Climate change skeptics are headed the way of Christians in Egypt and the left is readying the machetes and torches. Yesterday Harry Reid declared
“Climate change deniers still exist. They exist, I’m sorry to say, in this Congress. … Climate change exists and it’s time to stop denying it.”
That’s pretty clear. The skeptics must be eliminated.
Not one to be outdone in logic fallacy, Chuck Schumer added:
“If you went to 100 doctors and 98 of them said you were sick and should take medicine but two told you that you were find, what would you do?” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, citing the ratio of scientists that believe climate change is real. “Climate change deniers need to wake up. … It’s time to take action.”
Back in December the site Reddit decided it would become a denier. It denies a voice to climate change skeptics. Reddit, which claims it is “passionately dedicated to free speech” raises hypocrisy to an art form.
The LA Times unveiled a new policy in October- it would no longer publish letters from those who question climate change.
Brian Stelter of CNN has proclaimed
Let’s begin with an important journalistic statement, and it’s something I mentioned in the last segment. Some stories don’t have two sides. Some stories are simply true. There’s no necessity to give equal time to the quote/unquote other side. One of these is climate change.
Apple CEO said that if you don’t believe in global warming then you should not buy Apple products.
Now Richard Branson warns that if you don’t believe in global warming you must
“get out of our way,”
Branson cares so much for the environment that he has added 7.1 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over the years with his aircraft. And that’s before we get to his rockets:
SpaceShipTwo uses a hybrid engine that burns a large chunk of rubber. That doesn’t sound very good. It certainly didn’t look very good on SpaceShipTwo’s first powered flight, which produced a big cloud of black smoke in the Mojave sky. Look at the picture above. Does that look clean to you? And that was only a 16-second burn, not the minute plus needed to get to space.
Branson’s comments focus on total carbon emissions. But, what chemicals and toxins are being emitted into the air by RocketMotorTwo? We don’t know. Is it similar to a tire fire? Let’s hope not; those things are pretty dirty.
SpaceShipTwo will be burning rubber in the upper atmosphere, where particulate matter tends to remain for much longer periods of time. What is the long-term impact of that?
Virgin Galactic could probably do better with a cleaner-burning liquid fuel engine, which is not exactly new technology. A liquid propulsion system would also help lower costs to space because they wouldn’t have to replace the engine after each flight. But, that was a road not taken.
There are other questions as well. Do the calculations take into the account the three pounds of carbon created during the production of each pound of nitrous oxide? How much carbon will a trip to space produce? Again, we don’t know because Virgin Galactic has never released its math.
According to the carbon footprint calculator at Terrapress, a round trip air flight from London to Singapore produces 5,259 lbs of carbon per person. Branson says a trip to space will produce somewhat less than that, but we don’t know exactly how much.
Hypocrisy is oxygen for liberals.
Charles Krauthammer observes the “Myth of settled science”
Settled? Even Britain’s national weather service concedes there’s been no change — delicately called a “pause” — in global temperature in 15 years. If even the raw data is recalcitrant, let alone the assumptions and underlying models, how settled is the science?
But even worse than the pretense of settledness is the cynical attribution of any politically convenient natural disaster to climate change, a clever term that allows you to attribute anything — warming and cooling, drought and flood — to man’s sinful carbon burning.
The existence of God has been proven with a MacBook.
Depending on which study or which expert you consult, between 95 and 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is happening now, that it’s damaging the planet, and that it’s man-made.
James Delingpole explains how the “97%” consensus number was obtained:
Let’s start with those spurious 95/97 per cent artefacts.
They first surfaced during the discredited Doran Survey–a 2009 online poll of scientists conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois.
As I note in The Little Green Book of Ecofascism, they asked two questions:
When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained relatively constant?
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
To both of which questions, even most skeptics would answer “yes.” The only room for dissent would be over that term “significant.”
But even with such carefully loaded questions the researchers were disappointed by the lack of unanimity of response from the more than 10,000 scientists they originally surveyed. So, in order to stack the odds still further–in what was always a shamelessly political exercise, not a scientific one–they decided to exclude all save the respondents who self-identified as “climate scientists.”
Even here, after reducing their 10,000 scientists to fewer than one hundred, their respondents were incapable of achieving that much-desired consensus. But it was near enough: seventy-five out of a total of seventy-seven “climate scientists”agreed with a premise roughly equivalent to “Does night follow day?”, “Do bears defecate in subarboreal environments?”, “Is the Pope Catholic?” etc.
That 97 per cent figure, in other words, has about as much credibility as the IPCC’s “Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035” claim or the one about polar bears being an endangered species when in fact, in the last 50 years, their population has quintupled.
And why don’t we have a look at the predictions from the 97%?
John Christy, professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville:
“I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world.”
There’s a boatload of wrong from those experts:
One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.
Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “’Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”
The 2007 report included predictions of a decline in Antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high.
The 2013 report states: “’Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations …
“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
The 2007 forecast for more intense hurricanes has also been ignored in the new document after this year was one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history.
In fact, they’ve been wrong about 97.4% of the time:
Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.
That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.
Our friend Anthony Watts makes a great point:
It is my personal recommendation that if anyone should publically claim because ’97% of scientists agree’ and are attempting to use this phrase as a soundbite to close down any criticism, going beyond the conclusions of these surveys.
My recommendation is to ask them politely if they are aware of the source of this phrase. And then quote to them an example of the feedback by scientists that took part in the survey itself, any then perhaps it will be possible to have a debate about any issue or claim being made.
Of course there’s the feckless Al Gore who predicted the North Pole would be ice free in 2013.
And that brings me to James Hansen, who predicted in 1988 that within 40 years the Westside Highway in New York would be under water.
I’m betting on no.
Did you know the Earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today?
So what’s really going on?
democrats like Reid and Schumer are to climate science what a piano is to a snake. This is about a revenue stream, the ability to tax fossil fuels more than now with the purported goal of saving the planet when in truth all it is about is soaking the American taxpayer dry.
And they’re not afraid to bully you out of your rights you to do it.
here we have two scientists in the same blog,
how unusual, and interesting,
I’M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BOTH,HERE AND MENTIONING THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS WHO PUT YOU BOTH TOGETHER,
@inMAGICn & @ilovebeeswarzone:
No problem. I figured I’d save our gentle readers the trouble of looking it up.