The elites' consensus "climate change" science is confirmed to be the anti-science green fraud exposed in original Climategate
Read here. With the release of a new set of 'Climategate2.0' emails from the corrupt community of IPCC climate scientists, and the potential for another release, it's time for the current crop of world "leaders" to starve and/or permanently kill off the global warming beast of leftist academia and the rapacious UN bureaucracy.
The original Climategate emails (read this exhaustive Climategate1.0 eMail Analysis and the superb Climategate1.0 - Scientists Behaving Badly article) clearly documented that the establishment's global warming and anti-CO2 crusade was at best, a robustly venal science effort. The utter corruption of science and the politics of the left/liberal/progressive/Democrat anti-science was fully revealed, we thought.
But as it turns out, the batch of Climategate emails from late 2009 did not tell the whole story. With this 2011 batch of Climategate2.0 emails, and possibly a Climategate3.0 batch looming, the UN's emperor robe has fallen all the way to its ankles revealing the full ugliness and lies of official post-modern green politics and "global warming" science.
It's time for Republican presidential candidates to admit that they and the public were lied to about the science of global warming and climate change. This admission should be then followed with bold proposals to finally clean up the climate science corruption that has been allowed to permeate throughout the U.S. funded science establishment - taxpayer billions wasted on corrupt science and the enriching of climate scientists should be stopped, now.
Read here. Senator Lieberman, a Democrat from the state of Connecticut, has for years been a hysterical global warming alarmist, constantly pushing CO2 emissions legislation, regulation and taxes. His latest "climate science" idiocy is that human CO2-induced global warming is causing this year's extreme weather (ie, tornadoes, floods, etc.) in the U.S., thus we need "climate change" legislation.
Honestly, are liberals really this incredibly stupid? Is it just science ignorance?
The chart to the left shows that U.S. temperatures for the January-May 2011, year-to-date period was the coldest over the last 15 years. And literally, the U.S. has actually been cooling at a (minus) -10.08°F per century trend since 1997 for the January-May period, not CO2-warming as predicted by big government advocates and politicians. [Ed: typo corrected to -10.08, not -11.08; thanks, Bill] (source of chart here; click chart to enlarge)
Even despite NOAA's forensic climate scientists stating there is no connection between AGW and recent weather events, and despite multiple peer-reviewed studies categorically stating there is no connection between CO2 emissions and disaster losses, the liberal/leftists/progressives, like Sen. Lieberman, keep pushing blatant climate lies that will hopefully justify the cause of greater government control and more tax revenues, aka 'climate change legislation.'
Or, are Sen. Lieberman's climate/weather claims just another indication of the natural progressive/liberal mindset, a true disdain for empirical science no matter how monstrously stupid it appears to the rest of us?
Read here. California's politicians who favor big government solutions have placed the state's economic climate into a death spiral, much of it due to new environmental regulations. These regulations are simply driving business away from the state, leaving wholesale economic destruction in their path.
"Ideas matter, particularly when colored by religious fanaticism, wreaking havoc even in the most favored of places. Take, for instance, Iran, a country blessed with a rich heritage and enormous physical and human resources...Then there’s California, rich in everything from oil and food to international trade and technology, but still skimming along the bottom of the national economy. The state’s unemployment rate is now worse than Michigan’s...Among the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan regions, four of the six with the highest unemployment numbers are located in the Golden State: Riverside, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco...In California green zealots compel companies to shift their operations to states that are still interested in growing their economy — like Texas. The green regime is one reason why CEO Magazine has ranked California the worst business climate in the nation."
California's politicians and bureaucrats have literally become possessed by a fundamentalist green ideology, combined with an irrational fear that they will perish from "global warming" (see chart to left, click to enlarge) due to the evil carbon dioxide molecule.
The incredible green stupidity, "warming" hysteria and irrational behavior of California's politicians have had horrendous economic consequences for that state, which are undeniable.
The empirical evidence is so clear cut, so stark, so obvious that there is no way a national politician would even think of following the crazed, hysterical green environmental regulations that rained down economic destruction on California, right? You'd be wrong, though.
Views of GOP presidential contender, George Romney:
“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting...“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
Romney is of the same ilk who have caused the greatest state to become the largest economic wasteland in the U.S. The man is not fit for the Oval office while being possessed by, and embracing, the green radical agenda.
Read here. Following in the footsteps of outspoken global warmists, such as Fidel and Hugo, is really not a well thought out path to the White House for any Republican. And, for a Republican to follow the "science" advice of an admirer of dictators and totalitarians is really, really stupid, to say the least.
The left's purpose of convincing the public and policymakers that humans are to blame for climate change and global warming is well known, and blatantly promulgated by its adherents. Obviously, Gov. Christie missed the memo as to what this is all about. Did we say clueless?
The extreme left and radical greens are in need of collaborators to accomplish their agenda. Useful idiot Republicans are perfect for the cause, especially those who have an Oval office itch and think going 'green' is the scratch to get them there.
Unfortunately for Christie, the majority of the American public is well past the point where global warming and climate change are major concerns - that voter attitude is especially true for Republicans. It is highly doubtful that any Republican embracing the ideology of AGW will win the nomination, which means Christie has managed to already place his candidacy in the loser's column before even getting started.
For any future Republican candidates who are tempted by the left's siren song of global warming, it might be best to educate oneself about the global warming fundamentals before choosing to crash on the rocks, like Christie, Newt and Huntsman:
Read here and here. No wonder Newt thinks ethanol subsidies are such a great idea - he literally gets paid huge bucks to say that. He's definitely going to be a big hit in the Iowa 2012 Republican primary where a large number of the ethanol-loving parasites live and vote.
Over the last 15 years, corn farmers have averaged about $5 billion per year in subsidies. In addition, ethanol blenders get 45 cents per gallon, almost another $5 billion, which is indirectly shared with the corn producers. And finally, the federal government imposes a 54 cent/gallon tariff on cheap foreign ethanol products, which is another indirect subsidy for corn farmers (the tariffs protect them from a cheaper and better product, foreign sugarcane ethanol).
Sooo, while the farmer and corporate welfare queens are pigging out at the ethanol-subsidy trough, a new peer-researched report in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons indicates that the subsidized/mandated biofuel polices are increasing the levels of poverty, starvation and death across the globe.
"Combining these estimates with estimates of the increase in poverty owing to growth in biofuels production over 2004 levels leads to the conclusion that additional biofuel production may have resulted in at least 192,000 excess deaths [editor: during 2010]...Based on current technologies, higher biofuel production necessarily means greater diversion of crops and/or cropland to the production of fuel rather than food. The iron law of supply and demand dictates that this would almost unavoidably increase global food prices over what they would otherwise be. Indeed, this is confirmed by studies of the impact of biofuel production on global food prices,..."[Indur M. Goklany 2011: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons]
With the U.S. representing some 70% of world corn production, and with ethanol now consuming 40% of that U.S. production, there is less corn to feed both people and animals, which ultimately drives prices higher on a wide variety of food products. The higher prices mean many eat less or nothing at all, which is increasing the incidence of starvation and death.
Thank you, Newt and Iowa parasites. (And yes, subsidies for all energy sources/parasites should be killed, not just those for ethanol.)
Read here. America does not need any more corporate subsidies or earmarks, especially those that are designed to enrich real billionaires or wannabes, whether they be Boone Pickens or George Soros or Al Gore. This country is bankrupt, primarily because both Republican and Democrat politicians keep handing out billions to their friends and favorite lobbyists.
Natural gas is a clean and bountiful energy resource and will become more prevalent in daily use without any subsidies, if the politicans, regulators and the Federal government would just simply get out of the energy business. Instead, we get this crony capitalism that the likes of Obama and Ron Paul embrace and champion, which ends up totally distorting the market and lavishly lining the pockets of their friends, like Boone Pickens or GE.
Ron Paul does not deserve your vote nor your support, Mr/Ms Libertarian. And the below Republicans who also voted for this Pickens's subsidization should be tossed out of office, along with any leftist/liberal/progressive/Democrat who still remains in office. Terminate the careers of the big spenders and big subsidizers once and for all in 2012.
The Republican Co-Sponsors of H. R. 1380, the T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill:
Read here. Jon Huntsman, another big government, big spending, liberal-loving Republican, has had a love affair with not only Obama, but with the Pelosi approved 'cap & trade' schemes that she tried to jam down the throats of Americans.
Recently, Huntsman had this to say about global warming in an obvious attempt to defend his desire for the big government, 'cap & trade' CO2 tax scheme:
“I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them.”
Well, I'm not a presidential candidate but I believe at least 90% of Republicans know that Jon Huntsman is just another self-absorbed, power hungry, big tax, and big spending liberal Democrat. If Huntsman had any principles, he'd listen to that 90% and run as a Democrat presidential candidate.
Read here. There are some self-anointed Republican presidential candidates, such as Newt Gingrich, who now find themselves at a significant disadvantage to several of their peers. Simply put, Gingrich and a few others embraced the bogus, and non-scientific, UN IPCC approach to climate science...
"...the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”"
Since even the IPCC Climategate-type of scientists are now admitting to a non-empirical, non-evidence, non-scientific approach to climate science, it would behoove (imperative?) Gingrich and similar presidential candidates just admit to being grossly mislead by the political-agenda driven "scientists." By doing so, these AGW-tainted Republican candidates can then aggressively call for certain scientific policies that would put climate science back into the real-world, empirical realm.
What type of policies could Gingrich et al. call for that would enhance the empirical methodology of climate science versus the speculative, non-verifiable version of current IPCC "climate science"? How about these simple ones for starters:
Call for a reduction of the billions spent on non-empirical, non-verifiable climate models, and then invest a portion of those savings towards a state-of-the-art surface temperature measurement system. This new surface temperature measurement endeavor would rely on objective, automated measurement technology that is equal to the NASA satellite and the ocean ARGO technology currently utilized.
Call for an independent and complete forensic audit of the global and U.S. temperature datasets currently published by America's climate agencies.
Call for an independent and complete forensic audit of all U.S./global coastal tide gauge measurements.
Call for a complete withdrawal (money and researchers) from the United Nations controlled IPCC boondoggle until points #1-3 are accomplished. Americans deserve to know the actual climate facts before any more money or personnel are wasted on the corrupt UN effort.
Don't hold your breath regarding the above points, though. Republican candidates such as Gingrich, Pawlenty, and Huntsman are not leaders. They are strictly political animals, like John McCain, with no principles other than pleasing the Washington Post and other liberal coastal elites/pundits.
Read here. Previously, we wrote about Pelosi's Republican couch toy-boy, and his embracing of global warming hysteria and the left/liberal big government nirvana of 'cap & trade'. And as mentioned previously, he is now getting trashed largely because of his past big government, big ethanol, and big green beliefs.
Fortunately for the American consumer and small businesses, the public has come to the realization that human-caused, catastrophic global warming was fabricated hysteria, and the onerous 'cap & trade' legislation was the elites' hypocritical attempt to prosper by imposing more misery on the middle class. Unfortunately for Newt, the middle class America remembers his and her advocacy for 'cap & trade' and the hysterical embrace of global warming fears.
Sooo, how could Newt Gingrich ever recover from his idiotic embrace of the big green, big government, big ethanol and other fanatic environmental stances? Well, it won't be easy, but if he acted quickly and loudly on just a handful of key points he could become a real player with the small/limited government voters.
Here are 4 statements/ideas he could "embrace" and loudly publicize that would make his presidential bid at least viable, if not unbeatable long-term (if he pounds away on them):
1. If Newt were to say: "Speculative catastrophic global warming propaganda that Obama's EPA and the UN's IPCC publicizes is just that, simply speculation. We need better empirical evidence, not further speculative predictions from government computer models that have proven to be so wrong."
2. If Newt were to say: "Other nation's cap and trade policies have not worked as big government scientists and bureaucrats planned and promised, and in fact, have become platforms for only enriching the wealthy and enhancing organized corruption. The facts on the ground now show I was wrong on 'cap & trade' and it's good this legislation was killed. It pleases me that conservatives and libertarians drove the stake into this beast."
3. If Newt were to say: "The radical green organizations and Obama's EPA are attempting to label CO2 as a pollutant when it is absolutely necessary for life. Without CO2, we'd all be dead. What we should be focusing on instead is a legitimate pollutant called 'black soot' that scientists estimate causes 50% of global warming. This is a pollutant we can reduce without hurting America's middle class, and the result would be saving millions of lives from airborne pollution and also significantly reducing Arctic warming and melting."
4. If Newt were to say: "The United Nations and its IPCC agency has totally destroyed the credibility of climate science. It has also grievously harmed the overall reputation of general science because of the fraudulent Climategate-style of science it condones and encourages. The UN needs to be put on a short leash to prevent any further damage to science. Most importantly, the UN has to be completely eliminated from the climate change discussion among nations as Americans no longer believe any of the hysterical climate pronouncements made by the UN, and they shouldn't."
If Newt were to embrace the above four points, he would start getting some serious traction among those voters who massively turned away from the big government tide in the 2010 elections. As it now stands, if he does not robustly disavow and turn away from his incredibly stupid stances on global warming and 'cap & trade', he will never be a viable Republican candidate.
Read here and here. The infamous 'Newt & Nancy' video is the classic example of the primary problem in Washington - simply stated, it's the politicians. h/t: Climate Depot
Let's be blunt:
Any politician who believes the fabricated hysteria of catastrophic global warming is literally unfit for office.
Any politician who thinks that the American populace will put them in office to direct and manage climate change is literally unfit for office.
Any politician who believes the U.S. Congress and the bureaucracy should be responsible for the global climate is literally unfit for office.
Any politician who believes that Americans will put them in office to do the actual bidding for the United Nation's wealth redistribution schemes via climate change regulatory policies is literally unfit for office.
Finally, any politician who supports billions of big business subsidies for the absolute idiotic and incredibly wasteful ethanol program literally should never be allowed near the White House.
Well now.....based on those parameters, then Newt is literally unfit for office, especially the Oval Office. He is the wrong man, at the wrong time, for our modern economic and employment problems, and our soon to crash and burn, out-of-control federal government debt/spending.
The huge, exponentially growing problems this nation faces are not the result of either global warming or global climate change. They are the result of politicians with delusions of grandeur and believed omniscience, which Newt embodies big-time. He's the epitome of the problem that exists, not the solution we dearly need.
"“American Tradition Partnership welcomes Newt Gingrich’s entry into the Democrat presidential primary, where his decades-long record of radical ‘green’ activism will make for a close contest between he and President Obama for the liberal base,”..."As a paid operative of ethanol interests and an outspoken advocate of global regulatory regimes, redistribution of wealth, federal controls of private property, multi-billion dollar welfare programs for wind and solar and taxing Americans into what he calls ‘environmental compliance,’ Gingrich’s entry into the Democrat race was a foregone conclusion.”...“Gingrich’s 2008 TV ad he recorded at the request of Al Gore, where he snuggles on a love seat with Nancy Pelosi and blames the American economy for so-called ‘global warming’ is the kind of manifesto that really speaks to radical environmentalists. And we all know how much environmentalists love issuing manifestos.”"
"Gingrich was the only CPAC speaker who made a grandiose, rock star-style entrance down the aisle of the Marriott Ballroom, complete with spotlights and the raucous song “Eye of the Tiger.” Every other speaker humbly entered the stage from the wings, with relatively little fanfare...he pretends to be pro-job and pro-energy, but Newt Gingrich is truly a radical, liberal environmentalist of the highest order. He wants the government to pay people to be environmentalists, and he misguidedly claims that this is "public-private environmentalism" which upholds a partnership between the government and the private sector. His proposals are far from free market environmentalism. He wants to combine government with wealth redistribution...Gingrich has long advocated for what he considers “Green Conservatism,” and advocates for government intervention in free enterprise, the use of international organizations, free trade agreements. He even argues in favor of former President Jimmy Carter’s failed energy policy (Gingrich voted in favor of a federal Department of Energy, as well as the Department of Education, two unconstitutional policies comprising the core of Carter’s doomed domestic agenda)."
What is the real reason that global warming hysteria has failed? Why will voters never support CO2-reduction policies, passed by legislators or imposed by regulators, that raise energy prices even higher, decreases economic growth, and then depreciates the quality of life at the same time? Okay, here's three:
The public is very aware that the world has not significantly warmed over the last 15 years; that the seas have not risen up and created a flood of refugees; that polar bears are not going extinct or even dying in droves; and, that tropical forests are not disappearing (unless they are being cut down to grow biofuel crop income for the investment portfolios of Al Gore and George Soros). None of these hysterical claims (or others) from the global warming, 'CO2-is-evil' alarmists has come true. Why? Well, it's due to those above three numbers.
Okay, what are those three numbers?
In the realm of empirical evidence and statistics, they are recognized as pathetically low R-squared numbers. When a R2 is below 0.5, impartial, objective-based scientists will most likely reject the cause and effect predictive relationship that the number supposedly represents. When it's below 0.2, scientists absolutely know there is no cause and effect.
What is the 'cause and effect' these numbers represent?
These numbers represent the relationship between levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperature change (respectively, in order, NCDC, HadCRUT and NASA (UAH) satellite temps). These are the R2's for the 15-year period ending in February 2011, and clearly denote a non-relationship between higher CO2 levels and global temperature increases. (Note: Over the last 15 years CO2 levels have increased 8% yet temperatures remained, for all practical purposes, unchanged. That type of relationship produces a low R2.)
In essence, the empirical, statistical, and anecdotal evidence does not even come close to supporting the hypothesis that higher CO2 levels are causing accelerating warming, which hypothetically results in the aforementioned catastrophic events, and others frequently mentioned.
The general public realizes this non-relationship intuitively, despite the never ending, hysterical claims of the left/liberal/progressive/Democrat partisans. The public and voters are now unwilling to sacrifice their quality of life based on the UN's CAGW "science" bogosity that seemingly only results in enriching and empowering a select few, while having almost zero impact on global temperatures, per the actual science, by the way.
In summary, the Obama EPA's ClimateCare science is even more bogus than the flagrant ObamaCare rationale used to pass the despised big government takeover of U.S. medical care. It's time to eliminate the EPA's potential to do more damage to the economy than the non-existent, CO2-induced "accelerating" global warming.
The Big Lie: Global warming is accelerating and/or is "significantly" warming.
The Big Liars: Government-funded "global warming" scientists and associated compromised "researchers"; the MSM reporters/pundits; guilt-driven, CO2-spewing billionaires; Big Green special interests; and, of course, I-want-to-raise-your-taxes Democrat/left/liberal politicians and bureaucrats.
The global temperature empirical evidence is so clear cut, and verified, that two of the most prominent climate scientists on opposingsides of the global warming issue agree on the science fundamentals: there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years.
Update: NOAA previously stated that if global temperatures had not sufficiently increased over a 15-year period, then AGW climate models are falsified.
Conclusion: Any claim of recent "accelerating" or "significant" global warming is categorically a scientific falsehood. For unequivocal temperature fabrication information, visit here.
Read here. Based on the EPA's own analysis, its new draconian CO2 regulations would only reduce global temperatures by an unmeasurable 4/1000's of a degree (ºC) by year 2100. The estimated Democrat's CO2-reduction cost to be paid by U.S. consumers and businesses, to achieve a ludicrous 0.004º reduction, would amount to $7 trillion.
CliffNote summary for Republicans: American citizens are sick of stupid and wasteful government regulations, bureaucrats, increasing taxes and government employee union thugs. Killing the Democrat's insane CO2 EPA regulations is a no-brainer that requires only tiny cojones - just do it.
"In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imposing the first US rules on CO2. I thought I’d take a look at the EPA’s own estimates of cost and benefit of CO2 regulation, to see if the new rules make sense.....Total Cooling = 0.00375° C in 90 years.....Total Cost = US$78 billion per year times 90 years = US$7 trillion dollars with a “t”.....Finally, those are EPA estimates, the cost may well be higher. Government estimates of the costs of their own programs are notoriously way below what they actually turn out costing."
Both global warming proponent, scientist Phil Jones, and AGW dissident, scientist Richard Lindzen, agree on one thing: there has been no statistically global warming over the last 15 years. Theyeach made this assessment prior to 2011. With the February 2011 global temperature recently announced, their previous assessments are solidly affirmed.
In fact, there has not been statistically significant warming over the last 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30-years, ending February 2011. The gold standard of NASA technology, the best-of-breed global temperature measurement system, reports that long-term global warming over the last 30 years is essentially non-existent.
This lack of global warming over three decades is completely contrary to the AGW theory that mandates that atmospheric temperatures must rise substantially (significantly) due to the known massive increase in human CO2 emissions. The actual non-warming is also contrary to the UN's IPCC predictions, and all the "expert," billion-dollar climate models' predictions (click on images to enlarge)
Update: See additional information at bottom.
Not only has there been no global warming, as measured by NASA's satellites, the NASA satellites have also not measured a significant increase of water vapor (relative humidity) in the atmosphere, which is also mandated by the AGW theory. (source of below chart here)
Additional information for temperature chart.
#1. Last 5 years (60 months) anomaly difference since February 28, 2006; #2. Last 10 years (120 months) anomaly difference since February 28, 2001; #3. Last 15 years (180 months) anomaly difference since February 29, 1996; #4. Last 20 years (240 months) anomaly difference since February 28, 1991; #5. Last 25 years (300 months) anomaly difference since February 28, 1986; #6. Last 30 years (360 months) anomaly difference since February 28, 1981.
Read here. Republican members like to talk tough about controlling government spending and balancing the budget, but in recent years they've been all talk, and no walk.
With the 2010 elections showing that Americans want the uncontrolled U.S. spending to stop, NASA's climate science budget provides a perfect opportunity to show leadership through action: simply freeze NASA's climate science budget at 2010 levels.
'Freeze NASA now!' Kind of catchy tag line for serious budget cutters, plus it would surely be reflective of the actual global cooling of temperatures (click on image below to enlarge) the world really is experiencing, not the hysterical global warming that NASA's James Hansen keeps claiming.
The big scare that the greenie alarmist movement, Hollywood and the MSM is always shouting about is the scare of accelerating and huge sea level increases. They speak of 3-foot increases by 2050, or 10, 20 and 80 foot increases by 2100.
Where did all these incredible sea increase predictions come from?
It turns out that all these frightening predictions share a couple things in common: one, they are based entirely on fantasy, with no scientific or empirical basis; and two, they have been fabricated by a minority of individuals seeking the limelight, which the MSM has gladly provided for them without a shred of fact-checking.
How do the over-the-top sea level increase predictions really compare to reality, though? Not well as the below chart reveals. (click on image to enlarge)
The blue bars of the chart represent both historical estimates of sea level increases and actual tide gauge and satellite measurements from recent periods. Scientists know there was a gigantic ice-sheet and glacier melt over thousands of years that raised the sea levels some 120 to 130 meters (390 to 425 feet). When averaged out over thousands of years, the sea level increase is estimated to have been about 5.0 to 7.5mm per year - with some years achieving an approximate 40mm increase.
How do more recent and current sea level increases compare to the historical record? First, it is widely recognized by all scientists that sea levels did not increase much over the 1,000 years prior to the mid-19th century. Around 1850, measurements reveal that sea levels started to increase, and interestingly, glaciers started to melt and recede, globally. Amazingly, this was decades before the modern influx of human CO2 emissions, yet it was just at the same time when natural global warming followed the frigid and freezing natural global cooling of the Little Ice Age. (For global warming alarmists, Hollywood and the MSM, this is just an "amazing" coincidence and certainly these natural cool/warm cycles could have nothing to do with modern sea levels increasing or glaciers melting.)
Regarding those current sea level measurements? Well, the remaining blue bars (starting with #6) from peer-reviewed, empirical evidence studies show increases for different time periods that range from less than 1mm/year to 3.1mm/year, with the single year of 1980 recording a 5.3mm increase. In summary, all of these studies are based in reality and one can extrapolate (predict) from the empirical evidence that sea levels are increasing at about a one-foot per century rate, which even the IPCC concurs with. A one-foot increase by 2100 is entirely manageable and entirely non-scary.
Climate alarmist scientists needing government funding for their global warming catastrophe research do not like this inconvenient empirical evidence; and, for that matter, nor does the MSM since it relies on doom and gloom stories for increased readership and viewers.
Unfortunately, for those that embrace and promote global warming fears and climate change ("disruption") catastrophes, the most current sea level evidence is especially disheartening. Indeed, the last several years of tide gauge/GPS/satellite measurements have recorded global sea level increases that are trending to zero (see bar #'s 18 and 19).
How do the predictions of scientists or climate models compare to reality based on current evidence? Some predictions are in the realm of reality and they are represented by the gold bars - reasonable, with most being higher than what recent measurement studies indicate.
The predictions with orange bars represent those that are starting to escape the world of reality, though. Typically, these are "worst" case scenarios with a very low likelihood of occurrence due to their extreme assumptions.The vast majority of scientists would not agree to climate model predictions that excessively exceed both historical estimates and current measurement studies of sea level increases.
Then there are the red-bar predictions from a distinct minority of alarmists and scientists that get all the attention of the MSM press and Hollywood. These "red-bar" predictions literally are fantasy designed exclusively to gain the attention of the feeble-minded, unable to critically think. Ultimately, these predictions can't even be considered science fiction since they are not based on a scintilla of scientific evidence.
Not surprisingly, the red-bar predictions raise some very important contradictions that global warming alarmists would prefer not to reveal (besides not comporting to recent evidence), including:
1. They claim that the predictions are based on ancient evidence over the last 20,000 years that the world was significantly warmer, which caused large sea level increases. Note, they are stating categorically that modern temperatures are not "unprecedented" and the world will return to those significantly warmer past temperatures in the near future (which is not actually looking so "hot" based on the actual evidence.)
2. The ancient warmer world happened when CO2 atmospheric levels were well below the modern, industrial levels - there were no human CO2 emissions that caused the world to warm and the ice to melt.
3. When the ancient world warmed, ice sheets and low elevation glaciers were spread all across the northern hemisphere, well into the non-polar areas. Those no longer exist, which means there is not enough ice to melt in the non-polar regions that will deliver sea level increases that would rival ancient increases.
4. The vast majority of today's ice sheets and glaciers are located in areas of extreme cold temperatures (high latitudes and/or high elevations) that minimize the potential of melting. For example, at the Greenland ice sheet Summit, current annual temperatures are -31.0°C, and for the Vostok-Antarctica station on the polar ice sheet the respective temperature is a -55.0°C. Both of these extremely cold areas hypothetically could suffer a 20° increase in temperatures and nothing is going to melt - and by the way, no sane scientist even hypothesizes a 20°C increase in these polar areas.
5. Recentstudies of ice mass loss at both Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets show that the wild-ass, speculative predictions of climate alarmist scientists and their climate/ice sheet models are galactically over-estimating the losses.
To summarize Mr/Ms new Republican elected-official, the scary sea level predictions are pure fantasy, derived not from empirical, scientific evidence, but from the incessant, non-factual speculations of a minority of individuals seeking fame, power, control and fortune. These predictions are designed to pressure you to vote for more climate research funding, and also to vote for the increased taxation of consumers and small businesses to assure the subsidization of green-energy investments by wealthy investors and large corporations - it's as simple as that.
'Big Green' and its comrades have proven themselves capable of some the most outlandish lies in their incessant promotion of global governance, regulation and taxation of CO2 emissions. Possibly the biggest of lies is the one that today's modern temperatures are "unprecedented," never before warmer.
This big lie is the linchpin for all the associated hysterical, non-empirical, over-the-top, catastrophic predictions that are made by Big Green. Of course, when the actual, empirical, scientific data is actually considered, the big lie of "unprecedented" is shown to be a blatant falsehood.
As the graphs below reveal, there has been a general decline in polar temperatures over the last 10,000 years. Modern temperatures at both poles are well below their historical peaks.
Simply put, this means both humans and polar bears survived and adapted to warmer temperatures in the recent geological past. In addition, ice sheets outlasted extended periods of significantly higher temperatures in the past. (click on images to enlarge)
The other lie that the empirical evidence exposes as pseudo-science is that CO2 is the primary driving force of climate and temperature change. The ice core evidence is a stunning record of climate and temperature changing regardless of CO2 levels. Obviously, there are other natural forces in play that are the primary "climate disruptors."
That's not to say that human CO2 emissions have no part in modern warming, but it is more likely that a trace gas, like CO2, only has a trace affect on global temperatures and climate.
Notes: The average daily Vostok temperature (1958-2010) is the 2010 data-point for the Antarctica chart. The 2010 Greenland Summit temperature data point is average temperature of recent January through December monthly temperatures (added for modern context). The light gray columns in both charts represent CO2 levels, with 2010 estmated level (added for modern context) being the black column on far right.
YBP (years-before-present) figures were adjusted accordingly with use of year 2010 as end point.
Global warming and cooling are the result of natural climate change, which is clearly evident from the historical evidence. All scientists agree that the huge temperature swings that have occurred in the past are completely, 100% natural, cyclical behavior.
Likewise, research and the data are confirming that the warming periods of the 20th century follow this same historical, natural, cyclical pattern, regardless of human CO2 emissions. The two 20th century time periods below show almost identical warming, despite the earlier 30-year period having little CO2 emission growth. (click on images to enlarge)
Per the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) temperature data, the large influx of human CO2 emissions may, at best, have added another 0.05 degrees Centigrade to the most recent global warming century trend, versus the century warming trend that ended during mid-1940's (see above charts). In layperson's language, the human CO2 impact on temperatures has been about 'squat', per the NCDC data.
It is important to recognize and remember, as the actual modern 20th century data depicts (review above charts), global warming/cooling naturally occurs during both low and high CO2 growth regimes. The human CO2 impact on global temperatures has not been of any significant consequence, even over the longer periods, such as 30 years.
Let's say you're a climate scientist whose livelihood depends on government funding for global warming. What would you do to assure the global warming funding continues, so that you attain a secure future, financially and emotionally, in your chosen climate science field?
Well, if you wanted to convince U.S. senators to keep the monies flowing towards global warming research, one needs to do the following:
1. Convince the senators the global warming is unprecedented 2. Convince the senators that global warming is accelerating 3. Convince the senators that recent years are the warmest, evaaar.
How to do so? Amazingly, it's not been so hard to accomplish. Just adjust the actual temperature data to reflect "unprecedented" and "accelerating" global warming, and the "warmest" result just tags along. Then use this "improved" temperature data in presentations to convince the senators to deliver more money.
Are U.S. climate scientists actually this self-centered, sleazy and desperate to keep the monies flowing? Yep. And here's their most recent record of temperature data manipulation since 2008 - if you need global warming, just go back in time and fabricate it (some would call this data fraud, science malfeasance or hey, just flat-out lying). What's scary is that a lot of Democrats (progressives/liberal/leftists) condone and encourage this obvious "science" scam.
(click on image to enlarge)
By aggressively adjusting temperatures down prior to 1930's and by aggressively adjusting post-1930 temperatures up, the climate scientists are able to spoof the global warming trifecta: "unprecedented," "accelerating," and "warmest."
Read here. Al Gore et al keep pushing global warming myths that seem to wilt under the scrutiny of actual, real (non-computer model) science. In this case, the U.S. climate scientist predictions of Pacific islands sinking under rising sea levels turns out to be rubbish. Ahem...skeptics knew it to be rubbish from the beginning, btw.
"An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations in the Pacific which have loudly complained their low-lying atolls will drown as global warming boosts sea levels...Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm – an average of 2mm a year – over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size...used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands...They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change."
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.
Read here. In previous testimony given to the Senate, a climate scientist provided the following evidence that climate models don't work and should not be relied upon for policy decisions, unless being political toast is one's goal. Listening to climate model scientists and their supporters, and ignoring what really happened, is a guarantee for political 'toastdom'. (click on image to enlarge)
As the majority of voters in the U.S. have realized, these government climate model scientists/advocates have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and still they continue to be wrong, consistently....
Which part of natural climate change is so difficult for U.S. politicians to grasp? Natural global warming and global cooling: 75 major global temperature swings and it just keeps on ticking.....(click image to enlarge)