Climate and Weather

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax
Kurt Schlichter | Sep 09, 2019 12:01 AM
37320229-e1fc-4c9c-a065-d8b61462b013.jpg


Source: Yulong Snow Mountain Glacier and Environmental Observation Research Station via AP

I hate science, evidently, because I’m woke to the manifest truth about what the leftist elite currently calls “climate change." It is the second most staggering fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people after the media’s promotion of the unstoppable candidacy of Beto (who is a furry). Like some suckers still do, I once believed that “science” was a rigorous process where you tested theories and revised those theories in response to objective evidence. But in today’s shabby practice, “science” is just a package of self-serving lies buttressing the transnational liberal elite’s preferred narrative. Our alleged betters hope that labeling their propaganda “science” will science-shame you into silence about what everyone knows is a scam.

Nah. “Climate change” is a hoax. Come arrest me for felony denial.

Understand that the term “climate change” does not refer to actual meteorological phenomena but, rather, to the sordid rat-king of lies, scams and power grabs that we are commanded to accept as pagan gospel lest we burn to a crisp or drown or suffer...whatever the Armageddon du jour is. When you say “climate change is a grift,” and you should as often as possible, you are pointing out that this green-on-the-outside/red-on-the-inside fake frenzy is really just a set of intertwined grifts transparently designed to separate you from your freedom and your property in the name of somehow adjusting the weather.

Observing that “climate change” is steaming garbage served in a dirty ashtray is not disputing that the climate changes. That the climate is not static, and never could be static, is one of the myriad reasons that this whole idea is ridiculous. The planet gets hotter, it gets colder, sometimes quickly, sometimes over eons, and there are a bunch of reasons why, like the sun and volcanos. Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors, but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one. Of course, if they really cared about carbon, they would be up in arms about China and India, which are upping their output while we are slashing ours. Yet the object of their ire is your New York strip. Gosh, does that seem consistent with 1) someone truly concerned about atmospheric carbon, or 2) someone who trembles with joy at the notion of bossing around you rubes out in gun/Jesusland?

The underlying premise of their claims seems to be that there is a “right” temperature for the earth; watch them sputter when you enquire about that perfect setting for Earth’s thermostat. Remember, if you ask questions you hate “science.” If they did stop telling you how you hate “science” long enough to respond, they might explain that of course there’s no perfect temperature – it’s not like LA, where it’s always 72 degrees.

But then, what are they comparing the present climate to in order to declare that our climate is “getting worse?” If you establish a climate baseline, then you can compare what’s actually happening to the baseline and that might demonstrate that the whole thing is baloney. That would be awkward. It happened after Katrina. Oh, Katrina’s proof positive that Gaia is really ticked off and…and…and…then we had a bunch of years without much hurricane action at all. You might think that this would be evidence that maybe the climate wasn’t in chaos, and that they would be happy to be proven wrong, but no, it doesn’t work that way. Every time the weather fits the narrative, you see, it’s proof that the climate kooks are right, and every time the weather fails to fit the narrative, well, weather’s not climate. At least until the next heat wave or storm; then weather will totally be climate again.

Heads, you must give us all your freedom and money, and also tails, you must give us all your freedom and money.

Now, we’re being told that we’re all going to die in…I guess we’re down to what? About 11.5 years this go ‘round? Of course, we’ve been told many times that we’re doomed and the deadlines have come and gone with the doomsdayers not missing a beat. They’re like old timey Elmer Gantrys promising the apocalypse over and over again, with their hardcore true believers regularly showing up for the rapture over and over again no matter how many times the Four Horseman fail to turn up.

We haven’t even seen one horseman.

Back in the 70s, I remember we were promised an ice age if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. Then in the 80s, we were promised death by ozone hole if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, and then doom by acid rain if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom. By the time they started promising that we were all gonna die from global warming if we didn’t give liberals our money and freedom, I was still wanting my ice age. It would be nice to have a white Christmas in LA.

So, where’s my damn ice age?

Oh right, only a climate denier – Climate, I deny thee! – might wonder why we should hand over one, ten, a hundred trillion bucks to people who have never once been right about their predictions. You evidently hate “science” if you expect the “science” people to be correct at least one time in a half-century.

And they’re not even good at short-term prognostication. Heck, for several days Hurricane Dorian was supposed to slam head on into Florida and then…it didn’t. The Obamas just bought a $15 million pad on the beach – what’s that say about their faith in “science?” But don’t worry, the guys batting .000 so far will definitely get the temperature in 2119 right if we only just write them a huge check and transform ourselves from citizens to serfs.

That’s another big red flag – have you noticed how “science” always tells us that the only possible response to the climate hullabaloo is to give liberals exactly what they always wanted anyway? How lucky are the leftists to have had an existential problem drop in their laps where the only solution is to give them everything they could not otherwise convince us to give them? What a remarkable coincidence!

And what’s also weird is how nothing that we must do right now no time to debate it’s a crisis think o’ the children in any way inconveniences or calls for sacrifices from our climate crisis-pushing elite. Boy, they really scored with climate change – if they were going to manufacture a crisis in order to get the power and money they craved, how would they do it any differently?

Now, they might claim that they too will have to sacrifice to the Angry Weather Demon, but it’s unclear how. I suppose they might stop flying across the globe to climate finger-wagging festivals in private jets, but call me jaded for thinking that if it’s such a crisis today and they have not stopped doing it yet, they won’t stop jetting about down the road. Oh, but you will. You most definitely will stop flying and driving the vehicles you choose and eating cheeseburgers and using straws that don’t disintegrate into gummy sludge in your Dr. Pepper. But them? Pete Buttigieg explained away his zipping around in Gulfstreams as necessary because it is important for him to be pestering people in Des Moines. Bet you that pretty much everything our betters want to do will turn out to be “important.” And I’ll bet that nothing what you peasants want to do will.
 
September 9, 2019
Once again, climate warriors rescued from their ship trapped in polar ice
By Thomas Lifson
Warmists never learn! The conviction that global warming is melting ice in the polar regions has once again led climate warriors into danger and the need for rescue. The MS Malmo, a Swedish-registered ship, was just rescued after being trapped in ice, and its passengers airlifted to safety. Get a load of what it was doing, via Maritime Bulletin:

Arctic tours ship MS MALMO with 16 passengers on board got stuck in ice on Sep 3 off Longyearbyen, Svalbard Archipelago, halfway between Norway and North Pole. The ship is on Arctic tour with Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with Climate Change and melting Arctic ice. All 16 Climate Change warriors were evacuated by helicopter in challenging conditions, all are safe. 7 crew remains on board, waiting for Coast Guard ship assistance. [emphasis added]

215920_5_.jpg


MS Malmo in warm waters in 2012 (photo credit: ArildV)

Haven’t we heard of something like this before? Oh yeah, I wrote thisfive and a half years ago:

Warmist dupes and true believers in the media are having a very hard time with the hilarious spectacle of a ship of literal fools who were so deluded by the warmist cult as to believe it was safe to venture into the Antarctic waters in a vessel that was not an icebreaker. The "scientific expedition" was intended to document the comparative paucity of ice in the area first explored by Douglas Mawson a century ago. As nearly everyone connected to the media on the planet now knows, the Spirit of Mawson voyage, as the organizers dubbed their chartered Russian ship the MV Akademik Shokalskiy, became stuck in ice and needed rescue. Adding to the comedy, the Chinese icebreaker that rescued them is now itself stuck in the ice that was supposed to be melting.
 
They had their annual cricket match on the bramble bank in the Solent this morning, this happens when the spring tides expose the sand between the Isle of Wight and the mainland, it’s eccentric and traditional. Very surprising that this can continue considering that by now the sea level was supposed to have risen by ten feet according to “scientists”


 
espola said:
After the back and forth information releases from the National Weather Service about t's brainless hurricane predictions, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that news stories that he had threatened to fire people in NOAA or NWS if they didn't get on board were false. Apparently NWS officials are now calling his bluff --

https://www.apnews.com/e7a4480d33ce4040b59bd48d4b832c05
Click to expand...

Good writeup on the matter --

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/media/donald-trump-war-on-truth-reliable-sources/index.html
 



comments.png

September 10, 2019
Climate Changing for the Better
By Mark Gelhaus


The idea that climate change is a negative thing, an unnatural thing, and an inevitably destructive thing predominates in our society. In truth, climate change and carbon emissions have overwhelmingly positive effects.

CO2 is incredibly good for plant growth. Plants see significant improvement in growth with higher CO2 levels. Greenhouses commonly increase CO2 levels to 1,500 ppm and the temperature to 80 F or higher. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 levels are a bit above 400 ppm, and the average surface temperature on earth in 59 F. CO2 also increases photosynthesis. The production of carbohydrates increases as CO2increases. The fact that CO2 increases plant productivity is not only demonstrated in laboratory settings but also in nature. In one study, artificially doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels increased tree productivity by around 23 percent, wheat improved by 11.5 percent, and corn by 8.4 percent. NASA satellites confirm the earth is greening. Each year, 2 million square miles of green leafy area is added to the world. The earth’s green area has grown over 5% since the early 2000s. CO2 is also beneficial in that it increases fresh-water efficiency. With increased CO2 levels, plants can produce the same with less water, or produce more with the same amount of water. Plants become more efficient at photosynthesis, which means less water released into the atmosphere, and more moisture retention on land. Higher temperatures due to a warming planet means a longer growing season. Per the EPA, the U.S. growing season has increased by 14 days since the beginning of the 20th century. Longer growing seasons give farmers increased crop yields and give farmers more options as to crop selection. Higher temperatures from climate change also lead to increased precipitation. Precipitation has increased approximately 5% in the United States since 1900. Increased precipitation leads to better crop productivity, and to decreased droughts and decreased wildfires. The lesser need for crop growing area means less wild land is turned into cropland. This is environmentally friendly in that preserving wild lands helps animals and plants survive. The greater water efficiency and increased precipitation means less use of fresh water. The increased precipitation replenishes our aquifers and refills our reservoirs. The ability of nature to become more productive in a changing climate shows the resilience of the natural world.

215934_5_.png
Climate change may bring about greater energy conservation as well. Regulating building temperatures is one area. More energy is needed to heat homes and buildings than is needed to cool them. Increased cloud cover, from the increased precipitation, means milder temperatures, less extreme highs and less extreme lows. Lesser energy would be needed for cooling and heating.

There are significant advantages of hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, and coal) as a fuel source. Hydrocarbons provide a reliable, steady, cost-efficient energy. The common renewables of wind and solar do not provide a steady source of energy. Nor are wind and solar energy always obtainable. These unsteady sources must be backed up by reliable sources. Natural gas is a great backup. Natural gas has high thermodynamic efficiency, produces less nitrogen oxides, less sulfur oxides, and fewer particulates than other common powerplant types. When green energy fails to deliver the necessary, a simple cycle natural gas plant is often switched on in order to supply power. A simple cycle natural gas plant is operated by propelling hot gas through a turbine to generate electricity. Such plants may take only 10-15 minutes to reach maximum capacity. Combined cycle plants will kick in later, typically after about half an hour. Combined cycle plants use hot gases to propel a turbine, and also use that heat again to create steam which turns turbines as well. Comparatively, a coal power plant may take four to eight hours. Nuclear power plants can take hours, with newer plants having the ability to make changes more rapidly. Hydroelectric power also has issues. Low water levels can impede the ability to turn electric turbines.

If there does come a day where the negative impacts of increased CO2levels outweigh the benefits, there are several solutions. One solution could be to pump seawater into reservoirs in places like the Sahara. This would mitigate the issue of rising sea levels. In these reservoirs, we would grow types of plankton, algae, and seaweed that are specially bred to pull large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The aquatic plants could be grown, then harvested for use as fertilizer. We could green the arid regions around the world, like the Sahara. Terrestrial plants like trees could be grown as well. Another method could be recycling of carbon. Typically, when we burn energy, it is released to the atmosphere. We could capture those carbon emissions and find an energy effective way to turn those carbons back into a usable form of energy. The earth is always changing. Life is always adapting.
 



comments.png

September 10, 2019
CNN's Climate Change Townhall -- An Affirmation of Faith
By Alexander G. Markovsky


George Bernard Shaw aptly wrote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.” There couldn’t be a better description of the ten aspirants for the high office participating in the CNN-sponsored seven-hour climate change townhall.
The townhall was CNN’s contribution to the movement that has been characterized by a profusion of prophetic absolutism and fanatical devotion to the cause. Instead, it exposed the illiteracy and shallowness of the candidates who believe that the electricity comes from the outlet and money comes from the bank. CNN and the participants were trying to convince the viewers that the skies would soon fall under the weight of rising CO2, but the magnificent ten, like Atlantes and Caryatids, would hold up the skies while we reject the hydrocarbons and plastic straws, outlaw meat, install expensive light bulbs, enact population control, and blow trillions of dollars to fend off “the existential threat” to our civilization.
This was an affirmation of faith, obligatory for believers intent on following the most farsighted stateswoman and formidable authority on the climate change, former bartender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who put forward the Green New Deal as the key to salvation.

But my Eastern European suspicion tells me otherwise. Let’s make it clear -- climate change is real. Historical records confirm that the temperature on this planet was at some periods significantly lower and higher than we experience nowadays.

It has been well documented that the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia around 2200 B.C. were brought about by a catastrophic rise in temperatures and subsequent droughts. It is well known that Romans grew grapes in northern England. Hence, temperatures on this planet were a lot higher then. At various times, the European continent was subject to prolonged ice ages.

However, given the level of erudition of the presidential candidates, one may doubt that they are aware that neither the Bronze Age civilizations nor the Romans had internal combustion engines, oil refineries, or coal-fired power plants.

Although high on emotion, politics, and passionate intensity, none of the candidates offered a shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, that the humans have anything to do with the climate.

212953_5_.png
The strongest and ironically the weakest argument that has been put forward is that 97 percent of scientists support the climate change theory and name CO2 as a culprit. Although we will never know where the mystical number "97%" came from, just for the sake of argument let’s accept it as true. But it is not a fact, it is still an opinion. And what about the remaining 3% who disagree? Are among them Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, or Albert Einstein? The point is that the "majority argument" is totally irrelevant because scientific disputes are not settled by majority consent. As a matter of fact, science is not advanced by a majority; it is advanced by individuals. Once the majority believed that Earth was flat; the Sun revolved around the Earth; the atom could not be cracked, and has been proven wrong throughout history. The most recent exemplar is the majority’s hysterical prediction of global cooling. For those who have suppressed their memories or sufferer historical amnesia, or had not been born yet, here are just a few examples of the scientific consensus of a few decades ago.

NASA warned of a coming human-caused ice age in 1971

The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts…” -- Washington Post, July 9, 1971.

National Academy of Sciences issued report warning of coming ice age in 1975

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” -- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Science Magazine, July 9, 1971

NASA scientist S. I. Rasool, using a computer program developed by warming gadfly James Hansen, predicted that. “In the next 50 years” -- by 2021 -- fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas...” “If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

The New York Times: Obama’s global warming–promoting science czar John Holdren “warned of a coming ice age” in 1971

In the 1971 essay “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

1970: First Earth Day promoted ice age fears

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

I rest my case.
 
Sheriff Joe said:



comments.png

September 10, 2019
CNN's Climate Change Townhall -- An Affirmation of Faith
By Alexander G. Markovsky


George Bernard Shaw aptly wrote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.” There couldn’t be a better description of the ten aspirants for the high office participating in the CNN-sponsored seven-hour climate change townhall.
The townhall was CNN’s contribution to the movement that has been characterized by a profusion of prophetic absolutism and fanatical devotion to the cause. Instead, it exposed the illiteracy and shallowness of the candidates who believe that the electricity comes from the outlet and money comes from the bank. CNN and the participants were trying to convince the viewers that the skies would soon fall under the weight of rising CO2, but the magnificent ten, like Atlantes and Caryatids, would hold up the skies while we reject the hydrocarbons and plastic straws, outlaw meat, install expensive light bulbs, enact population control, and blow trillions of dollars to fend off “the existential threat” to our civilization.
This was an affirmation of faith, obligatory for believers intent on following the most farsighted stateswoman and formidable authority on the climate change, former bartender Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who put forward the Green New Deal as the key to salvation.

But my Eastern European suspicion tells me otherwise. Let’s make it clear -- climate change is real. Historical records confirm that the temperature on this planet was at some periods significantly lower and higher than we experience nowadays.

It has been well documented that the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia around 2200 B.C. were brought about by a catastrophic rise in temperatures and subsequent droughts. It is well known that Romans grew grapes in northern England. Hence, temperatures on this planet were a lot higher then. At various times, the European continent was subject to prolonged ice ages.

However, given the level of erudition of the presidential candidates, one may doubt that they are aware that neither the Bronze Age civilizations nor the Romans had internal combustion engines, oil refineries, or coal-fired power plants.

Although high on emotion, politics, and passionate intensity, none of the candidates offered a shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, that the humans have anything to do with the climate.

212953_5_.png
The strongest and ironically the weakest argument that has been put forward is that 97 percent of scientists support the climate change theory and name CO2 as a culprit. Although we will never know where the mystical number "97%" came from, just for the sake of argument let’s accept it as true. But it is not a fact, it is still an opinion. And what about the remaining 3% who disagree? Are among them Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, or Albert Einstein? The point is that the "majority argument" is totally irrelevant because scientific disputes are not settled by majority consent. As a matter of fact, science is not advanced by a majority; it is advanced by individuals. Once the majority believed that Earth was flat; the Sun revolved around the Earth; the atom could not be cracked, and has been proven wrong throughout history. The most recent exemplar is the majority’s hysterical prediction of global cooling. For those who have suppressed their memories or sufferer historical amnesia, or had not been born yet, here are just a few examples of the scientific consensus of a few decades ago.

NASA warned of a coming human-caused ice age in 1971

The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts…” -- Washington Post, July 9, 1971.

National Academy of Sciences issued report warning of coming ice age in 1975

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” -- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Science Magazine, July 9, 1971

NASA scientist S. I. Rasool, using a computer program developed by warming gadfly James Hansen, predicted that. “In the next 50 years” -- by 2021 -- fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas...” “If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

The New York Times: Obama’s global warming–promoting science czar John Holdren “warned of a coming ice age” in 1971

In the 1971 essay “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age.

1970: First Earth Day promoted ice age fears

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

I rest my case.
Click to expand...
You do know that he doesn't read these articles. If he did, it would be too much logical information for him to digest. It would debunk his preconceived notions and force him to rethink his now obvious incorrect conclusions... but hey, facts don't matter him. Never have, never will.
 
Feds finalize plan to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling
90

Republicans in Congress who have pushed for years to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling have found an ally in the Trump administration.
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
By ANNA M. PHILLIPS STAFF WRITER
SEP. 12, 2019
2:39 PM
WASHINGTON —

The Trump administration announced Thursday its final plan to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, giving the petroleum industry access to the pristine wildland for the first time.

The plan would allow oil leasing on 1.56 million acres of the 19-million-acre refuge. The proposal — which would open the entire coastal plain to the energy industry — was seen as the most extreme of three options considered by the Interior Department.

Supporters have argued it will result in a windfall for the federal Treasury and revive Alaska’s struggling economy. But opponents have said that opening the refuge to oil leasing could do irreversible damage to a region already destabilized by warming temperatures and other effects of climate change. The refuge is home to large numbers of polar bears, caribou, wolves and migratory birds.

“Unfortunately, this sham environmental impact statement ignores the overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates the unprecedented risks to wildlife that would result from drilling in the Coastal Plain,” said Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, a conservation group. “Alaskans, tribes and conservationists all agree that this is the wrong approach.”

The plan is expected to face legal challenges from environmentalists.

Opening the refuge to oil leasing has been a long-held dream of Republicans in Congress, in particular Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has argued that drilling is key to U.S. energy independence. Until President Trump’s election, Democrats and environmentalists successfully fought off these efforts.

But in 2017, Murkowski added a provision to the GOP tax cut bill that required the Interior Department to allow oil and gas leasing on 1.5 million acres within the refuge’s coastal plain. It also mandated that the agency hold at least two lease sales by 2025.

Murkowski on Thursday called the Interior Department’s final plan a “major step forward.” She said she was “hopeful we can now move to a lease sale in the very near future, just as Congress intended.”



The administration originally predicted that oil lease sales within the refuge would generate $1.8 billion for the federal government by 2027. But since then, the projections have fallen considerably. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office published in June estimated the government would net about $900 million — half the amount the White House had said.

There has also been debate about how much oil sits beneath the refuge, which is thought to be the largest untapped trove of onshore oil in the U.S., and whether it’s even profitable to extract it.

House Democrats have been working to repeal the congressional mandate for oil and gas leasing in the refuge. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would remove the language from the tax law that required lease sales, though it was a largely symbolic gesture since the Senate is unlikely to follow suit.

“The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act reflects a very simple proposition: There are some places too wild, too important, too unique to be spoiled by oil and gas development,” said the bill’s author, California Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael). “The Arctic Refuge’s Coastal Plain is one of those special places.”

Murkowski and other members of the Alaska congressional delegation criticized the House bill, saying that it would be unfair to Alaskans to leave potential revenue from oil exploration on the table.

“We understand that Alaska has earned an almost mythological place in the minds of many Americans,” they wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “But we cannot be treated like a snow globe, to be placed on the shelf for viewing pleasure only.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top