News is breaking out all over: global warming stopped 20 years ago.
A political earthquake has resulted from a feature story in the Economist magazine because the Economist used to be a consistent cheerleader for global warming activism. Doubts about global warming used to be censored by its London editors, one reporter confided to Stephen Hayward.
So what will voters do to Democrat candidates in 2014 and 2016 when the former realize that the Democratic Party was lying to them? Is it time to run away from the issue for Democrats, journalists, and Hollywood personalities?
While our economy is struggling and our nation in debt, Democrats squandered tens of billions on a climate change hoax. How many voters are unemployed due to climate change polices? Unnecessary regulations are strangling people's jobs and their lives. And then one must wonder: what else were Democrats unbelievably wrong about?
Can Democrats hide by claiming that climate change hysteria was an innocent mistake? It was never a credible story. Democrats, journalists, and liberal commentators went way out on a limb. Like the collapse of ENRON or Bernie Maddoff's Ponzi schemes, political fortunes have been built on the shifting sand of bad science. Japan's Society of Energy and Resources in February 2009 declared the myth of man-made global warming to be like "ancient astrology."
I normally post some of the Nathan Rao Weather News articles from the Daily Express, lets see how he gets on with his April 2013 Weather forecast with the aid of the Met Office, maybe Piers has met his match:)
THIS time last month we were talking about March being colder than average.
Four weeks later, after a battering from Siberian winds and snow, we are still shivering in bitter winds with frost still on the ground most mornings.
Last month turned out to be the second coldest March on record, with temperatures well-below average for the time of year and parts of the country left under snow.
Easter was bitterly cold for much of Britain, with bookies forced to pay out after flakes of snow fell over London over the weekend.
With a low of -12.5C recorded in Braemar, Scotland, over the weekend, it is safe now to say it has been the coldest Easter on record.
A very cringeworthy YouTube from a group of AGW supporters....its over an hour long and something to look at when you feel like cutting your toe nails! Listen to the confusion about how much sea level will rise by 2050. It is of interest in as much the group draw spurious conclusions and feed off each other to keep their AGW belief system going. The frightening thing for me is that these type of debates are common....mind you don't cut your toe nails too short!
Earlier today, I participated in a NASA Google+ Hangout on Air on these questions and more:
How much and how fast will sea level rise in the coming decades? What makes sea level rise hard to predict? Who will be affected?You can watch it above.
Mar 27 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Brad Shannon The Olympian (Olympia, Wash.)
A retired Western Washington University professor testified to a Republican-controlled state Senate committee Tuesday that climate change stopped in 1998 and that human-caused greenhouse gases are not responsible for fluctuations in the Earth's temperatures or melting polar ice caps.
The startling testimony from emeritus professor Don Easterbrook is at odds with an apparent consensus among climate scientists and climate-science literature about human causes behind the the rise in global temperatures over the past century. His testimony came one day after the Legislature sent Gov. Jay Inslee a bill that sets up a legislative work group to study Washington's best strategy for addressing climate change.
Substitute Senate Bill 5802 creates a four-caucus study panel that will hire a consultant to study state options for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and how best to accomplish that at least cost. Republican Sen. Doug Ericksen of Ferndale, who invited Easterbrook to testify at his committee, could become Senate Republicans' representative on that panel.
A research paper in a prestigious journal that claimed to show a dramatic increase in global temperatures in the 20th century caused huge headlines around the world.
There’s just one problem. It’s not true.
“Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years,” blared the New York Times on March 7. The Times was reporting on what it called “the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures,” contained in a study published March 8 in the journal Science by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix.
However, once other scientists began looking into the data in the study, called “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” the reconstruction began to look far less than meticulous.
The authors of the study quietly admitted last weekend that their claim of surging temperatures can’t be supported by their data.
Like most of you, I yearn for shorter winters, more shirt-sleeve weather, less lashing from frigid winds. As a confirmed New Yorker, I’m not willing to do what millions have done: move to the sunbelt. I want warmer weather here in the Big City.
But I’ve grown old waiting for the promised global warming. I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering. Now I’m 68, and there’s still no sign of warmer weather. It’s enough to make one doubt the “settled science” of the government-funded doom-sayers.
Remember 1979? That was the year of “We Are Family” by Sister Sledge, of “The Dukes of Hazard” on TV, and of “ Kramer vs. Kramer” on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.
In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: “Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.” The abstract in the Times archives says: “If the West Antarctic ice sheet slips into the sea, as some glaciologists believe is possible, boats could be launched from the bottom steps of the Capitol in Washington and a third of Florida would be under water, a climate specialist said today.”
The climate campaigners should be given a medal for their outstanding bravery and public service, not prison sentences
What if, instead of giving Marie Curie and Alexander Fleming Nobel prizes for their life-saving work on radiation and penicillin, they'd been thrown in jail? Or, instead of being awarded the Grand Croix of the Légion d'honneur for his work on the germ theory of disease, Louis Pasteur was imprisoned like Napoleon on Elba?
It would be perverse to return the favour of great, public works by depriving people of their freedom. Yet that is just what we're doing in Britain right now. The contributions of the people above were remarkable, but how much greater is the challenge of preserving a readily habitable climate, and how thankful should we be to those prepared to throw their life's energy and creativity at the task?
The answer according to the British establishment currently is not at all. Their response is the kind of gratitude a Caesar might hand-out to an innocent messenger on receiving unwelcome news. He throws them first into court, and then possibly into prison. In early March many celebrated when the state-backed French energy company EDF dropped a £5m civil lawsuit against climate campaigns who occupied one of the company's gas-fired power stations for several days in 2012.
The case was seen as an attempt to intimidate and therefore frighten-off other campaigners, and the victory therefore an important signal. Less noticed, however, was that many of the campaigners still face criminal charges in relation to the occupation. Faced by a magistrates court, with no jury to appeal to on the wider issues, several pled guilty to charges of aggravated trespass. Due for sentencing on 6 June, they could be the first people in the UK sent to prison for acting to prevent global warming.
Click source and be the first to inform Andrew Simms that there IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
I'm not so sure this summary from the BBC of Dr James E Hansen retirement announcement has done them any favours. The area that may backfire is that their Environment Correspondent Matt McGrath mentions the term "Global Warming" instead of "Climate Change" and at the end of the article they (BBC) have acknowledged world temperatures have remained at a "standstill", thus agreeing there is no "Global Warming" currently going on.
The only door left open on the issue of "man made" co2 is extreme weather events. I have mentioned before, the use of the term "climate change" covers all eventualities for Alarmists. So I'm glad to say this tribute to Dr James E Hansen seems a little self defeating... or is this a "get out" for them in the future! ......more to follow.
One of the leading voices on the science of global warming is to retire from Nasa this week to be more active in the fight against fossil fuels.
With an excellent discussion underway, unfortunately - but not surprisingly - Anthony Watts abruptly closed comments on his latest article attacking Principia Scientific International (PSI). From his readers’ feedback it is clear Mr. Watts went off half cocked with his mischaracterization that PSI had “misinterpreted” a revealing NASA press release about CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere.
Mr Watts is probably aware that he has no valid response to many of the points made by PSI members in various papers and articles. PSI doesn't shut down debate so, for those interested in debating the issue, all are very welcome to come do so on our own forum thread here.
Beyond doubt, as Douglas Cotton pointed out in his prompt rebuttal article to the WUWT piece, Mr. Watts has missed the elephant in the room. Cotton writes, “So, clearly the atmosphere acts as an umbrella during sunlit hours, and yet Anthony Watts and many climatologists like to play down this cooling effect, if they even mention it.”
Working overtime to hide that elephant with its umbrella is climatologist, Dr.Roy Spencer. Not only did a world-leading expert in thermodynamics, Dr. Pierre R Latour, point out Spencer’s errors with his ‘No, Virginia’ rebuttal to Spencer’s ‘Yes, Virginia’ blog post we’ve seen many other highly-respected scientists disagreeing with Dr. Spencer.
A look at a thermodynamics physics text from UC Berkley proves, using standard physics, that cold does not heat up warm even in the presence of “backradiation.” Problem #1023 shows that a radiation shield does not cause a source to become hotter if its radiation is trapped, and Problem #1026 shows that a sphere surrounded by a shell simply warms up the shell until the shell emits the same energy as the sphere, without requiring the sphere to become hotter and with the presence of backradiation. What Spencer, Watts, Willis, et al mistakenly believe, is that in order for something warm to heat up something cool, the warmer thing has to heat up itself! As absurd a proposition as an ice cream licking itself.
» News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
» If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Articles Recently Viewed
3,347
Donations
» Please support the site by making a donation. No matter how big or small, your contribution helps to support the cause.
The climate campaigners should be given a medal for their outstanding bravery and public service, not prison sentences
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article