If you have some free time this weekend, watch the video below to understand why the gathering of "elites" in Rio is such a gigantic waste...and read thesethreearticles, which cover why catastophic global warming is nonsense and why use of the term "denier" is wrong.
The global warming science facts can often be so brutal for the climate-doomsday-from-CO2 alarmists >>> the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has determined that Asian pollution will warm the globe so much that it offsets any U.S. CO2 emission reductions
Read here. China and other Asian countries produce a lot of black carbon (soot) and other pollutants that are belched into the atmosphere in prodigious quantities. The scientists at NCAR utilized their global climate models to analyze the impact of all that filth on global temps.
The impact of these pollutants will be quite high: a +0.4°C increase of summer temps over the entire U.S. This warming happens regardless of any U.S. reductions in CO2 emissions. And to drive home this point, climate models indicate that if the U.S. were to reduce its emissions by 80% the impact on U.S. temps would be a measly 0.075°C reduction - the Asian pollutant warming overwhelms the reduction due to less CO2.
"Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
The global warming science facts conclusions: Any attempt by the U.S. to massively reduce its CO2 emissions will be a total waste of money and effort as Asian pollution will easily offset that attempt. This NCAR analysis is eye-opening and should be seriously considered by America's policymakers. But it should be remembered that this analysis is based on global climate models, which have been incredibly ineffectual at predicting temperatures, let alone climate conditions across the world or in specific regions. And it should be pointed out that U.S. temperatures over the last 15 years have been on a cooling trend of minus 2 degrees (F) per century through April 2012 - for some reason, all those past Asian pollutants have not warmed the U.S.
Read here. Wikileaks, the organization dedicated to exposing the dark underbelly of big government, has published documents regarding the UN's climate program known as the “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM). In essence, the program has been an abject failure bordering on flagrant corruption.
"What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce,” says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading. “In the face of these comments it is no wonder that the United States has backed away from emission trading,” Filzmoser says."
Obviously, the CDM program had two principal functions, neither of which concerned a better environment. The first was to enhance the investment profitability of wealthy "green" investors; the second being a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of advanced countries to countries incapable of producing their own prosperity without some form of subsidized theft.
The entire climate change endeavor sponsored by the United Nations is essentially a gigantic fraud, propelled by leftists and greens dedicated to no growth, no prosperity policies. The actual quotes from "elites" who support the UN's "green" policies confirms everything that Wikileaks is now discovering.
Read here. As European greens and government policymakers are frolicking and polluting at Cancun's paradise resorts for two weeks, their countries' soot emissions are destroying the Himalayan glaciers and drinking water of billions of people. Instead of fixing the black carbon (soot) pollution they are responsible for, the EU activists continue to rail about the atmospheric trace gas CO2, which, by the way, doesn't melt glaciers, sea ice or polar ice sheet caps.
There are multiple studies, including this latest article, that point to soot as a prime culprit in climate warming and ice melting.
"“….Angela Marinoni of the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate in Bologna explained to an audience at the 2nd Third Pole Environment Workshop in Kathmandu on October 27th, the high Himalayas are also under an onslaught from this sort of pollution. Even at altitudes above 5,000 metres (16,400 feet), soot is widespread. And when it lands on glaciers it accelerates their melting.....By analysing atmospheric circulation patterns, Dr Marinoni and her colleagues found that winds could bring soot and dust from as far away as Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. And if that were not bad enough, the Himalayan valleys act as chimneys, pumping pollutants from the Indian plains to the mountain peaks. Dr Marinoni estimates that the combined effect of this crud could reduce the glaciers’ ability to reflect light by 2-5% and increase the amount of melting by 12-34%."
Read here and here. Historical evidence from peer-reviewed studies indicates that the worst famines were experienced during droughts of climate cooling phases. When the world experienced global warming phases, drought induced famines, and the subsequent deaths, declined.
"In analyzing the linkages they [Zhang et al.] found to exist among these different factors, the international (Chinese, French, German, Norwegian) team of researchers concluded that "food production during the last two millennia has been more unstable during cooler periods, resulting in more social conflicts," while specifically noting that "cooling shows direct positive association with the frequency of external aggression war to the Chinese dynasties mostly from the northern pastoral nomadic societies, and indirect positive association with the frequency of internal war within the Chinese dynasties through drought and locust plagues," which have typically been more pronounced during cooler as opposed to warmer times."[Zhang, Z., Tian, H., Cazelles, B., Kausrud, K.L., Brauning, A. Guo, F. and Stenseth, N.C. 2010]
The actual empirical evidence undeniably shows that the world has not suffered a major death-drought over the past two decades, when modern global warming was at its peak. (click on image to enlarge)
Note: 20th century famines primarily due to political reasons initiated by totalitarian, leftist regimes (Soviet Union, North Korea, and China) are not included in the above chart.
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. Map source here. Major developed countries are diverting huge amounts of their agricultural crops in order to produce ethanol-types of fuels. The supposed purpose of doing so is to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, thus causing "less" harm to the environment and the climate. Unfortunately, it is well known within scientific circles that fuel production from biomass is actually moreharmful for the environment.
Another very ugly result of diverting billions of tons of agriculture to fuel production is the consequence of food shortages and skyrocketing food prices, especially when other sources of food are interrupted due to natural weather events. As the populace of Mozambique knows, food shortages and high prices determine life and death in their environment.
"MAPUTO, Mozambique, Sept. 3, 2010 (UPI) -- A 30 percent rise in bread prices triggered riots in Maputo, Mozambique, that killed at least seven people and injured 228, government officials said. The riots Wednesday and Thursday in the country's capital prompted fears that food protests could spread across poorer African countries relying on agricultural imports, similar to the riots of 2007-08, the Financial Times reported..."
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. 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.
Read here. As the world population grows, more food will need to be produced on less hospitable agricultural lands and climates. It is well known that environmental fanatics like Paul Erlich, Stephen Schneider, and Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, most likely would not shed a tear for the billions who would starve.....
Read here. Using food crops to power transportation has to be one of the most brain-dead energy policies ever conceived. We have writtenaboutthis subject before as it is causing all sorts of serious problems that would be best solved by ceasing all subsidization of biofuel production, immediately.
Read here. Actually, the islands we refer to in the headline are more accurately coral atolls, as explained in the article. We've done postings on atolls, coral reefs and oceans rising before but this article is the best compilation of pertinent information we've read - it is definitely a 'keeper'.
"What can be done to turn the situation around for the atolls? From
the outside, not a whole lot. Stopping the Czechs from burning coal
won’t do a damned thing. From the outside, we can offer only
assistance. The work needs to occur on the atolls themselves.There are, however, a number of low-cost, practical steps that atoll
residents can take to preserve and build up their atolls, and protect
the fresh water lens. In no particular order these are:"
Read the linked article for the solutions the islanders need to take themselves, instead of their blaming others and seeking monetary handouts.
BTW, this is another example of the bogus climate alarmist science that the IPCC and certain climate scientists have promulgated. For fame, glory and riches, these scientists are causing needless lawsuits instead of focusing the attention of politicians on the real solutions to maintaining Earth's health, be it atolls or the Amazon or other. Eventually, historians may well view the "global warming" fraudulent science as a crime against humanity.
Read here. Again proving that alarmist science is based on scientific untruths, speculation and hype, two new studies confirm what objective scientists have actually observed: recent past global warming is not causing an increase on severe storms. One should note, that despite the Copenhagen COP-15 scary predictions from the leftist/liberal advocates, despite the mainstream media pandering to the alarmists, despite the typical non-scientific illiterate despot/tyrant/western leader calling for massive climate reparations, and despite the scientific fraud coming from Climategate endeavors, good, objective science is still being produced that sheds light on the very un-settled science of the climate.
"“The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms – it is all climate change!"
Read here, here and here. Most people, on every side of the AGW debate, would agree that chopping down a rain or boreal forest to promote development of renewable fuels is an extremely bad idea in terms of earth's climate. Unfortunately, the failure of Copenhagen also keeps these forests at risk because of the previous idiotic legislation/regulations previously agreed upon or promoted (Kyoto, cap & trade, U.S. renewable energy schemes, etc.).
Because of the Climategate scientists fraudulent science, and their propaganda of imminent world catastrophes if nothing was done about CO2 emissions immediately, it caused all the focus to be on a questionable, nebulous problem with an impossible political/economic solution, instead of actually focusing on real world climate and environment problems that could be solved. Climategate lies cause trees to die.
Read here and here. It has become fact that Obama, the leftists-liberals, and the Democrats believe they can just steal taxpayer dollars and give it to any person, company, group or country demanding a bailout. This will develop into another failedforeignaid project, chasing the trillions that were wasted in previous years. The majority of the "Copenhagen $100 billion" will end up in the corrupt despots' Swiss bank accounts or will be used to purchase military arms or wasted on other non-climatic endeavors. Very little of the $100 billion will ever be used for climate adaption purposes by the receiving countries.
At this point in the Copenhagen proceedings, there would
seem to be absolutely no benefit for China, India and Russia to continue to
kowtow to Europe or the U.S. any longer on the over-hyped climate change
issues. These three countries are....
Read here. Despite the embarrassment of the Climategate data fraud and conspiracy scandal, it has not stopped the politically motivated and financially hungry at Copenhagen from making every effort to lie and mislead the public about the actual global climate condition. As an example, a favorite lie is to claim that the islands of the Pacific are being inundated by the rising seas caused by global "warming." It's a whopper of a lie, which the mainstream press repeats reflexively, without checking an iota of data concerning the bogus claim. Below is a chart for two of those islands.
The facts: The seas fluctuate up/down over time, rarely exceeding a one-tenth meter change. The sea level changes are recorded by state-of-the-art equipment, installed and maintained by the Australian government. The chart is from the latest 2008 survey. Map included to locate islands. (click on images to enlarge)
Read here. Scientists who advocate human-CO2 caused global warming predicted that African regions, such as the Lake Victoria area, would suffer from reduced precipitation because of the warming. In fact, quite the opposite happened as the Lake Victoria basin had an increase in rainfall overall. As is often the case, climate scientist catastrophic predictions are not based on reality.
Read here and here. These two articles provide a clear indication of the extreme lying that is promoted at the highest levels of the Obama administration and at UN agencies, all in the name of pushing a favored political agenda to control energy supplies and prices (i.e. more tax revenues). Every scientific study, in addition to common sense, tells us that as a country's economic wealth grows, that life expectancy and overall health conditions improve exponentially, all due to the use of low cost fossil fuels. As a recent example of what happens when low cost energy becomes more expensive, here is what occurred in the UK last year during the winter: ‘Fuel bills blamed for 50% rise in winter deaths‘
Which economic-energy environment looks better for your own and loved ones' health? (click image to enlarge)
The 'Climate Liars' are promoting the life existence on the right by patently false, getting-ready-for-Copenhagen, non-stop lying.
Update: It's not only in the climate change arena that the liberal-leftists are flat-out lying; it's become the go-to strategy of Obama and Congressional Democrats on just about everything. The entire freaking Democratic Party has been ACORN-ized.
Read here. Research by scientists find that Africa's maximum high temperatures during daylight hours have not budged for almost 60 years (if CO2 causes global warming then Africa's daylight temperatures should have gone up). The scientists did find that night time temperatures have increased over the same time period, though. This is not unusual since Africa's land-use and surface development have expanded over the last half-century. With development comes the normal daytime heat retention that is then released during night time hours, this increasing surrounding daily minimum temperatures.
Based on land-surface temperatures, Africa does not appear to be affected by the "unprecedented" global warming due to the "unprecedented" global CO2 levels, which represents a catastrophic prediction failure by the IPPC and its climate models.
Read here. Based on new peer-reviewed research, the dust storms that the Chad government refuses to manage and control is wreaking climate havoc on the rest of the world. Combine these dust storms with the amount of black carbon soot the African populace throws up in the atmosphere, it becomes obvious that the majority of African nations pose a serious global threat to humanity. Africa and its leaders need to be held accountable at Copenhagen!
Read here. African droughts, especially severe instances have occurred during high solar radiation periods, which suggests the common sense conclusion that solar conditions drive Earth's climate, not CO2 levels. With past evidence of said droughts and solar activity, African nations have no real basis for "global warming" reparations from wealthier countries.
The African drought/rainfall research also revealed the existence of Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age.
Read here and here. If Waxman-Markey 'Cap & Trade' passes Senate, individual taxpayers (yes, you and me) will be involuntarily transferring our wealth to corporations (Duke Energy, GE, etc.) and special interests (i.e., foreign countries, community organizations and environmental groups) so they are properly "incentivized" to support the plan. (click to enlarge image)
Read here. Black carbon emissions (soot) is an actual killer, unlike CO2 emissions. Soot causes significant global warming, it melts arctic sea and even thaws frozen tundra. Fixing the black carbon problem first, instead of CO2, should be the primary policy objective of UN and governments. Won't happen though because it's not a big revenue generator and Al Gore didn't make a movie about it.
Read here. Prime Minister of UK wants to give $100 billion (most of it U.S. taxpayer money) to poor countries for climate change reasons, every year. Only possible if Senate passes legislation such as passed Waxman-Markey.
Read here and here. As the MSM widely publicized, a "scientific" study announced that global warming was causing 300,000 deaths per year, which was an inconvenient non-truth since the study was fabricated by climate change radicals. In contrast, the MSM did not go out of its way to describe the radical environmentalist's agenda of killing 1,000,000 children per year via malaria. This is what will actually happen because radical green organizations pushed the UN and WHO to prohibit the use of DDT, a proven, inexpensive life-saver. Ahhhhh, environmentalist hypocrisy, soooooo obnoxious.
Read here. Climate alarmism by the liberal-left has so perverted the elitists' view of humanity that real humans are being sacrificed for climate goals that are unattainable. Unbelievably, elitists think they can control and manage the weather, and the climate, yet they are still unable to solve the most basic of human needs.
implementing the Kyoto Protocol at a cost of $180 billion annually
would keep only two million people from going hungry by the end of the
century. Yet by spending just $10 billion annually on direct food aid,
the United Nations estimates that we could help 229 million hungry
people now. For every amount spent on climate policies to save one
person from hunger in a hundred years, the same amount could save 5,000
people now. Arguably, this should be among Obama’s top priorities."