Tag Archives: climate crisis

Climate change science: “The earth is so cold right now because it’s getting warmer”

Scientists look at the real world and work carefully to reach a conclusion that fits what they see. Fanatics like Al Gore work backwards: They take an assumption that they want desperately to be true, and force it on top of reality like hammering a square peg into a round hole.

That’s exactly what the failed presidential candidate seems to be doing, bending over backwards to explain that freezing temperatures in the U.S. are proof the world is getting warmer.

As much of the country battles bitter cold weather and temperatures well below zero, Al Gore used Twitter to spread his twisted brand of circular reasoning.  “It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis,” the politician-turned-guru declared.

“Climate crisis,” of course, is a term that’s being used as a substitute for “global warming,” which fell out of favor as a talking point as people became worried about freezing to death. Make no mistake, global warming is still what Gore is peddling, no matter the label.

The former vice president famously predicted that global warming would cause the arctic ice cap to melt… with a due-date of several years ago. It didn’t happen.  “Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979,” Forbes Magazine reported in 2015.

“Ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles per day,” the National Snow and Ice Data Center stated earlier this month.

It would be one thing if global warming zealots like Al Gore admitted that they came to the wrong conclusions, and updated their models and predictions to match reality — you know, like actual scientists do.  Instead, leftists are engaging in the exact same broken logic they claim to despise. The crowd constantly lectures people that “weather is not climate,” and a short-term spell is not the same as a long-term trend.

That’s what they did after Donald Trump posted a tongue-in-cheek take-down of global warming. The president humorously pointed out that the East Coast was facing near-record low temperatures over New Year’s Day, while liberals smugly scolded him that weather isn’t climate.

Yet, magically, when Al Gore needs it to make his case, it suddenly is climate.  Gore simply flipped the same argument, and pointed at the recent cold snap as “evidence” of earth-threatening climate change.

Media outlets frequently do the same thing: Use heat waves in the summer to whip up doom-and-gloom articles about global warming, while suddenly forgetting about a “climate connection” when icy winter weather shows up.

Here’s a thought: Maybe we don’t actually know enough about millennia-long climate patterns to predict the future. Maybe we should keep digging and asking questions, and not treat people who have healthy skepticism as some sort of Inquisition-era heretics to be burned at the stake.

That would never sell documentaries, though, would it?  Inconvenient truth, indeed.

 

[From an article published by CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE]

 

…………………………………………………..

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama’s new “historic” global warming agreement with China is another one of those White House deals that Americans are “too stupid” to understand…so here are the details

Historic.

Such is the ubiquitous description of the climate agreement recently announced in Beijing between Barack Obama and Xi Jinping in which China promised for the first time to cap carbon emissions.

If this were a real breakthrough, I’d be an enthusiastic supporter. I have long advocated for a tangible global agreement to curb carbon. I do remain skeptical about the arrogant, ignorant claim that climate science is “settled,” that it can predict with accuracy future “global warming” effects and that therefore we must cut emissions radically, immediately and unilaterally if necessary, even at potentially ruinous economic and social cost.

I nonetheless believe (and have written since 1988) that pumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. We don’t know nearly enough about the planet’s homeostatic mechanisms for dealing with it, but prudence would dictate reducing CO2 emissions when and where we can.

However, anything beyond that, especially the radical unilateralism advocated by climate alarmists, would be not just economic suicide but economic suicide without purpose. It would do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 as long as China, India and the other developing nations more than make up for our cuts with their huge and increasing carbon emissions.

China alone is firing up a new coal plant every eight to 10 days. We could close every coal mine in Kentucky and West Virginia and achieve absolutely nothing except devastating Appalachia and, in effect, shipping its economic lifeblood to China.

The only way forward on greenhouse gases is global reduction by global agreement. A pact with China would be a good start.

Unfortunately, the Obama-Xi agreement is nothing of the sort. It is a fraud of Gruberian (as in Jonathan) proportions. Its main plank commits China to begin cutting carbon emissions 16 years from now. On the other hand, the United States, having already cut more carbon emissions than any nation on earth since 2005, must now double its current rate of carbon cutting to meet a new, more restrictive goal by 2025. In return for which, China will keep increasing its carbon emissions year after year throughout that period — and for five years beyond.

If this sounds like the most one-sided deal since Manhattan sold for $24 in 1626, you heard right. It becomes even more absurd when you realize that, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, China was on track to plateau its carbon emissions around 2030 anyway because of a projected slowdown in urbanization, population growth and heavy industry production. We cut, they coast.

The carbon-emission graph is stark. China’s line is nearly vertical; America’s is already inflected and headed downward. The Obama-Xi agreement simply ratifies U.S. unilateralism — the U.S. line declines even more steeply, while China’s continues rocketing upward unmolested.

Proponents of the Obama-Xi deal will then point to a second provision: China’s promise to produce 20 percent of its energy from non-carbon sources by 2030. But China had already been planning to begin substituting for its immense use of fossil fuels (mainly by using nuclear power) because Chinese cities are being choked to death by their traditional pollutants — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury compounds, particulates, etc.

These are serious health hazards. CO2 is not. Whatever its atmospheric effects, CO2 does not poison the air. So in return for yet another Chinese transition that has nothing to do with CO2, Obama has committed the United States to drastic CO2 cuts.

Moreover, beyond substance, there is process. Or more accurately, its absence. What’s the structure to sustain and verify the agreement? Where are the benchmarks? What are the enforcement mechanisms? This is just a verbal promise. Nothing more. Sixteen years from now, China is supposed to remind the world of its commitments and begin cutting?

I repeat: I would unequivocally support a real agreement with the Chinese where they cut contemporaneously and commensurately with the United States and where there is built-in reporting and independent verification. Such a bilateral agreement would need to be internationalized by bringing in such rising powers as India, Brazil, Indonesia, etc. This would be a breakthrough.

Climate enthusiasts will say that I refuse to take yes for an answer. Of course I would take yes for an answer. But the Obama-Xi agreement is not yes. It is “check back with me in 16 years.” Aren’t the people advocating this deal the same garment-rending climate apocalypticists who’ve been warning of irreversible planetary changes beginning now, and the supreme imperative of acting immediately?

Except, you see, for China, the world’s No. 1 carbon polluter. China gets a 16-year pass.

[by Charles Krauthammer, writing for The Washington Post]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Bottom line here: Our lame duck president is even lamer than we imagined. His wonderful deal with China will restrict US industry even further, while it has absolutely no effect on China for 16 years. Any polluting nation would sign a deal like that!

 

…………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized