ABC’s Climate Predictions Made in 2008 about 2015

RUSH: Our buddies at the Media Research Center went back to their archives and they dragged up (or dragged out) a Good Morning America promo for a climate change special ABC was running back in 2008. Good Morning America played a promo for a special that aired that fall called Earth 2100, and I want to play for you a portion of the promo. Remember, ABC played this in 2008, 11 years ago on Good Morning America…

More from RUSH:

PETER GLEICK: (dramatic music) In 2015, we’ve still failed to address the climate problem!

JOHN HOLDREN: We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more (fire noise) wildfires!

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: (channel change sound effect) Flames cover hundreds of square miles.

MAN 1: (storm b-roll noise) We expect more intense hurricanes!

MAN 2: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don’t really know where the end is.

MAN 3: (channel change sound effect) Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.

MAN 4: (channel change sound effect) Agricultural production’s dropping because temperatures are rising!

HEIDI CULLEN: (images of hungry people) There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows!

TEENAGE BOY: (prediction of the future) It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.

MAN 5: (prediction of the future) Gas has reached over $9 a gallon!

MAN 6: I’m scared (bleep) right now. But I have to get this out.

RUSH: It was a bunch of young people in this ad. They were predicting that by 2015 — four years ago — milk would be 13 bucks a gallon, gasoline over $9 a gallon. The video effects show Manhattan half underwater

Australian Election Summed Up Well

WEASEL ZIPPERS hat-tiup:

AUSTRALIAN SPECTATOR:

The majority of the mainstream media have for months predicted either a Labor landslide, or a comfortable Labor win, with only a handful of pundits brave enough to suggest that the Liberals could or might win – but I repeatedly and consistently said on Sky News for the last six months that the Liberals would win and I never deviated from that prediction. None of the polls or prominent experts picked it, although of course writers at The Spectator Australia such as David Flint and John Ruddick most certainly did.

[….]

Laughably, a veritable army of commentators, pundits, doyens of the ABC on massive taxpayer-funded salaries and other red-faced experts spent election night blithering and blathering that nobody foresaw this result. Which is nonsense. We did.

The more important question is why those of us at this magazine and on this website who foresaw the result were correct.

For my part, quite possibly the fact that I am one of Australia’s more open global warming sceptics gives me an insight into how normal, real people – away from the latte-sipping, wealthy SUV-driving trendy inner-city types – actually think. This was indeed an election dominated by climate change. Labor put forward the most radical left-wing climate polices at the very time when, in various places around the world, voters who have lived with these policies are rejecting them. Common sense Australians have now rejected them too, recognising that climate change policies would financially damage them severely whilst achieving no change whatsoever to the planet’s temperatures, as was admitted by Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel. Australians have woken up to the fact that climate change is simply socialism in drag.

This was the climate change election, and climate change lost. This was the socialism versus capitalism election, and socialism lost. This was the identity politics versus traditional values election, and identity politics lost. This was the political correctness versus common sense election, and political correctness lost. This was the luvvies versus the tradies and small business people election, and the luvvies lost.

Take note those of you in the virtue-signalling business world who sneer at people because of their religious beliefs, their love of Australia, their traditional family and conservative values. If you pander to the Left and allow your business to be hostage to left wing activism, you lose. You lose market share. You lose profit. You lose customers. And now, as we have seen you lose votes….

The Green Deal’s Clown Shoes

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[…..]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)

John and Ken interview Mark Mills about the impossibility of society going fully “green energy.” The PDF report by Mark Mills via the Manhattan Institute can be found here:

From Ice-Caps to Polar Bears, The Left Gets It Wrong

(Originally posted in 2014)

This is connected to an older post titled, “Inconvenient Truths for FactCheck.org” which should also be part of a 2014 Christmas discussion titled, “Polar Bear Fraud ~ Highest Levels Eva!

Via the Daily Mail:

Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

  • Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore’s warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
  • An area twice the size of Alaska – America’s biggest state – was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
  • These satellite images taken from University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated

CLIMATE DEPOT – Headlines Come and Gone

UPDATED INFO

“Numbers are so high that Inuit leaders have been pleading with the Canadian government for more polar bear population control as violent attacks against native populations have dramatically risen in recent years,” pointed out Marc Morano at the Climate Depot website, which presents evidence countering the claim that mankind is causing catastrophic global warming.

A decade ago, many scientists predicted the population of polar bears would be down by 67 percent about now.

But the report by zoologist Susan Crockford, writing for the non-partisan Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, found that the bears are thriving.

[….]

The possible current population total of 29,500 “is a far cry” from the 7,500 “we were assured would be all that would remain.”….

via NO TRICK ZONE:

Ten years ago, polar bears were classified as an endangered species due to model-based assumptions that said the recession of Arctic sea ice would hamper the bears’ seal-hunting capabilities and ultimately lead to starvation and extinction.

The Inuit, who have observed these bears catch seals in open water for generations, disagree.  At least this is what scientists have found upon investigation.
There is no evidence that the fast reduction of sea-ice habitat in the area has yet led to a reduction in population size.” (Aars et al., 2017 )

Inuit observations: “back in early 80s, and mid 90s, there were hardly any bears … there’s too many polar bears now.  Bears can catch seals even—even if the—if the ice is really thinthey’re great hunters those bearsthey’re really smart they know how to survive.” (Wong et al., 2017)

Inuit observations: “No, because polar bears can go and follow the seals further [if sea ice retreats], so they won’t have trouble hunting. Also the snow covers the [seals’] breathing holes but polar bears can still hunt, it’s just for people. There is more rough ice, more thin iceBut it won’t affect polar bears’ hunting.” (Dowsley, 2007)

Reduction in the heavy multiyear ice and increased productivity from a longer open water season may even enhance polar bear habitat in some areas. … It seems unlikely that polar bears (as a species) are at risk from anthropogenic global warming.” (York et al., 2016)

Sometimes the “Western scientific understanding” of how the natural world operates conflicts with observations.

“The view of polar bears as effective open-water hunters is not consistent with the Western scientific understanding that bears rely on the sea ice platform for catching prey.  … [Participants] indicated that polar bear body condition is stable; they cited the fact that polar bears are capable of hunting seals in open water as a factor contributing to the stable body condition of the bears.” (Laforest et al., 2018).

The paleoclimate evidence, which shows that sea ice was thinner and less extensive than today for most of the last 10,000 years, also contradicts the assumptions about modern polar bear endangerment due to thinning ice.  One must ask: How did polar bears survive sea ice free summers in the ancient past if they existentially rely on thick sea ice to hunt prey today?

When the observations don’t agree with the models and assumptions, real scientists are supposed to reconsider their hypotheses.

[….]

In the 3 new papers referenced below, extensive observational evidence suggests that polar bear populations are currently healthier than in the past, and their numbers have been stable or growing in recent decades.

(LINK to read the papers)

Read more at WHAT’S UP WITH THAT. Here is more info on the Polar Bear numbers — because they are associated with sea ice:

New SURVEYS have shown that

“The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”

Mr. Gissing added that the government isn’t dismissing concerns about climate change, but he said Nunavut wants to base bear-management practices on current information “and not predictions about what might happen.”…

In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the numbers in the region had dropped by 22 per cent since 1984, to 935. They also estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them. ….

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. …… Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 25,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level] there has ever been.”

GATEWAY PUNDIT chimes in on the polar Bear “deaths” versus the facts — a while back (2011):

Then the truth started leaking out. After democrats passed their junk science “pile of sh*t” Cap and Trade legislation in June 2009 a report was released, and suppressed, that showed that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, were much higher than they were 30 years ago. In fact, it’s about time for a cull.

Polar bear numbers in Canada have increased in 11 of 13 regions in recent years. Polar bear encounters on the North Slope oil fields have risen to record levels the last two years. There are 5 times as many polar bears today as there were 50 years ago:

[….]

Despite the fact that the bear populations are booming, the Obama administration set aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a “critical habitat” for polar bears recently. The action that could restrict future drilling for oil and gas development.

Now, to top it all off, we find out the scientists who first reported on drowned polar bears is under investigation and likely fabricated the story.

(read more)

CLIMATE FLASHBACK: We Had A Decade In 1989

Bob Frantz (TWITTER) fills in for Hugh Hewitt and reads a 1989 Associated Press article about the dire warnings from the United Nations giving us a decade to turn it around.

  • “1989 FLASHBACK: U.N. Predicts Climate Disaster by 2000 if Global Warming Wasn’t Stopped” (BIG LEAGUE POLITICS)

Good segment – I added the “Goreacle” video and the full “Kat Timpf” segment from Greg Gutfeld’s show. (Related, “Occasional-Cortex Called A ‘Pompous Little Twit‘”) For more failed predictions see my: CLIMATE MANTRAS

The Green New Deal | Hugh Hewitt

This is more of some commentary by Hugh Hewitt on The Green New Deal. Hewitt makes the point that this isn’t socialism, but Communism. Jonathan Swan of Axios (TWITTER) joins Hugh in discussing the utter lack of thought involved in this New Green Deal.

Hugh Hewitt reads through the Green New Deal and has some fun time with the grammar and lunacy of the text and ideas. I include TARZANA JOE’S (below) poem dealing with the New Green Deal. Long but informative.

POEM:

This year, the job’s been put to me

And so I should begin

Reporting as per statute

On the state our nation’s in

Unemployment’s at new lows

The market’s at new highs

But don’t be fooled, these numbers are

Disasters in disguise

What you don’t understand

About what these statistics show

The folks who process food stamps

Will soon have to be let go

And no sign is more ominous

No harbinger more fervent;

More damning to our country

Than an angry civil servant

And so I call on businesses

To do this town a solid

So we can hire more bureaucrats

To send help to the squalid

To quote the Madame Speaker

When quite rightly she reflects,

Nothing gives more stimulus

Than unemployment checks

Our Green New Deal will be the boon

For which we’ve all been yearning

And power plants, instead of coal,

Will run on yearbook burning

Now any time a country’s fate

And future are addressed

It’s right the situation

At the border be addressed

Some view immigration

Dourly and dimmingly

But I’ve been to the Rio Grande

And things are going swimmingly

Walls are just immoral

Brick and Mortar, a disaster

So our new legislation will soon outlaw

Lathe and plaster.

I could go on with my report

But it might bring me tears

And sad to say it stays this way

For two (or six) more years 0000000000 0

A Great Rendition of Santa Cruz’s Classic Skate Symbol (#MAGA)

Of course the left thinks this “okay” symbol is racist, like everything is now “racist” (milk, the term “athletic,” criticizing the IRS, saying that Barack Obama lied, wanting lower taxes, Star Wars, your baby, craft beer, being white, lunch bags, etc., etc. TOWNHALL | TWITTER [Tucker Carlson] | WASHINGTON TIMES) | NATIONAL REVIEW | ZERO HEDGE [Tucker Carlson]). See, of course, my previous posts on the “okay” symbol, here and here. I assume that “racist things” and the list of things caused by “Global Warming” will compete with each other.

Of course, if you are not familiar with the original graphic from SANTA CRUZ, it made #3 in the TOP 50 GREATEST SKATE LOGOS.

The Science Is Settled, So Says Chuck Todd

Dennis Prager plays Chuck Todd and then takes 2019’s first disagreeing call. Dennis starts out the year on point. The WASHINGTON TIMES has a story on Chuck Todd,

NBC News has decided that climate change is no longer an issue that has two sides.

Sunday’s episode of “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd featured an hour long panel with lawmakers and scientists about the consequences of climate change. But at the start, Mr. Todd said his show is “not going to give time to climate deniers” and went on to inaccurately characterize the nature of the climate debate.

“Just as important as what we are going to do is what we’re not going to do,” he said. “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”

“We’re not going to give time to climate deniers,” Mr. Todd added. “The science is settled even if political opinion is not.”

[….]

“We need to stop covering the debate and start covering the story so that people see that this is real, and so that politicians take a more pragmatic approach and find solutions that are actually achievable,” Mr. Curbelo said about the one-sided discussion……..

Also, if you go to my main CLIMATE LINK PAGE — you will find these helpful topics related to the caller and some of the show:

✦ 22 (Two Examples of CO2 Brainwash)
✦ CLIMATE “CONSENSUS”
✦ ECO-FASCISTS! LEADING THE WAY TO DEMOCRAT UTOPIAN IDEALS
✦ Global Warming Good For Island Growth
✦ Hurricane/Tornado Myths ~ The Big Fizzle
✦ SERIES (Part 4) ~ CO2 Not The Demon It Is Made Out To Be
✦ Top MIT Climatologist Slams Consensus
✦ Wind Power Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy
✦ Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful

CLIMATE DISPATCH has the best “skinny” on the matter (emphasis in the original, except last sentence):

The Closing of the American Mind was Allan Bloom’s groundbreaking critique of “absolute understanding” in academia and the way that it undermines critical thinking.

If Bloom were with us today, we could imagine him writing a sequel devoted to the way the climate change industry has sought to silence dissent.

Chuck Todd gave a stunning example of the phenomenon this morning in his introduction of a Meet the Press special edition on climate change.

Todd quite literally announced that dissent would not be tolerated. Here was Todd:

“Just as important as what we are going to do this hour is what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.”

Quick: someone check—are we still in the USA? Or did “democracy die in darkness” and certain positions are verboten from public speech?….

[BOOM!]

See also: Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers

A Facebook Conversation On Global Warming

I posted a link to a WASHINGTON TIMES article discussing the alarmist aspects and possible connections to those that swallow whole the anthropocentric aspect of global warming in the writing of the most recent “National Climate Assessment.”

The report lists more than 200 authors and contributors, most of them federal employees but also dozens from universities, advocacy groups, foundations, think tanks and consulting firms specializing in advising governments and businesses on climate change adaptation and resilience.

The advocacy groups include the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and Arctic Institute. Others involved with the report are affiliated with the Brookings Institution, the Paulson Institute, and the Rand Corp., as well as the Kresge and Packard foundations.

Absent were prominent scientists affiliated with top research universities who have challenged catastrophic climate scenarios, such as John Christy, Judith Curry, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roy Spencer….

This is the response I got from a friend:

  • RT — 13 Federal agencies and hundreds if not thousands helped prepare that report, and you’re puking over 1 “Obama official”, who in all likelihood is now a “Trump official.” Grasping at straws. Again.

First, the idea that Trump replaces people in total is silly. But that red-herring aside, this comment led to a typical conversation where I ask for a dialogue, and insults and appeals to authority are the mainstay. I wish to share it as it may illuminate your conversations and the directions it should and maybe even should not go. (I may edit slightly the conversation and add media for presentation value, FYI.) Here is my first response — I will emphasize my repeated requests for dialogue:

So you say you have a myriad of experts and I have a myriad of experts…. pick a topic from the report that you think convinces you that man-made or guy that global warming is true. And let’s debate that one topic. because over the past week I’ve readquite a few reports by specialist/scientists it’s that refute that report. But no matter what they say we should look at the evidence.

Here is a non-technical readable article discussing the matter in this new report: Latest Climate Report Feeds into Alarmist Fearmongering (NATIONAL REVIEW)

RT responds:

  • They have. So called “Experts” on both sides. A helluva lot more on the global warming side.

This is a reference to the “consensus” many people believe because of the brainwashing of their minds by the media. This “consensus” has been disproved soo many times by specialist/scientists/statisticians to the laity. I ignored this discussion as I have PROVEN this to him time-and-time-again in the past. Instead, I want a dialogue. My response:

RT, about a third say that man is not driving global warming. about two-thirds say man is making an increase in global warming. Half of them say it’s no big deal the other half says it’s detrimental to our future. But I know you like to have others guide your life for you. That’s why you are really a Democrat at heart. So the original question is what piece of evidence -name one- that makes you think the man is contributing heavily to AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming).

I am trying to separate RT from his reliance on others to do his heavy lifting. You see, in the end, he comes to my Facebook wall to merely “tell the world” he like committing logical fallacies:

An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority’s support is used as evidence for an argument’s conclusion.

RT responds. And as you will see, a dislike for Republicans and Trump seem to always enter the conversation… stuff totally unrelated to my continued plea for dialogue:

You can really be an ass-hole, most if the time. You sit up on your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing,self-absorbed and self-important pedestal. You’re a far right conservative that no matter how much evidence is thrown in your face, you’ll always be a run of the mill classic denier in chief. We’ve had this discussion (?) in the past. I’ve seen evidence first hand on a huge scale. You’ve only read about it.

And honestly, the wimp factor aside, Democrats as a whole are a helluva lot nicer folks. Starting to lean back in that direction. My votes in the last election were mostly Democrats. Nevada put out a lousy Conservative candidate for Governor and waffling Dean Heller (helluva guy)no longer had Nevada’s best interests at heart. Threatened by Trump and he caved. Our stalwart Governor Sandoval despised our Right Wing Attorney General Adam Laxalt (Adam,You’re not your Grandfather, the Great Senator Paul Laxalt. Reagan was his greatest fan.) Adam defied the Governor at every turn and he cried during his loser’s speech. Wimpy ass NAVY dude.

I explain later in my responses why I quoted Larry Elder, but here is my response followed by his:

  • (ME) like Larry Elder says, “facts are like kryptonite to liberals.

RT:

You’re reading the wrong “facts.” Alice in Wonderland is a fairy-tale.

And nobody really cares about Larry Elder. Even to the concrete 28% that are stalwart Trump fans, few would even know the name. Why is it that the educated folks in this country are overwhelmingly in support of global warming facts? Maybe not happening as quickly as Gore predicted, but it is happening.

  • (ME) so you don’t want to discuss one idea that’s confirmed in your mind global warming.

He simply responded “no.” He said he has been-there-done-that. But he really has not. All his conversations are like these. He thinks he has made a point using facts to support generalization, but in reality just state his personal opinion in a way HE FEELS is like a dialogue. He feels like he has shared a deep meaning when in fact he has only meandered into unrelated territories.

In the previous conversation I was driving and using a hands free app. So the following is now when I am home, AND ONE SHOULD NOTE that I am about to show RT how to take positions in the negative and positive modes:

When I quote Elder, it is for this reason not only does the Left have an aversion for the truth they ALSO have a love in generalizing their opinions and solidifying them as true WITHOUT a single evidence suggested (a truth stated). Ergo, you run from a real dialogue because it would demand you take a position and defend it — scared that facts would cloud your idyllic vision. 

(POSITIVE) Here for example are just two evidences I would posit to suggest global warming is a plus for nature/mankind: we have a record number of Polar Bears, and almost all islands are growing, not disappearing.

(NEGATIVE) Here is an evidence that a main pillar of the AGW (Anthropocentric Global Warming) is wrong. Mankind has produced more CO2 in the past two-decades than the previous 100-years before it.

 

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

(22)

And temperature has stalled and is again in the past two decades is decreasing a bit. Why? Two reasons: CO2 is not an important driver of climate, and two, sunspots are.

Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere.

To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.”

The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak

(ICE-AGE NOW [BTW, I have read his book pictured to the left with the same title. Good stuff] | More at the SPACE WEATHER ARCHIVE)

AND my discussing your propensity to allow “experts” guide your beliefe based on failed computer models versus the evidence of climate, is just one of the many aspects of “what it means to be on the left.” Here are two of Prager’s six aspects dealing with “EXPERTS/MEDIA”:

— The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, “Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried,” liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.

It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is “question authority,” so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.

— The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts — such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, “expert” has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title “Nobel laureate.” The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver.

These are the three things one has to believe in order to be…well… you, I presume:

(Prager Again) ….“In the belief that there are people on the left who are more interested in understanding the right rather than in simply dismissing its decency, I would like to briefly explain why many thoughtful people are skeptical of the claims made on behalf of global warming.”

Those claims are:

  1. The Earth is warming to an unprecedented extent (in terms of man’s recorded existence on Earth).
  2. This warming is caused by human beings burning fossil fuels.
  3. This warming will lead to worldwide catastrophe by the end of this century.

One must believe all three postulates, otherwise the issue is moot. So, for example, even if one believes the Earth is warming but doesn’t believe this will lead to worldwide catastrophe, then global warming is irrelevant.

I don’t believe that all three postulates are true. And, more important, neither do many thoughtful scientists. The notion that virtually every scientist believes that man-made carbon emissions are leading to a global warming that will have apocalyptic consequences — in other words, that “the science is settled” — is repeated so often by the liberal media that many people believe it.

But it is not true [see my post on this]. Many distinguished scientists and many scientists who are not well known but who are in climatology and related fields question this alarmist thesis….

(also see Prager’s great list of links to the subject)

SO RT, rather than deal with any one inconvenient FACT, you belittle by saying my position is “Alice in Wonderland.” 

You can really be an ass-hole RT, most of the time. You sit up on your self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed and self-important pedestal. You’re a far left kook that no matter how much evidence is thrown in your face, you’ll always be a run of the mill classic denier in chief.

RT’s response? No response:

  • It’s hysterical how the far right dismisses science out of hand. Trump dismissed it without even perusing the reports. He doesn’t read anything. And his 28-32%’s will continue to fall on their swords for him. Sharpened yours lately? I know it gets a lot of use.

What his response failed to do is offer any evidence. Which I will note in the following response to how the Left and the media refuse to report about the falling temperatures in the past two years showing that the sun (not CO2) is the main driver of climate, and why one should be concerned about the cold and not warming.

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes, “was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.

Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage.

[….]

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets….

Not only that, but the man that programmed most of the satellites NASA uses to measure temperature (he is one of about three people that can do such a task) shows the same:

But remember, facts don’t matter. Just Trump Derangement Syndrome does. No worry about what evidence supports or refutes a position, just name the Donald and act as you brought information for others to be able to digest in supporting the claims initially stated further up in the conversation.

In fact, since we got out of the BIG ICE-AGE, temperatures have been fairly stable:

Global Warming Good For Island Growth

“Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise.

“88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted.

“It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size.

These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise.”- Duvat, 2019

[….]

In other words, the Earth’s coasts gained more land area then were lost to rising sea levels.

“Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.” (Donchyts et al., 2016)

As a visual example, Ahmed et al. (2018) find that Bangladesh’s coastal land area grew by 7.9 kmper year during 1985-2015.

“This paper draws upon the application of GIS and remote sensing techniques to investigate the dynamic nature and management aspects of land in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. … This research reveals that the rate of accretion [coastal land growth] in the study area is slightly higher than the rate of erosion. Overall land dynamics indicate a net gain of 237 km2 (7.9 km2annual average) of land in the area for the whole period from 1985 to 2015.”  (Ahmed et al., 2018)

CLIMATE CHANGE DISPATCH!


I wanted to draw the people who believe this (rising oceans) attention to a very old photograph compared to a new one to compare La Jolla (California) sea levels from 1871 to Now (REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE):

lajolla18712b

Also, Photographs show no change in Sydney sea level over the last 130 years (REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE):


Much like the “Polar Bear Scare” – Polar Bears reaching a record population since being measured, I tell my “warmist” friends that we should burn more CO2 because if we were worried about CO2 when the population was thought to be decreasing… why aren’t we lauding it as it increases?!

LIKEWISE – here is a report about the “disappearing islands due to “SEA RISE“:

ClimateFact Verified: Tropical Pacific Islands Are Not Being Drowned By Rising Seas

“…the pair of New Zealand researchers set out to examine historical changes in 87 islands found within the Jaluit Atoll…over the period 1945-2010. During this time, the islands were subjected to ongoing sea level rise and the passage of a notable typhoon…which caused severe damage with its >100 knot winds and abnormal wave heights…caused a decrease in total island land area of approximately five percent, yet Ford and Kench write that “despite [this] significant typhoon-driven erosion and a relaxation period coincident with local sea-level rise, [the] islands have persisted and grown.” Between 1976 and 2006, for example, 73 out of the 87 islands increased in size, and by 2010, the total landmass of the islands had exceeded the pre-typhoon area by nearly 4 percent.”

Should we encourage China to build MORE coal plants? Hmmm?

An older challenge was about ANWR… and running a pipeline from Alaska to a port. Eco-fascists use to tell me that it was bad for the caribou species in the area. Then someone did a study and found the caribou population thrived as they used the pipeline to break the harsh elements. After that study came out, the challenge faded into history. But, it caused headlines that swayed public opinion… truth being hindmost in the Left’s arsenal. One last example of this statement for context:

  • “The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders…. Dr. Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furor over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.” (David Rose, The Daily Mail, January 24, 2010)

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), [FN] 161.


See also:


JO NOVA catches us up with the latest studies involving islans shrinking:

This should end all the Pacific Island climate claims right here. A new study of over 700 islands for decades shows that even though seas are rising faster than any time in the last million years, somehow no islands with people on are shrinking. This means there are no climate change refugees from any vanishing island. Plus it’s more proof that highly adjusted satellite data is recording sea levels on some other planet.

Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted.

Look how closely these researchers are tracking the shores. Below on Tuamoto, French Polynesia, scientists can tell you that islets 12 and 14 (see pic) have disappeared since 1962. So we can track roving blobs of sand about 20 to 30 meters across.

No Habitable Island, None, Got Smaller:

The researchers reckon that 10 hectares is about the smallest island you’d want to plonk a resort on, that’s about that is about ten Rugby fields. Conveniently for us, no island bigger than 10 hectares shrank despite the world adding two thousand coal fired plants and a billion cars.

[….]

See the graph. All the larger islands are staying the same size or growing.

WATTS UP WITH THAT has the abstract and the conclusion of the study. Here is the abstract:

Abstract: Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted. Atoll islands affected by rapid sea-level rise did not show a distinct behavior compared to islands on other atolls. Island behavior correlated with island size, and no island smaller than 10 ha decreased in size. This threshold could be used to define the minimum island size required for human occupancy and to assess atoll countries and territories’ vulnerability to climate change. Beyond emphasizing the major role of climate drivers in causing substantial changes in the configuration of islands, this reanalysis of available data indicates that these drivers explain subregional variations in atoll behavior and within-atoll variations in island and shoreline (lagoon vs. ocean) behavior, following atoll-specific patterns. Increasing human disturbances, especially land reclamation and human structure construction, operated on atoll-to-shoreline spatial scales, explaining marked within-atoll variations in island and shoreline behavior. Collectively, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of atoll situations. Further research needs include addressing geographical gaps (Indian Ocean, Caribbean, north-western Pacific atolls), using standardized protocols to allow comparative analyses of island and shoreline behavior across ocean regions, investigating the role of ecological drivers, and promoting interdisciplinary approaches. Such efforts would assist in anticipating potential future changes in the contributions and interactions of key drivers.

Obama, Just Better Than Us

Smug Barack Obama Mockingly Explains How He Thinks He’s Better Than Most People He’s Worked With

He thinks American’s reject Climate Change because of: We Are Still Confused, Blind, Shrouded With Hate, Anger, Racism, Mommy Issues | May I say, if anyone has mommy/daddy issues, it is Barry.

Obama, speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit on Monday night, said the answers already exist to solve many of the problems facing both the U.S. and the world, but that the nation was not making progress “because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism, mommy issues.”

“People call me Spock for a reason,” Obama quipped. “I believe in reason and logic and all these enlightenment values.”