WTH is wrong with California?? Oh yeah, D E M O C R A T S:
Due to moonbattery, California is headed off the rails; let’s hope it doesn’t take the rest of the economy with it. The irresponsible kook Gavin Newsom — who has promised free healthcareto any illegal aliens who can sneak into the state — hasn’t even taken office as Governor yet, and plans to impose absolute lunacy are already underway:
The state assembly on Tuesday passed S.B. 100, a proposal to transition California to 100 percent emissions-free electricity sources by 2045.
You can’t run the world’s fifth largest economy on wind turbines, solar panels, and pious green thoughts….
Predicting climate temperatures isn’t science – it’s science fiction. Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains.
The following is a snippet from a large post I did for a USPS worker that wanted me to respond to the article from Time Magazine he handed over to me. My LONGER post is entitled:
Truth be told, they have NO IDEA. Why? Because they rely on computer models, not the actual climate.
Computer Models?
Yes, most of the headlines we read are driven by computer models or cherry-picking from one data set and not taking ACTUAL temperatures into account. For instance:
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
(CNSNEWS) Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH).
Christy’s findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR).
Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf)
“I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.” (See Tropical Mid-Troposphere Graph.pdf)
Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.”
“All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase.”
German meteorologist Dominik Jung writes at wetter.net that the first preliminary forecast for Central Europe for the upcoming summer issued by the NOAA does not look very favorable. Expect a “grisly summer”, he writes.
He writes that over the last 10 years spring has generally been on the warm and sunny side, but that Central Europeans have had to pay a price for that by having to put up with wet and variable summer weather.
Models wrong 11 out of 12 years!….
… more on this later. One thing you will notice in reading the LA Times article, every pro anthropogenic [man-caused] global warming person named has a professor, or scientist in front of their name or description. Those who disagree with “man-caused” global warming are merely described as skeptics. ALTHOUGH, you at least get this:
Climate scientists, meanwhile, have had a different response. Although most view the pause as a temporary interruption in a long-term warming trend, some disagree and say it has revealed serious flaws in the deliberative processes of the IPCC.
One of the most prominent of these critics is Judith Curry, a climatologist who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She was involved in the third IPCC assessment, which was published in 2001. But now she accuses the organization of intellectual arrogance and bias…
In case you are out of the loop, no warming has occurred in 16-years from when this article appeared in the Mail Online:
✦ The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
✦ This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years….
There will always be those who cannot admit the obvious, for obvious reasons (CFACT):
1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.
4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.
5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.
6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.
7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.
8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.
9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere.
I doubt it.
Here is a Patrick Moore quote that shows how the left has politicised the issues we are dealing with above and below:
“I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology…. many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not.”
John Coleman profiles scientist Roger Revelle, the grandfather of the Global Warming myth and Al Gore’s mentor. For more of a real tribute to Roger, see WUWT’s post.
Rupert Darwall explains why climate change has cynically been adopted as the cause célèbre by America’s wealthy elites, in particular in Silicon Valley.
Rupert Darwall chronicles how the fraud of the acid rain scare created a playbook for today’s climate change movement.
Some stright facts:
Myth: Acid rain has caused a large portion of U.S. lakes to become acidic.
Fact: In a recent study of 7,000 Northeastern lakes, only 3.4% were found to be acidic. Most of these lakes are just as acidic as they were before the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, most of the acidic lakes in the United States are in Florida, where there is the least acid rain.
Myth: Data taken by proponents of the acid rain theory is accurate and conclusive.
Fact: Proponents of the acid rain theory have rested their claims on a deeply flawed series of articles by G.E. Likens and his co-workers in the 1970s. A careful evaluation of Likens’ research conducted by a group of scientists at Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., reveals that his data collection and selection was deliberately biased to support the desired conclusions.
Myth: Acid rain destroys vegetation.
Fact: Acid rain actually has a positive impact on vegetation. The nitrogen and sulfur characteristic of acid rain, act as nutrients essential for plant growth. The world’s first acid rain study concluded that, “the principle effect of acid rain is the improvement of crop yields and crop protein content.”
Myth: Acid Rain is unnatural.
Fact: Rainwater is naturally acidic. Because water is such a good solvent, even in the cleanest air, rainwater dissolves some of the naturally present carbon dioxide, forming carbonic acid. According to EPA regulations, Ph levels any lower than 5.0 are environmentally harmful. Yet, an analysis of ice from the Antarctic and the Himalayas, deposited hundreds and thousands of years ago when the environment was presumably pristine, had Ph values ranging from 4.8 to 4.2.
Information from Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery Gateway, 1993); Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery Gateway, 1990).
…While media outlets are suggesting climate change is to blame for exacerbating Hurricane Harvey’s conditions, a much worse hurricane hit Texas more than a century ago—before Americans drove to work.
The media have been quick to blame climate change for the devastation, which as of this writing has resulted in 30 flood-related deaths.
There was a time when Americans were not flying, and hardly any were driving. And the storms were worse.
The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the most deadly natural disaster in American history, which led to an estimated 8,000 deaths. Kevin Murnane writing for Forbes notes the many similarities between Galveston and Harvey, including that both were category 4 hurricanes when they hit landfall off the Texas coast. Winds from Galveston were faster, at 145 mph compared with Harvey’s 130 mph, and its height of the storm surge was 15.7 feet, also higher than Harvey.
[…..]
Many media reports blaming climate change for Harvey used Michael E. Mann, a professor at Penn State and author of the controversial global warming “hockey stick” graph, as their source. Mann’s graph was widely used in the late 1990s to connect human activities to global warming.
Mann was later found to have “exaggerated” the impact of global warming in the graph by using “inappropriate methods.”
While careful to say climate change did not directly cause Harvey, the Washington Post said it “exacerbated the storm conditions,” linking to a piece written by Mann in the Guardian, calling it a “fact” that climate change made Harvey worse.
“Human-caused warming is penetrating down into the ocean,” Mann claims. “It’s creating deeper layers of warm water in the Gulf and elsewhere.”
“Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge,” he added.
Mann ignores the fact that the Galveston Hurricane had a storm surge of 15.7 feet, higher than the 7- to 12-feet storm surges seen from Harvey.
Man-made global warming is mainly attributed to carbon emissions, from industry and from transportation. There were only 8,000 vehicles in the entire country in 1900. Only 663 million tons of CO2 were emitted, compared with 5.333 billion today….
See also:
How Climate Change Is Being Blamed For Harvey After A Dozen Years Without A Major Hurricane (WASHINGTON TIMES)
Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist (WUWT)
Take particular note of the four records in Texas:
Galveston 1871 – 3.95” in 15 minutes
Woodward Ranch 1935 – 15.0” in 2 hours
Thrall 1921 – 36.4” in 18 hours
Alvin 1979 – 43” in 24 hours
Storm Harvey never got anywhere near these sort of totals. And we find a very similar picture when we review global records, with the most recent record being as long ago as 1980.
Perhaps a more intriguing question is how did its companion, disturbance 92L, come all the way across the Atlantic in a classic arcing path through Florida and up the East Coast *and fail to develop? What does that tell us?
There is much being made of Harvey and climate change. Meteorologically, as far as the intensity of the storm, let’s see where it ranks among landfalling Category 4 or 5 storms.
It’s tied for 14th. Look at the storm above it, Hazel. Now, let me ask you: Which is the more extreme as far as deviation from normal with pressure, which is a good metric to objectively evaluate how extreme a tropical cyclone is — a storm that hit in mid October in North Carolina, or one that hits on the central Texas Gulf Coast in late August? Let’s also look at Harvey in relation to other hurricanes in Texas. Behind it is the 1915 Galveston hurricane. That is the lesser of the two evils, because of 13th right above Harvey is the 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 6,000-12,000 people. And right above that one is the Freeport hurricane of 1932. Notice when these are occurring. Then there is the 1916 cyclone in Texas — just a year after the 1915 Galveston hurricane — and Carla in 1961. Again, this all occurred over 50 years ago. Then there is the 1886 Indianola hurricane.Tthey are all hitting in the area that Harvey hit. So the question becomes, if those same storms, almost all stronger, from many years ago hit today, would they be a sign of climate change? Why is Harvey — and not to downplay the storm, but it was one of many and less intense than most — a sign the climate is changing, but these other storms would not be?
[…..]
So if the 1935 Labor Day hurricane — the most powerful storm to be recorded hitting the US, a storm that went from a tropical storm to a Cat 5 in 36 hours — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?
If the 1938 storm comes back — a storm that took down two billion board feet of trees in New England, had major river floods in western New England, flooded Providence with 13 feet of water in a storm surge, and had a wind gust of 186 mph at blue hill — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?
[…..]
I can go on and on with countless storms.
The answer: It is nature doing what nature does. And coming out after the storm and claiming it’s something else reveals either ignorance of the past or, if you do know, an agenda based on deception. If I saw the people commenting on this now making a preseason forecast, or even five days before when the obsession was the eclipse, then perhaps I would be more open to those ideas. But telling people why after the what is Monday morning agenda-based quarterbacking. Perhaps that is the lesson of Harvey.
In an age of pseudo political “science” and a waning of an understanding of true heroism in the face of evil — mainly due to a lessening of what evil “is.” I previously wrote about this true hero that had her Nobel Prize swiped from her by the fraud known as Al Gore. Maybe he believes that “global warming” is the #1 issue facing humanity in order anesthetize his understanding that Irena Sendler is a TRUE hero of humanity — who fought real evil. Al Gore’s predictions have failed to come to pass (in Old Testament times he very well may have been put to death), and the following graph shows how fleeting political and environmental heroes can be in the face of real one… like IRENA SENDLER, who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize that year instead of Gore.
JOE BASTARDI finishes off a post (after the above graph) by saying this:
….But there is more to me. Let me lay my cards on the table. Over the years I have become a big fan of Israel. I am not Jewish, but I find the history of the Jewish people remarkable, if not astonishing. What happened in World War II cannot be put into words. Here we have a case of someone with actions far beyond the fantasy of a forecast of tomorrow that took a back seat to … what? Now let me ask you this: If you were in the running for the Nobel Prize against Irena, would you even accept the award understanding that what you are doing involves an agenda that is relying on future events versus actual heroic accomplishments in one of mankind’s darkest hours? Who would do that?
Even more distressing is the idea that you actually equate your cause with causes that have real value for the people who are involved in it. For instance, equating “climate change” with racial equality. That is a flat-out insult to that cause. Or labeling people who disagree with you as “deniers” or “Nazis,” which shows total disrespect for people who can never forget what happened in one of man’s darkest hours. Shame on you. Shame on you trying to equate your straw man argument with real problems that people bled and died for and the problems the world faces today. Shame on the people who think that the heroism of the past is less worthy than fantasy-driven utopian agendas in the future.
I am glad Al Gore has his new movie out. It reminded me of Irena Sendler, who he beat out for the Nobel Prize. Because it gave me a chance to write on someone whose story should be known and once again expose someone who has gotten rich off something that can’t hold a candle to the bravery of people in the era that Irena Sendler exemplified.
Is this an example of the Left relying on old white, wealthy males to guide society rather than lauding women of history?
(Above) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT’S SO ALARMING? || Are droughts, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters getting stronger and more frequent? Are carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures and sea levels putting us on a path for climate catastrophe? Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, breaks down the facts about the environment and shows why the reality of climate change may be very different from what you hear in the media.
DO 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS REALLY AGREE? || Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.
FOSSIL FUELS: THE GREENEST ENERGY || To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.
CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY? || Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
ARE ELECTRIC CARS REALLY GREEN? || Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars’ production? And where does the electricity that powers electric cars come from? Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, examines how environmentally friendly electric cars really are.
IS CLIMATE CHANGE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM? || Is man-made climate change our biggest problem? Are the wildfires, droughts and hurricanes we see on the news an omen of even worse things to come? The United Nations and many political leaders think so and want to spend trillions of tax dollars to reverse the warming trend. Are they right? Will the enormous cost justify the gain? Economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains the key issues and reaches some sobering conclusions.
CAN WE RELY ON WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY? || Is green energy, particularly wind and solar energy, the solution to our climate and energy problems? Or should we be relying on things like natural gas, nuclear energy, and even coal for our energy needs and environmental obligations? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains. Learn about Alex Epstein’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
WHY I LEFT GREENPEACE || Patrick Moore explains why he helped to create Greenpeace, and why he decided to leave it. What began as a mission to improve the environment for the sake of humanity became a political movement in which humanity became the villain and hard science a non-issue.
WHAT THEY HAVEN’T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE || Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.
THE TRUTH ABOUT CO2 || Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.
TREES ARE THE ANSWER || Everybody loves trees, so why are they so controversial? Patrick Moore untangles the knotty issue of “deforestation” and shows how, from a purely environmental perspective, it is possible and desirable to grow more trees and use more wood products.
WHY YOU SHOULD LOVE FOSSIL FUEL || Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity’s economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.
IS ORGANIC FOOD WORTH THE COST? || Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Are they better for animals? Are they better for the environment? Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains.
CAN A DESERT NATION SOLVE THE WORLD’S WATER SHORTAGE? || From California to Africa, we are facing a global water shortage. But one tiny country, in the middle of a desert, has found remarkable solutions. Which country? And can we replicate its success? Businessman and New York Times bestselling author Seth Siegel explains. (SEE ALSO: “Do You Pass the Israel Test?“)
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.
Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is “Dead Wrong”. This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.
Larry Elder notes Dean Baquet’s, executive editor of the New York Times (the top position in the newsroom), admission to the Left not wanting to hear thoughtful responses to issues from a counter viewpoint. Here is NEWSBUSTERS comments on the issue:
Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller harped on something New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said Wednesday at the Recode conference in California. In discussing the Times editorial pages — and the liberal reader anger over signing up right-leaning columnist Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal — he used the royal “We” in describing the Left, until he caught himself, and “I’m not ‘we,’ I’m a journalist.”
Recode’s Peter Kafka brought up a New York magazine article by Rebecca Traister reporting Hillary Clinton being angry about the Stephens hire: “Why… would… you… do… that?…66 million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them!”
Baquet insisted Stephens is not a “climate denier,” but that he thinks climate activists have turned their crusade into a “religion that brooks no disagreement.” Baquet liked having a “thoughtful voice” like this in the paper. Kafka shot back “One of the arguments that people have is, look, there’s plenty of places to find news from ‘climate skeptics,’ if you want to call them that,” and if the Times wanted to stand for something, they should “embrace the left side” of the spectrum. Baquet insisted the editorial pages were meant to have more than one side.
Here is the link to the other articles referenced in the above audio:
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” ~ TRUMP
(ABOVE) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
I Love Capitalism over at GAY PATRIOT notes quickly this:
Today I want to give the short version. With short sentences. For lefties.
The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. It let China, India and Russia do what they wanted. Oooh, Russia! Bad!!!!1!! Right?
The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. Even the UN scienticians agreed that it made almost no difference to their Global Warming projected temperatures.
The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to wreck its workers’ lives and futures.
The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to give away tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, to pay Third World kleptocrats to hold back their countries.
Hey lefties: If you didn’t know these things, I’m sorry you’re so gullible…
The Paris Climate Deal Was A ‘Fraud’ And A ‘Sham’ … Until Trump Decided To Ditch It
Shouldn’t environmentalists be celebrating the fact that President Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris climate-change agreement? After all, when it was signed, many of them called it a fraud, or worse.
The reaction to Trump’s announcement was ferocious.
Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer said Trump is “committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.”
John Kerry declared that Trump’s decision “will rightly be remembered as one of the most shameful any president has made.”
The ACLU said that dropping out of the Paris agreement is “a massive step back for racial justice and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.”
These are the more polite responses.
Yet it was only a little more than a year ago that climate scientists and environmentalists were viciously attacking the Paris agreement itself. The goals were too low to make a difference. There was nothing binding any of the signatories to live up to their promises, and no enforcement mechanism if they didn’t. It just kicked the can down the road.
James Hansen, the undisputed hero of the climate-change movement, called the Paris deal “a fraud really, a fake. … It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.”
A joint letter signed by nearly a dozen top climate scientists said the agreement suffered “deadly flaws lying just beneath its veneer of success.” These scientists complained that the agreement could actually be counterproductive, since it gave the impression that global warming was being dealt with when in fact it wasn’t.
A study in the peer-reviewed journal Global Policy said that even if every country lived up to its CO2 emission reduction promises through 2030, the Paris deal would “likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.”
“Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades,” the study concluded.
Kevin Anderson, a climate-change professor at the University of Manchester told the London Independent that the Paris deal was “worse than inept” and that it “risks locking in failure.”
[I will] say this much for the climate commies who are squawking so loudly about the end of the world. At least they aren’t dumb enough to believe their own lies. If they were, they would live very differently. Matt Walsh will start believing that they believe what they insist we believe when they start living like the Amish:
I can only imagine how I would react if I actually believed that the extinction of all mankind was imminent, and my lifestyle was directly contributing to it. At a minimum, I would not drive a car anymore. Ever. At all. I would ditch electricity. I wouldn’t eat any kind of meat. I wouldn’t buy mass made consumer products. I wouldn’t give my money to any company that sells items made in factories with giant smokestacks. Those smokestacks are literally killing people. How could you continue shopping like everything is normal?
A great couple of paragraphs are posted by MOONBATTERY after the above… and then this:
…And if those who advocate it don’t believe it, why should the rest of us take so much as a second out of our lives to consider its merits?
And this is a great transition because we can tell that those who have the funds to put their money where their mouth is (the wealthy) and preach about this the most (Manhattanites and the Entertainment industry) do not believe their own rhetoric. Why? See below…
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the National Sierra Club. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Trump melted the ice caps. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17.26-27, with a wee bit of the fear-mongering changed)
(Gateway Pundit): Seven years ago ABC News warned viewers that New York City will be under water by 2015 due to global warming.
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015.”
“One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.”
The only way food would be soo high is if Obama’s war on affordable energy works it’s course! How come Manhattan property is through the roof!
(Breitbart) In 2006, on NBC’s Today Show, former-Vice President Al Gore predicted that Manhattan would be flooded in “15 to 20 years.” He added, “In fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.” Just 3 years ago, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority predicted that within the next ten years, “Irene-like storms of the future would put a third of New York City streets under water and flood many of the tunnels leading into Manhattan in under an hour because of climate change[.]”
By hook or crook, through super storms or glacier melt, Global CoolingGlobal Warming Climate Change has doomed the Big Apple.
What we have here are two of the most respected environmental voices among the political Left — Gore and the government — warning of dire flooding hitting Manhattan within the next 10 years. And at least according to their activism, the predominantly left-wing, Global Warming believers of Manhattan are listening. Furious about the lack of wealth-distribution that will save the planet and their small island, just 6 months ago, more than 300,000 took to the streets of Manhattan to protest.
And yet, a funny thing is happening in the real world of the free market. Manhattan might be the elite media/entertainment/intellectual hub of the cult of Global Warming, but where the rubber meets the bottom line, the cult obviously doesn’t really believe in its own propaganda. If they did, Manhattan real estate prices would be collapsing, not hitting record highs as they currently are.
If people truly believe an area is going to be flooded as soon as in the next decade, those same people would be selling off their real estate. Not just to escape but to sell before conditions worsened and real estate prices bottomed out further. As the deadline loomed closer, prices would decrease further.
The average Manhattan home price is now over $1.7 million. With some apartment prices now breaking nine figures, it’s time to take a look at the booming New York real estate market and explore where middle class families fit into the picture.
At 157 West 57th Street, the most expensive New York home sale was just completed with the penthouse of this new building going for over $100 million.
Howard Lorber, the chairman of Douglas Elliman, the city’s largest residential brokerage, told me that there is no sign of this trend slowing down. He called New York a safe place for people around the world to invest in real estate.
Maybe what’s happening is that Manhattan’s left-wing Global Warming believers are suckering right-wing Climate Deniers into buying doomed real estate at record prices?
The average sales price of an apartment in Manhattan is expected to top $2 million this year for the first time, but prices are seen leveling off in 2017 after nearly doubling over the past decade.
Prices were pushed higher by a jump in sales of condominiums valued at $10 million or more, which skewed results, CityRealty, a real estate listings and data website for New York City, said on Wednesday.
The opening of 432 Park Avenue, a 96-story tower marketed by developers as the tallest residential building in the Americas, had an outsized effect on prices, said CityRealty research director Gabby Warshawer.
Fifty-two of the 75 units sold at the tower overlooking Central Park fetched more than $10 million, she said. Some units are priced at more than $40 million.
An increase in new developments and a rise in the price of existing units also lifted the market, Warshawer said.
[….]
The median price for apartments, or the middle of all sales considered, also set a record at $1.2 million, up from $1.1 million last year, in the area examined.
A decade ago, the price of new condo units was almost the same as existing ones, but prices at new developments since 2008 have outpaced those of existing ones.
The average price for an apartment in the area of Manhattan examined was 91 percent higher than in 2006, CityRealty said.
Prices have climbed every year since 2011 but are expected to flatline next year. A lack of expensive, large new buildings will act to keep prices in check in 2017, CityRealty said.
A great response to a mushy response to AGW skeptics, here is the typical charge:
Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.
1. A medical doctor is a highly-qualified professional. Medical doctors must successfully complete a medical school, spend 3-7 years in residency actually treating patients, and be licensed by a state medical board composed mostly of proven doctors.
In contrast, anybody can call him- or herself a scientist and speak on behalf of science. There are no licensing or certification requirements….
[….]
2. A medical doctor is accountable. A doctor would lose patients or be fired if his or her advice isn’t sound. A doctor can also be sued by a dissatisfied patient. In a number of cases, doctors have been indicted.
A putative climate scientist can hardly even be criticized….
[….]
3. Patients have direct bidirectional communication with their doctor. “Direct” means that the patient usually speaks face-to-face with the doctor. “Bi-directional” means the patient can ask the doctor questions and get answers. Very few accept TV personalities’ talk as real medical advice.
The so-called “climate science” is usually communicated to the public in third person point of view like “The scientists say that …”, “Majority of peer-reviewed articles conclude …”, and even “Models show that …” These used to be typical introductory clauses before statements about alleged climate dangers…..
[….]
4. One takes initiative to seek a doctor, rather than the other way around. Any unsolicited email offering a medical procedure or a wonder pill is sent straight to the spam folder.
But climate alarmism promoters always come unsolicited! …
[….]
5. Doctors do not demand patients to trust them. They earn their trust.
Climate alarmists demand trust because they have earned mistrust.
I would like to finish by paraphrasing Edmund Burke:
Alleged science looks for defense from Washington when it fails in the real world.
