Wednesday, February 29, 2012
"So, it turns out that Heartland was behind the Heartland leak after all.
The evidence seems to suggest that Heartland's Joe Bast wrote a memo, then he and/or Heartland-symp blogger Steven Mosher sent it secretly to Peter Gleick. Peter Gleick then obtained additional material from Heartland, which came to him at his request but all to easily to be explained as a mere oversight on the part of some administrative or secretarial staff. The only thing missing here is evidence that Bast or Mosher or someone suggested to Peter that he verify the memo by asking for related documents from Heartland. But that would be too easy.
Damaging tornadoes? Yes. Overwrought headline? Absolutely.
I would say that The New York Times had jumped the shark, but you have to separate from the shark first in order to jump it. The Times has been grasping the shark in a death-embrace for years now, when it comes to both weather and climate journalism.
International panel selectively chooses scientists it knows will push a 'melting planet' agenda
Continued Crumbling Consensus: Austrian Space Research Institute Director Baumjohann Says Sun Cannot Be Ignored!
Fox's Doocy Promotes Sen. Inhofe's Claim That "Global Warming" Is A "Hoax" Used "To Redistribute Wealth" | Media Matters for America
So now apparently the global warming hysteria argument is going to be that "rising" temperatures cause cold, freezing winter storms.
And, in a fitting finale to the summer that wasn't, a forecast rain band curving from the Top End down to Victoria and up through southern NSW is expected to dump record rains across three states on the final day of the season and into the first week of autumn.
LA Times fears "centuries of weather extremes, drought-fueled global famine, mass migration, the vanishing of low-lying islands and territories as sea ice melts away, wide-scale species extinction and other horrors too numerous and depressing to list"
I was amused by the statement:
"In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies."
INHOFE: Well first of all, hoax is something that is accepted or established by fraud or fabrication. And that's exactly what we're dealing with here because they put down – let me go back. Remember Richard Linzen? I'm sure you'll say something bad about him.
COLMES: No, I don't know who he is.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Once again, the population is treated like total morons. "CP", or carbon particle, lectures us on how we should cut emissions and lead virtuous low carbon lives. Unfortunately, particulate carbon has NOTHING to do with global warming, climate change or whatever. Carbon dioxide, the alleged part-cause of the modern warming, is a harmless, invisible, trace gas.
Could Lewandowsky please tell us which lies and deceits he'd excuse in the global warming cause? How confident is he that other warmists haven't already made that calculation, and that his own warmism isn't based on a gaggle of lies, half-truths and hidden declines?
. In a well-documented speech in Steubenville, Ohio, this man who would be president asserted that global-warming claims were based on "phony studies" and that climate science was in fact only "political science."
"When it comes to the management of the earth, they"--I'm not sure if this refers to all Democrats, all climate scientists, or all those who believe in evidence-- "are the anti-science ones. We are the ones who stand for science, and technology."
Could there be any more direct threat than this to the very foundations of education: the ability to formulate arguments based on evidence, to use language with precision, to think critically and analytically?
In the Carleton course, Harris has promoted a series of irrelevant, misleading or flagrantly incorrect bromides, including:
- "The only constant about climate is change."
- "Carbon dioxide is plant food."
- "There is no scientific consensus about climate change causes."
- "Prepare for global cooling."
- "Climate science is changing quickly."
It was prompted when I very vocally expressed my disgust at one of the standard phrases trotted out by Warmists and other eco-loons in these debates (as, of course, inevitably, they did again on Sunday): the one about "preserving the planet for future generations".
The reason this cant phrase makes me want to throw up every time I hear it is that it's such a grotesque inversion of reality. It's not people on my side of the debate who want to ravage the countryside with wind farms (with no provision for decommissioning them), rein in economic growth, introduce wartime-style rationing, raise taxes, destroy farmland and rainforests to create biofuels, and base heinously expensive public policy on hysteria and junk science. It's not people on my side of the debate who are condemning those "future generations" to a lower standard of living and an uglier environment in order to deal with a problem that doesn't exist. So how dare they have the gall to try to take the moral high ground?
Ben Pile has a really good summary of the Fakegate affair up at Spiked.
The myth of the climate change denier exists in the heads of environmentalists, and seems to prevent them entering into conversation with anyone that dares to criticise environmentalism. The crusade of 'communicating' climate change is not a project that involves an exchange of views. To criticise environmentalism is to 'deny The Science', no matter how incoherent the environmentalist's grasp of science or how lacking his or her sense of proportion.
An Example Of The Reasons That Skillful Multi-Decadal Predictions Of Climate Change Has Not Been Achieved – “Long Tails In Regional Surface Temperature Probability Distributions With Implications For Extremes Under Global Warming” By Ruff and Neelin 2012
The Guardian reports on the vast risk-free profits made by wealthy titled landowners as a result of the windfarm revolution that the Guardian itself has done so much to bring about through its incessant harping on about the dangers of climate change.
In unrelated news, I understand that Mike Kelly has an article a letter in the Times today. Richard Horton (of Russell inquiry fame) tweets:
A Cambridge Prof of Technology writes in The Times today that climate change "science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm."
In the short-term, CSLDF would greatly appreciate your financial support to help Dr. Michael Mann. Funds are needed to:
- Fend-off ATI's demand to take Dr. Mann's deposition, which is a blatant attempt to harass and intimidate him for exercising his constitutional rights by petitioning to intervene in the case.
- Defeat ATI's attempt to obtain Dr. Mann's email correspondence through the civil discovery process, which essentially is an "end-run" around the scholarly research exemption under the Virginia FOIA law.
- Prepare for summary judgment on the issue of the exempt status of his email correspondence under the Virginia FOIA law.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Yes, "generating a kilowatt-hour's worth of electricity with a natural gas turbine emits only about half as much CO2 as from a coal plant," says Harvey, and that's great. "But one molecule of leaked gas contributes as much to global warming as 25 molecules of burned gas. That means that if the system for the exploration, extraction, compression, piping and burning of natural gas leaks by even 2.5 percent, it is as bad as coal."
Meanwhile Lucy Lawless has shrugged off revelations she acted in a 1990s television commercial for Shell Oil, the company she protested against for the past four days at Port Taranaki.
In the early 1990s Lawless acted as a pump attendant in a television advertisement for Shell petrol.
Yesterday, Lawless admitted she was in the advertisement but then immediately launched into an environmental tirade and ended the media session.
"I remembered only when we were up there (the rig) that I actually did. I was pumping gas and somebody, and I don't think it was me, said `it's the fuel of the future'. I don't think it was my character but I always remember that line. And ah, sadly it isn't the fuel to take us into the future, we've got to get something clean."
Greenpeace NZ executive director Bunny McDiarmid said they were aware Lawless had taken part in the commercial "20 years ago, when climate change was hardly a speck on the radar".
Climate Change Could Cause Killer Hurricanes in NYC: A simulation model by Princeton researchers warns of storms "the likes of which have not been seen" - chicagotribune.com
Under Oppenheimer's worst-case scenario, a hurricane the size of the one that hit New York City in 1821--which buried Manhattan under 10 feet of water--would have to strike at high tide. In the Princeton simulation, a storm of that magnitude could put Manhattan under more than 15 feet of water. Manhattan's current sea wall is just five feet tall, which, even under present conditions, makes it "highly vulnerable to extreme hurricane-surge flooding," the report says.
"My guess is, over the next few years, we are going to have more Katrina-style disasters happen and, hopefully, these will focus action on structural change and collective action."
Florida as we know it — beaches, fresh drinking water, the Everglades — will disappear unless action is taken to curb climate change, national environmental leader Carol Browner said at a dinner Friday night.
I'm reviewing the situation
What inventions will my audience absorb?
And they want to keep my writing out of Forbes3
With commas and parentheses4
I'll add my crafty syntheses
Their fiendish plan I will spell out
So there cannot be any doubt
'Til Megan5 calls it comic-book
And Mosher6 takes a careful look
I think I'd better think it out again!
Congress isn't planning to tackle climate change anytime soon, which means the Environmental Protection Agency is now America's last line of defense. But could the EPA's new rules on carbon pollution get tossed out by the courts? We're about to find out.
Vasseur's reseach shows water temperatures rising almost a decade earlier than expected.
"What to expect for the lobster? It may benefit at the beginning in terms of faster growth due to warmer temperatures," she said.
Everest could soon become impossible to climb because of global warming, says top Sherpa | Mail Online
One of the most prolific climbers of all time, who has conquered Everest a record 21 times, says he may not be able to do it again.
Why? Because climate change is making the world's highest and most treacherous peak unclimbable, Asa Sherpa contends.
It's good to know that environmentalists feel this way about telling the truth. We have had similar insider views on truth-telling from, for example, the Open University's Joe Smith, who reported the decision to issue tactical lies over the nature of the global warming debat.
Hard also to avoid Stephen Schneider's famous quote
Dan Satterfield, a broadcast meteorologist in the USA, has written an article for the NCAR website, linking weather extremes to global warming.