative psychological tactics to literally green-brainwash the vast majority of the skeptical public.
In essence, trained psychologists want to promote/embellish irrational fear rather than inhibiting/tempering it. That technique has been used before on the public with ugly consequences.
“People aren’t stupid: they know that if there are wholesale changes in the global climate underway, these will not be reversed merely through checking their tyre pressures or switching their TV off standby. An emphasis upon simple and painless steps suppresses debate about those necessary responses that are less palatable – that will cost people money, or that will infringe on cherished freedoms (such as to fly). Recognising this will be a key step in accepting the reality of loss of aspects of our current lifestyles, and in beginning to work through the powerful emotions that this will engender.....Through the enhanced awareness of what other people are doing, a strong sense of collective purpose can be engendered. One factor that is likely to influence whether adaptive or maladaptive coping strategies are selected in response to fear about climate change is whether people feel supported by a social network – that is, whether a sense of ‘sustainable citizenship’ is fostered.....A nationwide climate change engagement project using a group-based behaviour change model with members of Trade Union networks is currently underway..."
Read here. Global warming alarmists and the AGW hypothesis predicted more frequent and more intense weather events. This "climate change" was supposedly due to the vast increase in human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the AGW-hystericals (Hollywood celebrities, liberal/left politicians, MSM reporters, and government paid scientists/bureaucrats), they have been famously wrong:
"Hardly an hour goes by without some press release about the connection of CO2 and extreme weather...Clearly it isn’t happening with violent tornadoes, which peaked during the ice age scare of the 1970s...It also isn’t happening with hurricanes or major hurricanes. Both of them peaked during the 1950s...A direct comparison of hurricanes vs. CO2 shows that they peaked around 300 ppm...No evidence of a CO2 footprint for the most intense hurricanes...The hottest weather ever recorded in North America occurred almost a century ago."
"It isn’t heat. It isn’t tornadoes. It isn’t hurricanes. What is it?"
Read here. Democrat politicians decided to crush the incandescent light bulb manufacturing sector in the U.S. as a required sacrifice to the fanatical religion practiced by the left's global warming activists. Democrat politicians pursued this goal even knowing that if every U.S. household quit using incandescent bulbs immediately, there would be absolutely zero impact on global warming, or cooling for that matter.
Regardless of climate scientific facts, leftist/liberal politicians decided to kill U.S. light bulb manufacturing and thus transfer good American jobs to the gargantuan environmental hellhole commonly known as China. (click on images to enlarge; source of images, plus more images)
Of course, in return for having these "evil" U.S. jobs transferred to China, we get crappy CFL bulbs, laden with dangerous mercury, producing inferior light, at a higher cost per bulb, and they don't nearly last as long as advertised. (Just the opposite of what compnaies like GE claim for their Chinese light bulbs.)
Want to increase more American job loss to China, and at the same time increase global pollution from the Chinese? Just vote Democratic, the loyal party of the Chinese Full Employment/Pollution Act - it's really as simple as that.
Read here. Not often is the public blessed with a left-oriented, liberal/progressive/Democrat who can actually examine and analyze a given issue, then deliver a clear-headed, rational analysis. Wonders never cease! Stephen Budiansky delivers a remarkable short-analysis of the 'local-only' food craze that has primarily infected a fair number of elites, resulting in a rabid, crazed following by the pious "sustainability" religious order.
He pretty much decimates the local-only myths and makes the case that global food markets are much better for the environment, not only for the globe, but even locally - no Katie Couric or Brian Williams mush-brain gibberish exhibited in this piece.
Well worth the entire read:
"But what I really object to is the failure of local and organic advocates to confront the true implications of the agenda they are promoting — which would quite simply be devastating for the global environment were we ever compelled to do what an increasing number of its acolytes say we must do. And all I will say to those who so indignantly deny that locavores are "doctrinaire" (I never said they were "loco" or "rabid") is: look at virtually any of the gazillions of local food websites and books, with their lists of arbitrary rules, their admonitions to limit consumption to a 100-mile radius, their "ten steps to becoming a locavore" (as if it were a religion or self-help program), their grandiose claims for what this will all accomplish."
As the recent Maryland green-terror incident reveals, environmentalists are ramping up the level of violence. The Al Gore, Greenpeace-type of fanatical propaganda is definitely having an impact and it raises serious questions about whether school systems, teachers and administrators could ultimately be held accountable.
Do the many emotionally, dysfunctional young people who populate our schools really need to be scared-out-of-their-wits by ludicrous, catastrophic enviro-fanatic predictions?
Green celebrities and organizations pushing this fear propaganda are urging young people to be more militant and violent, and the U.S. school systems are foolishly performing as accomplices. Because of the Maryland incident, the potential liability issues faced by a U.S. public school just multiplied immensely if one of their own "home-grown" green-terror students decides to take action.
Read here. The elites-caused global warming hysteria is producing some truly dysfunctional behavior by individuals, due to the exaggerated fear about extreme weather and climate. As it stands though, global warming and human CO2 are not causing an increase in extreme disaster events. Climate scientists examining the actual data say there is not the connection that global warming alarmists claim.
"And yet it is this latter concept, more stuff being built in harm’s way, that is the primary cause of modern day weather catastrophes—much more so than the weather itself and much, much more so than any alterations to the weather (be they detectable or not) from human activities.
For example, a study in an upcoming issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Laurens Bouwer concluded: "Here I present a review and analysis of recent quantitative studies on past increases in weather disaster losses and the role of anthropogenic climate change. Analyses show that although economic losses from weather related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters. The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk."
In other words, “detectibility” has not (yet?) been achieved in damages statistics from extreme weather events. But, the quest to establish a definitive link between weather events and human-caused climate change is charging forward, fueled, it seems to me, by the desire for retribution more so than for scientific knowledge."
Read here. A hostage taker, primarily motivated by the global warming fear-mongering and propaganda that Gore, the IPCC, NASA scientists and most leftists constantly push, has been killed at an office building in Maryland.
Gore, the principal pimp for CO2 'cap & trade' wealth generation, has attempted to influence public opinion with seductive and over-the-top scare tactics, which is now leading some to resort to violence. Gore is not the only person culpable for promoting violent acts and civil unrest to further the global warming scare agenda. Climategate scientists who populate the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and other national climate agencies are also responsible, due to their use of similar scare-propaganda. Without a shred of scientific evidence, Big Government funded scientists are doing their best to frighten the public into a panic about global warming. For many, when panic sets in, violence is not far behind.
It may be time to hold government scientists and agencies who shout "fire" to induce panic, which then results in violence, accountable. Certainly, the Maryland AGW-jihadist hostages may have a case against Al Gore and his cohorts - let the lawsuits begin!
Armed Man Believed to Be Environmental Protester Takes Hostages in Discovery Channel Building
"Among his demands from the manifesto on his website: Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!"
"MSNBC reports: Lee said he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.” Perhaps inspired by Gore, and Dr. James Hansen’s recent call for civil disobedience, we have today’s environmental public relations train wreck turned armed hostage situation."
Update: A leftist/liberal is pretty much on the same page about what Gore & Company are responsible for - needless hysteria that will breed emotional outbursts, sometimes violent.
Update: Experts label this incident as politically inspired terrorism (are they saying "Gore-inspired"?). The Discovery hostages might want to consider going after the deep pockets of Gore, Soros, et al.
Update: MSM and Democrats were quick to assign blame on Rush Limbaugh for Oklahoma City terrorism, but aren't too eager to blame the sex-crazed, enviro-leftist Gore for pushing an eco-terrorist to a tipping point in Silver Springs, Maryland.
Read here - a peer-reviewed paper recently published in AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. The production of biofuels requires staggering amounts of fresh water, several times more than fossil-fuel energy production. Al Gore has pushed politicians and the UN towards policies favoring biofuel renewable energy as a solution to reducing human CO2 emissions, using the rationale that climate change (human CO2 "caused") will create climate refugees and climate conflict. It is highly speculative though that global warming will cause "refugees" and "conflict." In contrast, if regional shortages of fresh water develop due to biofuel production, water refugees and water conflict will most definitely occur.
"The three U.S. researchers say their results suggest that "the most water-efficient, fossil-based technologies have an EROWI one to two orders of magnitude greater [ed: better] than the most water-efficient biomass technologies, implying that the development of biomass energy technologies in scale sufficient to be a significant source of energy may produce or exacerbate water shortages around the globe and be limited by the availability of fresh water."...These findings will not be welcomed by those who promote biofuel production as a means of combating what they call "the threats posed by 'climate refugees' and 'climate conflict' to international security,"..... she identifies some of the principals in the spreading of what she calls this "alarmist rhetoric" to be various United Nations agencies, NGOs, national governments, security pundits, the popular media and -- quite specifically -- the Norwegian Nobel Committee of 2007, which, as she describes it, "warned that climate-induced migration and resource scarcity could cause violent conflict and war within and between states when it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, Jr. and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.".....Hartmann goes on to suggest that "this beating of the climate conflict drums has to be viewed in the context of larger orchestrations in U.S. national security policy." And in this regard it doesn't take a genius to realize that the promotion of biofuels to help resolve these concerns will only exacerbate them in one of the worst ways imaginable, providing a "cure" [ed: water shortages] that is worse than the disease [ed: human CO2 emissions]."
Read here and here and here. Although it's still too early to determine the full extent of environmental damage done by the oil spill, scientists and researchers examining its affects are reporting that scaremongering predictions of disaster are not coming true. The environmental Cassandra disaster alarmists are found to be wrong again.
The goods news is that they were wrong; the bad news is that scientists who brandish environmental scare tactics continue to degrade the trust and credibility of all science.
"The news out of the Gulf of Mexico doesn't look too bleak, according to preliminary reports here today at the semiannual meeting of the American Chemical Society.....Among the bits of good news is that so far chemical testing on seafood hasn't yet turned up any samples from fish, shrimp, or oysters with dangerous levels of contamination.....Erik Cordes, a marine ecologist at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said his first look at some deep seafloor ecosystems was encouraging....."Right now things seem to be improving a lot faster than I ever dreamed,"."
As most observers of the world's climate/weather realized earlier this year, the 2010 summer was going to be a 'hot one' due to El Niño conditions out in the Pacific. Sure enough, there were some hot temperatures that came to fruition this summer. Yet, despite the foreknowledge that it was to be a hot summer, this summer's warmth drove the media to become gloriously stupid, and of course, the famous Hollywood "climate scientists" to become all-a-flutter, with even a spectacular incident of mentalfailure - all for the purpose of turning the natural El Niño into man-made global warming fiction.
As the leftist-liberal-progressive elites continue being unhinged from what is normal summer weather and El Niño temperatures, they might want to put 2010 into context so as to avoid looking even dumber. To do so, they might compare the 2010 El Niño summer temps with those of the last major El Niño during the summer of 1998, in order to gain perspective.
First, it's been really hot in some places and pretty damn cold in others this summer (winter for the Southern Hemisphere), none of which has anything to do with CO2. As for hot, Washington D.C. has had a hot 12-month period ending in July, as the graph on the left depicts. It's the same for the north-east region of the U.S., as shown on the right graph. But look carefully at that chart on the right, despite a hot last 12-months, the trend since the '98 El Niño is at a minus 3.4 degrees per century rate for the north-east region. (click on each image to enlarge)
How about the Atlantic coastal south-east region, below the Washington D.C. area? Well the feared global warming didn't seem to really impact that area over the last 12-months, as it continues a cooling trend since the 1998 El Niño summer(see left chart below). What about the last 12 months for the entire continental U.S.? Actually, as the below chart on the right reveals, U.S. temperatures over the last twelve months have cooled, and has now pushed the country's cooling trend down to a minus 8.5 degrees per century rate. (click on each image to enlarge)
As the above evidence clearly points out, the U.S. has had some urban areas and larger regions warming over the recent past, but overall, the nation's temperatures are down since the last major El Niño. Most certainly, the nation's cooling runs totally counter to what the media and celebrities are always telling us. It's a sad fact that the U.S. elites are either completely ignorant of the real facts or are purposefully misleading the public - it has to be one or the other (okay....there's a third explanation....leftist/liberal "elites" tend to be fairly stupid and gullible - "hey there Mr/Ms Elite Moonbat, how are your Bernie Madoff investments doing?").
Now, how do global temperatures over the last 12 years compared to the U.S. temperature experience? Below is a chart with all 12-month period global temperatures ending in July. As we did above, we are comparing temperatures from the last major El Niño to the one we've experienced in 2010.
On close examination, the chart shows that since 1998 there has not been a single period when global temperatures exceeded the 12-month period ending in July 1998, with one exception: 2010. For all the hysterics about CO2-induced global warming, not a single period bested 1998 until another large El Niño arrived on the scene.
With that said, note that the 2010 absolute increase over the 1998 period was a "staggering," "mind-boggling," an "unprecedented" +0.03 degrees (three one-hundredths of a single degree). This is the "gigantic," "immense" global warming increase that goads Hollywood celebrities into continuously making fools of themselves, and incites hysterical journalists to write idiotic the-world-is-going-to-end articles about summer severe weather events. (click on image to enlarge)
To further put global temperatures in their context, we've marked on the chart the temperature level (15 degrees Fahrenheit higher) that various climate experts and their models predict temperatures will be at 2100.
Look carefully. If massive CO2 emissions caused only +0.03 increase over 12 years, is it really possible they are going to cause a 15 degree jump by 2100? I don't think so....based on a simple average increase experienced over the last 12 years, the temperatures by 2100 would be +0.23 degree higher at best; or, extending a simple linear trend from the past 12 years produces a +1.1 degree warming for the world by 2100.
Whether it's a 0.23 or a 1.1 degree Fahrenheit increase, this is not the climate catastrophe that elites keep predicting will happen but never does.
Here's the moral of this summer's "global warming" story: when elites claim the planet is dying, or facing a climate Armageddon because of a hot weather incident or a severe summer storm, it always pays to stop and ponder what has been said. Temperatures are always going up and down due to natural cycles and any current event always needs to be put into context of what reality is, not what the elites claim.
For modern temperature context, visit here. Or for historical temperature context, visit here and here.
And since leftist's think climate change is causing more death and destruction, they're wrong on boththese points also.
Update: Several readers have contacted us about the fact that ENSO is officially in the La Niña phase. Indeed, that is correct and that switch to La Niña occurred earlier in the summer. Despite the switch, that doesn't mean all of El Niño's impact on global temperatures disappears immediately. There remains a lingering El Niño influence in parts of the world that definitely influenced northern hemisphere summer temperatures this year. More articles on the subject are here, here, here and here.
Read here. For the period of 2000 to 2008, deaths from all causes averaged 58 million per year. And those from severe weather events? 32,000 per year. This was a during a period when global climate change was supposedly dramatic and unprecedented, causing untold extreme death and destruction.
Yet, as a contrast, severe weather deaths averaged 485,000 per year during the 1920's, over 10 times higher than the present.
Why would the world's politicians of the left and the left/liberal biased media present the case that the world, in recent decades, has suffered untold misery at the hands of climate change when the facts are just the opposite. Why do they focus attention on only 32,000 deaths when over 58 million are dying from other major causes (starvation, malaria, cancer, etc.)?
As has been discussedbefore, the left-liberal-progressive-socialist agenda is one of enrichment and empowerment, for themselves. These people do not care about climate change nor global warming nor global cooling nor any actual facts. They are habitual liars about climate change because they feel that the truth will stop their momentum. That is why climate change has been blown totally out of proportion when viewed against the world's other major issues.
The severe issues that the world faces will never be solved until the left quits trying to enrich themselves via power grabs for world government control. Don't think that's a reasonable assessment of what the left is trying to accomplish? Well, read their own words and then you may finally understand the rationale behind the "climate change" farce.
Read here. Recently, we had a posting on renewable energy (ethanol) and one that mentioned the great promise of thorium-based energy. A new C3 reader saw those postings and informed us of his own writings on both subjects. We can't vouch for all the very interesting content on Christopher Calder's site but to our eyes it represents a great primer for laying out the problems with renewables and the hope for newer clean, reliable and abundant energy solutions.
From the Obama's and left-liberal's energy strategy, the "Let them eat cake" strategy:
"According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices rose an incredible 40% in 2007. The World Bank states that the cost of staple foods rose by 83% during the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008. The International Food Policy Research Institute states that biofuels are responsible for rapid grain price inflation, and a detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the World Bank, stated that biofuels have forced global staple food prices up by 75%.....The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods. Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity." The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schuster, has called for United States and European Union biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is "a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people." Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has. The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat, because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food."
On the promising energy solution that Obama, Al Gore, George Soros, Goldman Sachs and most leftist/liberals/progressives hate:
"The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) solves all of the major problems associated with nuclear power.....LFTRs only requires input of uranium or plutonium to kick-start the initial nuclear reaction, and as the fissionable material can come from either spent fuel rods or old nuclear warheads, LFTRs will inevitably be used as janitors to clean up old nuclear waste.....The cost savings of using a liquid fuel is like the difference between making soup vs. baking a wedding cake. Soup is cheap, and you can change ingredients very easily. The reactor works like a Crock-Pot; you keep the fuel cooking in the pot until it is over 99% burned, so LFTRs produce less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of light water reactors, making Yucca Mountain waste storage unnecessary....."Liquid fluoride thorium reactors operate at high temperature for 50% thermal/electrical conversion efficiency, thus they need only half of the cooling required by today's coal or nuclear plant cooling towers." LFTRs will be manufactured on an assembly line, dramatically lowering costs and enabling electricity generation at a projected rate of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, which is cheaper than burning coal for power."
Read here. Recently, global warming alarmists (the climate "hystericals") have speculated that melting polar ice sheets will cause more volcano eruptions. New research, a peer-reviewed study, was conducted to investigate the alarmist claims. The study's result was a confirmation that scientists have no idea whether the wild alarmist predictions of warming-induced volcano eruptions has any basis in reality.
"At the conclusion of his review and analysis, Tuffen finds that "ice unloading may encourage more explosive eruptions," but that "melting of ice and snow may decrease the likelihood and magnitude of meltwater floods." On the other hand, he says there is (1) "uncertainty about the time scale of volcanic responses to ice unloading," (2) "poor constraint on how ice bodies on volcanoes will respond to twenty-first century climate change," (3) "lack of data on how past changes in ice thickness have affected the style of volcanic eruptions and associated hazards," and that (4) "the sensitivity of volcanoes to small changes in ice thickness or to recession of small glaciers on their flanks is unknown," (5) "it is not known how localized ice withdrawal from stratovolcanoes [tall, conical volcanoes with many layers (strata) of hardened lava, tephra, and volcanic ash] will affect shallow crustal magma storage and eruption," and (6) "broader feedbacks between volcanism and climate change remain poorly understood.""
Over at Watts Up With That, there is an interesting article about using thorium as major energy source. It would appear that a national effort to replace coal-fired energy plants over coming decades with thorium-based power generation would be an effective solution for an abundant, non-CO2 producing, reliable energy solution. Well, if that's so, why haven't you heard anything about this marvelous solution?
Two word answer: Nuclear. Greenpeace.
No matter how sane and rational the energy solution, if nuclear is mentioned, Greenpeace and other green-fanatic organizations will effectively kill it. And thorium-based power generation is a nuclear solution.
If the green fanatics hate it (nuclear), the MSM won't report on it. If the MSM won't objectively report on it, the left-liberal oriented politicians will never support it. Essentially, that's why the U.S., unlike France, still depends on fossil-fuels for the majority of its power generation.
To repeat, the U.S. still emits billions of tons of CO2 because of Greenpeace and other fanatical green organizations.
How to finally fix the problem of the U.S. achieving a clean, reliable and abundant source of energy? Americans need to quit giving money (donations, subscriptions, membership fees) to Greenpeace or any other green organization that promotes an anti-nuclear, anti-technology stance. Instead, they should give their money to legitimate green organizations that promote conservation, without the extreme leftist-liberal insanity that has caused sheer lunacy in the energy domain.
What might that exact leftist-liberal insanity be? Well, here are quotes from individuals who lead and support the radical Greenpeace-like agenda. Read the quotes carefully - these people are either insane or incredible control-freaks. It is these crazed, leftist-greenies who have prevented the U.S., and the world, from developing the clean, abundant and reliable power generation needed.
In a nutshell, here is the philosophy of the crazed green-left. Whenever a fanatic speaks against nuclear energy (or other advanced technology), you can be sure his/her touchstone is one of the below:
1. Humans are evil 2. More humans are even worse 3. Technology is evil 4. More technology is even worse 5. Economic growth is evil 6. More economic growth is even worse 7. Prosperity is evil 8. More prosperity is even worse 9. Poverty, in all its forms, is good 10. More poverty, in all its forms, is the best
Read here. James Hansen, and his creepy friend A. Gore, have crisscrossed the world claiming sea levels will rise by some 20 meters due to global warming. It's a nice scary story designed to frighten the clueless, MSM reporters and Hollywood celebrities, but unfortunately it is told by two non-experts regarding sea levels. As a result of their non-expertise, it happens their scary story has zero connection with current reality or the ancient/historical past.
So, what do the real sea-level experts say? The latest peer-reviewed report from the world expert PALSEA team indicates a worst-case scenario of 0.59 meter to 1.4 meters by 2100. Hellooooo....the experts say it's not even going to be close to the 'teens' let alone a rise 20 meters.
And carefully note, that's the worst-case scenario. If the actual present trends of sea-level rise continue, it's highly likely that the sea-level rise might only be 0.2 meters by 2100. How scary is that? It's only a tiny fraction of the mythical scariness.
Read here. Similar to ancient pagan faiths that worshiped the sun and rain gods, the Methodist church leadership has decided to go the full-Pagan by embracing weather scripture. The founder of the Methodist denomination must be doing the proverbial spinning-in-his-grave.
"Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture; and the Bible was the sole foundational source of theological or doctrinal development. The centrality of Scripture was so important for Wesley that he called himself "a man of one book"—meaning the Bible—although he was well-read for his day. However, he believed that doctrine had to be in keeping with Christian orthodox tradition.....Tradition, experience and reason, however, were subject always to Scripture, Wesley argued, because only there is the Word of God revealed 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation."
Why are Methodists so out of sync with the founder's beliefs and teachings? Well, it's highly probable that the typical Methodist doesn't even crack open the Bible on a decadal basis, let alone a yearly one. Did we mention religious, leftist hypocrites yet?
Since the mid-1800's, human progress and wealth has increased at a prodigious rate that was only made possible by the use of cheap fossil fuels and the acceptance of free economic/intellectual trade. The elites of the IPCC and the Methodist church now embrace a pagan philosophy that screams "STOP" at the thought of more change and human progress. A miserable philosophy that would lead people and civilization back to the Dark Ages of poverty, tree worshiping, early death, and once again, a full reliance on the anointed "religious" elites.
Watch this whole 16 minute video about human progress and especially pay close attention to the first minute and 15 seconds. (h/t Bishop Hill)
Read here. Recently, a large tongue of glacier ice that was floating on the sea broke off. This 9-mile wide river of ice had gradually pushed itself some 40 miles into the waters over recent years. As every individual with an interest in science would have predicted, the weight of this ice beast would eventually cause a break-off somewhere along its 40-mile length. And on August 3, 2010, it did just that as captured by satellite.
Of course, it didn't take long for the moronic left to claim that a huge river of ice that's been growing since 2002 to be a victim of global warming. The fact that the glacier tongue break was not due to warming but instead to its growing too much is irrelevant science to the liberal/left/progressive AGW fanatics. To get a sense of how moronic the U.S. Democrats sound to the world about science issues, just read this EU scientist's take on our version of "liberal" politicians. The constant science stupidity that Democrats reveal is mind-numbing and dangerous.
Read here. The UK's Prince Charles is one of those wealthy global elites who now believes he has been put on Earth to save it, from the rest of us - yikes! Over the years, like so many of the rich and merit-less, he has become extremely fearful of human CO2 emissions, and never tires from lecturing about how others should live their lives. Of course, this includes his advice that everyone else should live a low carbon, low energy lifestyle, with the exception of his truly.
Back in 2009, 'da' Prince predicted the world only had 96 months before the global warming apocalypse. Gee, maybe his predictions will be better than all the failed ones from IPCC climate alarmist scientists! Hmmm...not likely. Here's what's causing the Prince to act like he's got bees in the bonnet (or is that bats in the belfry?). The potential of CO2 growing from its pre-industrial levels to 560 ppm by century-end has the prince literally going delusional.
Read here. Obviously, the Princeton scientist shows his true colors as a racist as he develops research that will aid Democrats in supporting strict immigration policies for election reasons...of course, remember, not due to the brown-skinned horde, but due to the "serious" global warming crisis that will cause the brown-skinned horde.
Or, are his AGW-biased findings more in line with his being such a devout believer in human-caused global warming that he will say and predict anything, the science be damned. Well....there is definitely more truth for the latter position - as Princeton scientist Michael Oppenheimer previously stated his own beliefs:
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United
States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the
amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these
Third World countries right where they are."
Hmmmm...was that last sentence from this IPCC scientist kind of, ya know, racist, and said with that white-skinned arrogance? Just asking.
Of course, the usual mainstream media outlets gave this bogus study wide coverage, but that's to be expected - today's journalists are some of the dumbest people you would ever want to meet. And, as the JournoList scandal has revealed, the liberal dominated media acts as the main propaganda organ for all things leftist and the Democratic party.
What's really sad, and a gargantuan embarrassment, is a major science publication lending credence to flat-out politically motivated science. This type of science is so awful, no genuine science journal should ever think of disseminating such garbage. As one scientist stated:
"To be blunt, the paper is guesswork piled on top of "what ifs" built on a foundation of tenuous assumptions.....To use this paper as a prediction of anything would be a mistake. It is a tentative sensitivity study of the effects of one variable on another, where the relationship between the two is itself questionable but more importantly, dependent upon many other far more important factors.....Climate change is real and worthy of our attention. Putting forward research claims that cannot be supported by the underlying analysis will not help the credibility of the climate science community.....The paper reflects a common pattern in the climate impacts literature of trying to pin negative outcomes on climate change using overly simplistic methods and ignoring those factors other than climate which have far more effect."
What really makes it clear to anyone listening is the Princeton scientist's own reasoning for the study (hint.....it's politics, not the science).
"Our primary objectives were, No. 1, to give policymakers something to think about..."
Okay, we'll cut the guy some slack and conclude he is not a racist. But instead, just another dufus scientist who makes it his daily calling to destroy the reputation and credibility of sciencevia his over-the-top global warming bias.
While the leftist political elites and the chattering class continue to waste valuable time and resources on a problem as about as real as the TV series Lost's smoke monster, millions continue to die from air pollution that can be controlled and eliminated. This can be accomplished without the trillion dollar sacrifices (demands) to line the pockets of big lobbyists, such as Gore, Goldman Sachs, and Soros.
From Richard Tol, one of the world's leading climate change economists and prominent IPCC expert, this simple and horrendous truth:
"The number of people who die in 2010 due to conventional air pollution is greater than the number of people who are projected to die in 2100 due to climate change."
Does anyone really believe that Gore, Goldman Sachs, Soros, liberal/leftists/progressives, or the typical climate scientist alarmist gives a flying-frak about solving the real, solvable pollution problems? You know, the pollution problems that actually kill a lot of people? Didn't think so.
Read here. Global warming alarmists and agenda-driven pundits frequently spread the meme that global warming will cause more wars, leading to all sorts of imagined scenarios of mayhem, destruction and death later this century and next. Is there any actual empirical evidence backing these more-war claims up? Nope.
In a new peer-reviewed study, researchers examine the empirical evidence and find the claims of retired, fat- assed admirals and generals (real and the armchair variety) to be without merit. Surprised?
"In their conclusions, the authors state “We present some evidence that periods with lower temperatures in the pre-industrial era are accompanied by violent conflicts”, consistent with what others had found in China. Furthermore, they note “If anything, lower temperatures imply violence, and this effect is much weaker in the modern world than it was in pre-industrial times. This implies that future global warming is not likely to lead to (civil) war between (within) European countries.”.....Another popular claim about global warming is once again not supported by what has been observed for centuries – sound familiar?"
Blue/green colors indicate a low correlation between high temperatures and violence. Red reveals the high correlation regions.
Of course, per the evidence, Turkey and the Balkans appear to have a strong correlation with warmth and war. Or, is that a correlation between a certain religion and war/terrorism? And what about Iceland? Yep, them damn Vikings and their distant relatives were pretty frisky during the Medieval Warming until the icy depths of the Little Ice Age finally put Iceland and Greenland back in the deep freezer.
Thank god for Gore, otherwise it would that much more difficult for the average person to realize that most liberals-leftists-progressives-Democrats are pathological liars, who live life large in all its hypocritical glory. With the discoverer of ManBearPig doing his thingy, it's like shooting-fish-in-barrel.
Read here. If one wants to read about the true scientific incompetence and hysteria-lying exhibited by scientists regarding the catastrophic global warming alarmism, one can do now better than reading the painfully embarrassing fisking that Lord Christopher Monckton levels against the newly crowned bozo of St. Thomas (University of). It's a very long read and very detailed. The climate science fisking begins on page 4, point #26, and just keeps going and going. As an additional plus, it's a great review of all the bogus catastrophic claims that alarmists make based on the flimsiest of all AGW hypothesis support, climate model predictions.
Assuming Monckton is quoting the hapless assistant/associate professor accurately, it clearly shows an individual with an objective of misleading his audience and blatantly misrepresenting what Monckton had previously presented about climate science - in other words, the good "science perfessor" seems highly allergic to truth, science objectivity and the complete climate science empirical evidence (I'm thinking his PhD must be in extreme cherry-picking).
If your kid is considering University of St. Thomas in Minnesota for a degree in politically correct lying techniques and science-hatchet project management, there may be no better establishment based on the performance delivered by one of its own.
Read here. Well.....Mann didn't claim Philadelphia is "burning" but the shady :-) climate scientist did make a comparably stupid, invalid claim:
“Record heat wave in the US that’s part of a larger picture of early summer temperatures that are the warmest on record, which is part of a larger picture of a globe that is running warmer than ever before…”
As Dr. Richard Keen over at Watts Up With That visually documents, Mann again proves he will say anything, whether being false or just plain wrong, to push his warming agenda. Using the actual Philadelphia temperatures, the recent heat wave is not out of the ordinary. (click on image to enlarge)
Possibly, the Mann-bear-pig scientist might want to apply his "warming-science" to the Los Angeles or San Diego record summer cold - oh yeah, that's right, California cold is only weather, not global cooling.
Certainly, it's never too late to learn to appreciate actual empirical evidence, and thus, we recommend that Mr. Mann peruse our modern temperature charts for a while. If he were to do so, he may discover that the actual temperature data does not strongly support the AGW crisis hysteria. In fact modern temperature increases look pretty natural when compared to historical and ancient temperatures.
Read here and here. In an effort to rally the MSM propaganda troops around the "global warming" flag, Al Gore, James Hansen of NASA, and the scientists at NOAA/NCDC have now chosen to utilize absurdly short-term changes in temperature as a sure sign that recent warming is "out-of-control." The implication of their hyped claims being that the recent warming burst is due to human CO2 emissions and, of course, it is unprecedented and exceptional.
As for the recent burst in warming being due to CO2, that is a false implication since it is well known that recent surface and atmospheric warming has primarily been driven by the existing El Niño conditions:
"Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, adds what is missing from the article mentioned earlier: “We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”"
Although today's temperatures are absolutely not unprecedented versus historical temps, when compared to the short history of thermometer readings maintained by the NCDC, today's temperatures are indeed some of the warmest recorded since 1880. But in reality, that's totally expected since global temperatures have been on the rebound (increasing) since the Little Ice Age (LIA). So far, the NCDC thermometer records show temperatures increasing at a +0.7°C rate per century over the last 130 years.
What's the LIA mean for absurdly short-term temperature changes? Simply put, the natural Little Ice Age warming rebound is naturally going to cause some days, some weeks, some months, some calendar quarters, and some other short-term periods to be the "warmest" - it's unavoidably natural.
So, if the recent January to May short-term period is the "warmest" ever because of a combination of natural forces, the El Niño and the LIA Rebound, how then does this period's temperature change compare to previous January to May periods? When reviewed in the different context of per cent change terms, the 2010 January-May temperature change turns out to be rather unexceptional. (click on image to enlarge)
Every year, the January through May time period sees a global temperature increase from the past December levels. This chart reveals how large those temperature increases have been in the past. In terms of temperature percentage change, the most recent January through May temperature change was rather modest. As can be seen, this specific five-month time period is experiencing a downward trend in per cent change increase over time, especially since the 1920-30's era.
With all the recent talk about the warmest month, the warmest first 5-months of a calendar year, or the warmest calendar year-to-be (maybe), it's probably a good time to review past NCDC global temperature data in a context that goes beyond the extremely short-term periods of 1 month, 5 months or even a calendar year. As a reminder, it's fair to point out that alarmist-profiteers, such as politicians, global warming scientists, celebrities and reporters, want everyone to focus on short-term movements and the fear of "tipping points," and ignore the more critical, longer-term historical context. (click on any image to enlarge)
Graphs 1A and 1B reveal that global temperatures have been experiencing a modest flat to cooling trend over recent years. Note that chart 1B actually includes the huge spike in temperatures due to nature's super El Niño - even with that impressive 1998 spike, global temperatures barely increased at a +0.60°C trend per century. Think about it - that's 13 years of essentially very tepid warming (darn close to being flat) despite all the wild, hotter-than-hell predictions of the likes of John Kerry, Obama, Al Gore and James Hansen.
Charts 2A and 2B represent longer-term periods of distinct non-warming and warming periods, per the NCDC data. The great "global-warming" scare is primarily based on the 25 year period ending in 2001 (graph 2B). The temperature increase of a +1.60°C per century trend for that recent period is not even close to being "unprecedented" warming, and is barely different than the warming that is shown in graph 3B.A +1.60°C per century trend is a temperature blip that will absolutely not cause any of the popular catastrophic claims as eagerly publicized by the vast majority of Democrats/leftists/liberals/progressives.
Above graphs 3A and 3B show the NCDC instrumental temperature record dating back to the late 19th and early 20th century. Beginning in 1880, there was an extended cooling period. Graph 3B represents the 33 year warming duration that got its start around 1912. In terms of length and overall warming, the 1912-1944 warming is almost identical to the "Great Warming" of 1977-2001.
Taking the above temperature data and putting it in a longer NCDC temperature record view, the below graph provides the needed context.
When all the warming and cooling periods are combined, there has been overall warming of +0.6°C since 1880, which is entirely normal, considering the realism that world temperatures have been on a natural warming trend since the incredible coldness of the Little Ice Age. Even with the large increase of CO2 levels since 1880, the overall warming is nothing extraordinary or dangerous. And just to be clear, the natural cycles of warming and cooling will keep global temperatures from jumping to the ludicrous heights (as the red dots represent on the above chart) that warming alarmist scientists and eco-activists speculate about.
One last graph and note:
Did the "Great Warming" of 1977 to 2001 actually occur? All the previous charts are based on the NCDC "adjusted" global temperatures not the raw, original thermometer readings. As the above chart reveals, the NCDC scientists have made every conceivable effort to adjust more recent temperatures to be warmer, and to make pre-1945 era warming cooler. Although it's clear that global warming has taken place, there is a very high likelihood that a portion of recent global warming is due to data fabrication.
Finally, have real-world temperatures reached a "tipping point"? The real-world facts don't support that hysterical speculation in the least - it's only in a eco-sexual fantasy dream of an Al Gore, and his ilk, where that climax occurs.
Read here. Global warming scare myths have been very effective tools employed by the the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen to frighten the undereducated and science illiterates, such as Hollywood celebrities and MSM journalists/pundits. One of the most effective scare myths has been the imminent West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) collapse, due to human CO2-induced global warming, which will raise sea levels to extraordinary heights. Luckily for humanity, the actual ice sheet science reveals the Gore/Hansen scare myth to be without merit - in other words, fraudulent speculation.
What's important to know is that the peer-reviewed science has determined that a WAIS collapse has not even happened when temperatures were significantly warmer in the ancient past. And, if it were to happen in the future, it would take thousands of years of ludicrously high, and sustained, southern ocean temperatures (not air). In summary, not bloody likely, mate.
"And once started, he says that the transition time for a total collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet would range from "one thousand to several thousand years," which time period, in his words, "is nowhere near the century timescales for West Antarctic ice-sheet decay based on simple marine ice-sheet models," such as have been employed in the past.....the specter of 21st-century sea level rise being measured in meters -- as hyped by Al Gore and James Hansen -- can be seen to be receding ever further into the distance of unreality. What is more, and in spite of the current interglacial's current relative coolness, the Vostok ice core data indicate that the current interglacial has been by far the longest stable warm period of the entire 420,000-year record, which suggests we are probably long overdue for the next ice age to begin, and that we may not have the "5 to 50 centuries" that O'Neill and Oppenheimer suggest could be needed to bring about the WAIS disintegration subsequent to the attainment of whatever temperature in excess of 4 or 5°C above the current global mean would be needed to initiate the process...In conclusion, therefore, it would appear that the climate-alarmist vision of impending WAIS collapse and disintegration is nothing more than an ill-founded hallucination."
Read here. An exceptionally irritating and false assertion from the IPCC and climate alarmists is the one regarding species extinctions by the thousands, and more surely to come, all due to global warming. The classical example of this biased assertion is that the tropical Costa Rican toad's extinction was due to AGW. Unfortunately for the warming hystericals, recent actual science proved global warming innocent of the deaths.
A new group of researchers have revisited the dead toads' story, and again their new research finds that "global warming" is not the culprit. It's just more evidence that global warming alarmistas are totally 'clue'-less.
"Anchukaitis and Evans say their analysis suggests that "the cause of the specific and well-documented extinction of the Monteverde golden toad was the combination of the abnormally strong ENSO-forced dryness and the lethality of the introduced chytrid fungus, but was not directly mediated by anthropogenic temperature trends.....The two researchers report that "contrary to interpretations of the short instrumental record, no long-term trend in dry season hydroclimatology can be inferred from our δ18O time series at Monteverde." Instead, they find that "variability at the interannual scale dominates the isotope signal, particularly during the period of increased ENSO variance since the late 1960s," and they add, in this regard, that "there is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming." Hence, they emphasize that "the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986-1987 El Niño event," which they describe as "one of the longest driest periods in the last 100 years," based on their δ18O chronology. In addition, they report there is currently no consensus on how anthropogenic climate change might influence the El Niño Southern Oscillation, while indicating that "ENSO anomalies in the most recent decades are not beyond the range of natural variability during the instrumental period"
Read here. A blogging AGW-believer attacks a Climategate book written by T. Fuller and S. Mosher, and does so without ever reading the book. This is a classic example of the AGW fanatic belief system - simply put, facts don't matter to the "believers." The facts are viewed as irrelevant and inconvenient to the fundamentalists.
Let's put his moronic book review in true context:
"[the blogger] writes, "S&R set out to determine whether the published CRU emails provided enough context for the public to condemn or vindicate the scientists involved. After investigating three primary options and reading a key study, S&R has concluded that the emails do not themselves contain sufficient context to understand what really happened in climate science over the last 13 years.".....[the blogger] admits he hasn't read the book. Nor has he read the Climategate emails, which are available just about anywhere on the Internet. Nor has he read posts at Steve McIntyre's weblog Climate Audit, which he also accuses of being completely, completely wrong."
(BTW, I read the book a few months ago and found it very informative
regarding the Climategate email events. I would recommend the
book to anyone interested in the actual Climategate context and history.
Of course, that's me the skeptic - I actually read books.)
Read here. The IPCC and its global warming scientists have predicted that global warming will increase forest fire activity. There was no actual science that supported these predictions, merely AGW speculative assertions. Again, as is often the case, new research shows lame alarmist IPCC predictions to be nothing more than smoke.
"A recent article has appeared in Global Change Biology written by seven scientists with various institutions in Canada, France, and Germany that might come as a surprise to the alarmist camp.....“Some contradictory evidence in the literature has led authors to question the likelihood of seeing an increase in boreal wildfire risk under warming of the Northern Hemisphere. Despite warming since about 1850 and increased incidence of large forest fires in the 1980s, a number of studies indicated a decrease in boreal fire activity in the last 150 years or so.”.....The authors [Girardin et al.] reinforce their claim that fires activity has decreased noting “The fact that diminishing fire activity has also been detected on lake islands on which fire suppression has never been conducted provides another argument in support of climate control.”
Read here. Since the Little Ice Age end, the globe has warmed. Global warming alarmists and IPCC scientists predicted that malaria would spread across the world as global warming occurred. As is almost always the case, the alarmist predictions were wrong. From a recent peer-reviewed study, the blue areas of map reveal world regions where malaria decrease; red shows areas of increase. (click on image to enlarge)
Why didn't malaria spread as predicted? Because the prediction was based on known falsehoods about the disease (in different terms, the IPCC lied.) What really caused the malaria decrease? (Note: In reality, global warming didn't cause the decrease.)
"One of the standard tenets of the global warming bible is that malaria will get worse as temperatures rise. We’ve addressed this many times before, primarily by noting that the link between high temperatures and high malaria infection rates is anything but straightforward. Infectious disease expert Paul Reiter is quick to point out that malaria has been observed inside the Arctic Circle…and this is obviously not typical of a so-called “tropical” disease".....this simple comparison illustrates that despite warming global temperatures, the combined natural and anthropogenic forces acting on the disease throughout the twentieth century have resulted in the great majority of locations undergoing a net reduction in transmission between one and three orders of magnitude, larger than the maximum future increases proposed under temperature-based climate change scenarios…When compared to the substantially smaller proposed magnitude of climate-induced effects, an important and simple inference is that [climate change impacts] can be offset by moderate increases in coverage levels of currently available interventions."
Read here and here. Despite decades of fear-mongering about global warming, the rhetorical hysteria has not convinced Americans or the world's best economists from reaching the same conclusion: there are much more important issues that need to be addressed before any tax dollars are wasted on global warming.
Why hasn't the hysteria of the MSM and green activists worked? Because the public and scientists have come to realization that much of the warming is natural, similar to previous historical warmings, and that modern warming is barely increasing, not accelerating as fear-mongers claimed. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. The coastal leftist/liberal elites are struggling with major denial as to why the majority of Americans have turned away from the non-scientific alarmism about global warming and climate change. The "elites," instead of recognizing the truth of the matter, turn to conspiracy theories about sinister corporate entities spewing climate disinformation.
What is the truth? In essence, the actual climate empirical evidence does not support any of Al Gore's wildly hysterical claims. The majority of Americans are now realizing how bogus the Gore "science" is. The chattering class embraced and promulgated the Gore-science. Now they are paying the price for that blind faith in falsehoods.
Read here, here, here, here, and here. One would think that green organizations dedicated to protecting the environment would put the greening of the world before the "greening" of their pocketbooks. The evidence keeps rolling in that green activists are more interested in growing dollars.
Additionally, since Greenpeace et al demonize any opposing person or viewpoint as being funded by Big Oil dirty dollars, one would think the green organizations would refuse any dollar funding from, Big Oil. Nothing could be further from the truth - welcome to land of gargantuan environmentalism hypocrisy.
"The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a "profound threat," has "accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.""
"Funny, Greenpeace doesn't talk about that. Nor does it mention:
that BP is funding research into "ways of tackling the world climate problem" at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
that BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is "to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment"
that ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford University so that researchers there can find "ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming"
The only dollar amounts Greenpeace cites in its explanation of why it decided to launch ExxonSecrets is that measly $2.2 million. Versus 10 + 2 + 30 + 500 + 100. Let's see, which all adds up to…wait for it…$642 million."
Read here (also read the comments for further information). It would seem that an Ohio State global warming advocate scientist, in association with researchers at Michael Mann's Penn State climate group, conducted a study of previous studies on Arctic sea ice. This Ohio State study makes the very vague claim that sea ice loss "appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years,”.
The researchers comments about their study suggests that science and statistical techniques they utilized may be of 'Mannian' nature, which have proven to be black magic, at best.
"When we look carefully at various chemical and biological components of the sediment, and how the sediment is distributed — then, with certain skills and luck, we can reconstruct the conditions at the time the sediment was deposited.”....."They searched for patterns in the proxy data that fit together like pieces of a puzzle."
Any science that is based on "certain" skills and some "luck", while only seeking data that "fit together like pieces of a puzzle" and thus rejecting data that does not conform to the IPCC global warming hypothesis, sounds an awful lot like the discredited hockey-stick style of science.
The Greenland ice cores provide the best evidence of Arctic cooling and warming, which would be an excellent indicator of likely past sea ice conditions. It would appear the Ohio State researchers in choosing their "puzzle pieces" rejected the best data available, the non-conforming ice core data. (click on images to enlarge)
Per the Greenland ice cores, current Arctic temperatures are well within the range of past warming events. In fact, current Arctic warming has not reached the levels of past historical and ancient warming. These images and other historical temperature charts can be found here. Other climate history postings. Modern temperature charts.
Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann is famous for finding global warming statistical relationships that no one ever dreamed of; and, of course, the famous actor Danny "The Quake" Glover shares the same "Mannian" statistical sense about global warming and major world events. If really working together, as rumored, will their phenomenal intellectual firepower be able to connect the global warming impact with the actual oil spill? As the world is awaiting word, it's understood that Newsweek's and the AP's crack climate reporters are embedded with the dream team of Mann and Glover - peer-reviewed Twitter progress press releases will soon be available to any Barbara Boxer Facebook friends.
Despite Glover/Mann shared concerns about global warming, it's hugely unlikely that global warming actually caused the BP oil spill. As an aside though, it is fascinating to note that Mother Earth is the biggest oil spiller by far, which places the incompetents at BP in the very minor, minor leagues.
And when it comes down to the long-term significance of the BP oil spill, one should always put events like these in context. Once in context, the MSM and politician hysteria appears ludicrous, and their blame-game bordering on the absurd. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here and here. Scientists from both China and America (Argonne Labs) conduct study that finds a wide adoption of electric vehicles by Chinese populace would dramatically increase greenhouse emissions. As with many of the climate alarmist solutions, the cure is worse than the disease.
"We have here another study that points to the fact that widespread
adoption of electric vehicles (EV) could actually increase
greenhouse-gas emissions rather than reduce them as we had hoped. This
study, conducted by the Argonne National
Laboratory and China's Tsinghua University, specifically focuses on
China and concludes that mass EV adoption could lead to tremendously
higher emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
due to the country's widespread use of coal as a power source."
After years of climate alarmism from "scientists" about global warming, the beast known as the public, in all its many forms, is decisively turning against the faux-science used to generate the faux AGW-crisis. Putting aside the multiple polls that reveal climate change/global warming to be of low importance to the general public, there is other evidence that strongly suggests that the global warming hysteria is withering rapidly.
It is now becoming more obvious that senators supporting 'cap and trade' legislation and/or carbon emission regulations will be on the wrong side of this faux-crisis and will become political toast. As one can discern from following, the natives are restless and rebelling.
Canadian Inuit polar bear experts and native residents find that polar bears have not suffered from global warming and are increasingly abundant, which completely contradicts global warming "expert" predictions.
The mainstream media is now questioning the lame "science-is-settled" and the "consensus" mantras that climate alarmist scientists and environmental activists have claimed.
The legal forces have become energized to finally put the faux-science of AGW on trial, which will start to reveal to the public the outright taxpayer-funded scientific malfeasance and corruption that has brought the world Climategate, Amazongate, Glaciergate and etc.
View here. Because the UN, through its IPCC agency, is promoting a hypothesis that states global warming is the world's preeminent problem, national bureaucrats, like those in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are pushing trillion dollar global solutions to cut CO2 emissions. But economists from across the world point out that there are multiple, severe world issues with realistic solutions that are far superior than trying to cut human CO2 emissions, which would be similar to pouring trillions down a rat-hole resulting in zero rats being killed.
The world's best economists basically conclude that mitigating CO2 emissions is a costly, worthless, strictly symbolic exercise that will detract from solving major world problems with real solutions.
Read here. The entire global warming industry now recognizes the existential threat to their comfortable security and financial well-being. As a result, the warmistas' hate discourse has increased dramatically, with a very ugly, associated increase in violence threats (and/or a draconian censorship of free speech) directed towards their inconvenient critics, the skeptics and luke-warmers.
As the actual climate empirical evidence continues to make the proverbial hash of the AGW hypothesis, and the Climategate/IPCC evidence of malfeasance is now being exposed to the sunlight, the malevolent disorder driving global warming scientists and activists has become unprecedented, unequivocal, and appears to be accelerating.
“Well, let’s review the bidding regarding “violence and hatred” … *James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity *Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors *Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible *David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed *DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals (video) *Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics *Joe Romm encourages the idea that skeptics will be strangled in their beds *A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers *Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical [weather] forecasters to be decertified *Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers.
*[Not to mention Greenpeace declaring that they know where you live]"
Of course, if the violence and censorship don't do the job, then the warmistas just want to suspend democracy until they can fix the planet (just for a short while, don't ya know!). I am not makingthis up. h/t: Bishop Hill
To better understand why the liberal-left so easily wishes for and embraces the ideology of fascism, read this excellent book.
Despite the complete failure of empirical evidence and the actual
climate supporting the hypothesis of IPCC Climategate science and its
climate models, the world's "elites" have a very personal, vested
interest in maintaining the fear about climate change.
Why's that? Hey, comrade, the gig is good!
"Tony Blair is set to earn millions of
pounds advising an American businessman on how to make money from
tackling climate change...The former prime minister will be paid at
least £700,000 a year to act as a “strategic adviser” to Khosla
Ventures, a venture capitalist firm... the Californian company bankrolls
businesses hoping to profit from technology that helps reduce global
warming and carbon emissions...Mr Blair secured the job thanks to his
“influence” and high level international contacts, whom he will be
expected to lean on to open doors...He has told friends he needs £5
million a year to fund his lifestyle."
Why's that (number two)? The AGW gig is easier than shooting-fish-in-a-barrel.
"The couple [Al Gore and his wife] spent $8,875,000 on an
ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a
real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style
house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms."
As it is obvious to any person possessing an IQ north of double digits, elites are
very concerned...just not about the climate or warming/cooling. It's all
about money, material goods, fame and power. It's as simple as that.
Read here. Environmentalists in the state of Illinois are concerned about the Asian carp, a foreign fish species that may or may not be invading Lake Michigan. Despite flimsy empirical evidence (sound familiar?) that the fish was actually living in the waterways that feed Lake Michigan, the environmentalists convinced the state bureaucrats to conduct a five day fish kill in a waterway. End result? 100,000 pounds of fish killed and not a single ounce of Asian carp was found.
"About 2,000 gallons of the fish poison Rotenone were dumped along a
two-mile stretch of the Calumet-Sag Channel where DNA samples previously
indicated the presence of Asian carp...the channel was about seven miles west of Lake Michigan where state and federal officials
for months have been trying to gauge the carp's threat to the Chicago
waterway system and ultimately the lake."
Another example of environmental fanaticism running amok is the news that Danish authorities plan to clear cut trees in a national park in order to install wind turbines. Yikes.
Is it time to kill all the environmentalists instead of the fish and trees?The world and nature would be a lot better off, no?
Read here. The corruption of climate science and the resulting scientific fraud continues to plague the overall science community. Globally, the public belief in catastrophic global warming has declined, which can be mainly attributed to the bogus climate model crisis claims that climate change scientists have relied on, instead of the proven scientific experiment/observational methodology.
But why has this bogus science methodology become the preferred technique of the global warming science community?
"As they say, follow the money. Remember Indiana Jones’ immortal words: “Fortune and glory.”.....Too many people in government, wealthy foundations and activist groups have decided they know what’s best for us, what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge. They intend to implement those policies – and global warming scare stories are key to achieving that objective. They’re pouring tens of billions of dollars into the effort.....Clearly, too much money is being spent on one-sided global warming advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. Despite the best of intentions, too much money can corrupt, or at least skew the science."
Read here. Greenland's ice sheet has been melting for well over 12,000 years (and was even smaller in recent past). It continues to melt around the edges due to warmer ocean currents lapping at its edges, not because of a warmer atmosphere. Using satellite technology, expert scientist Scott Luthcke's research indicates that Greenland possibly has been melting at at a rate that represents only 0.005% to 0.008% of its volume.
What does this really mean? The ice sheet may take some 19,000 years to melt entirely. If the present global cooling trend continues, then it would take longer. ;-) (And scientists remain unconvinced that ice sheets would ever melt entirely based on most recent evidence.)
Putting it into perspective........
"So the next time you read something that breathlessly says.....“If this activity in northwest Greenland continues and really accelerates some of the major glaciers in the area — like the Humboldt Glacier and the Peterman Glacier — Greenland’s total ice loss could easily be increased by an additional 50 to 100 cubic kilometers (12 to 24 cubic miles) within a few years”.....you can say “Well, if it does increase by the larger estimate of 100 cubic km per year, and that’s a big if since the scientists are just guessing, that would increase the loss from 0.007% per year to around 0.010% per year, meaning that the Greenland Ice Cap would only last until May 23rd, 12010.”"