Friday, May 24, 2013
Warmist is a female Jim Jones
She sure is a Kool-Aid fan
You've probably heard the appalling news that, for the first time in human history, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has just passed 400 parts per million. (Eh? Scientific America's explanation here). It's been 2.5 million years since CO2 was last at this level - at which point, temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees C higher, the Arctic was ice-free, global weather patterns were completely different, sea levels were up to 40 metres higher and humans did not live on the planet.
So what the hell are we all going to do now?
-> Should we stockpile cyanide? You think I'm exaggerating, but a close friend of mine, who has four children, said she plans to kill herself and them when it comes to it.
I am extremely interested to know what everyone is thinking and whether anyone sees any positive ways forward... Please add a comment below.
Yours in despair, Franny
A different salvation message
Anglican churches worldwide no longer seem to believe in salvation through Christ so salvation through the environment fills the hole. They are taking the Lord's name in vain
The Episcopal Church in Massachusetts seems to be a "church of many colors".
Today the "green" bishop Bud Cederholm, who has campaigned together with the likes of Bill McKibben, will bless the taxpayer subsidized, more or less useless solar panels installed on a church Dover, MA:
At 10 a.m. on Sunday May 19, St. Dunstan's Episcopal Church will conduct a service to bless the solar panels they installed in April. The blessing will be conducted by the Episcopal Diocese's "Green Bishop," the Right Rev. Bud Cederholm, assisted by St. Dunstan's rector, the Rev. Mark McKone-Sweet.
"Using solar energy decreases our use of fossil fuels, and thus our contribution to global warming," said McKone-Sweet. "It is a way to live our faith by caring for those who will be affected by the extreme weather global warming causes."
But moneywise the "green" bishop Cederholm's global warming scare campaign has been rather successful - there are quite a few people in the "liberal" state who are an easy prey for global warming hoaxters:
"This kind of falling in love with creation and responding with passion has generated more than $320,000 for green grants to some 50 congregations these past two years, with even more getting on board this year. And our Creation Care Season itself has been an awakening in many congregations to the many resources available for worship, education, formation and contemplation in nature, and advocacy that shapes public policy.
Numerous churches and homeowners have reduced their carbon footprint. Acts of justice have addressed the poisoning of the environment that causes death and extinction of species."
Disgraceful politicizing of the Okla. Tornado
Despite no evidence that devastating tornadoes have increased in frequency or intensity due to fossil fuel use, another warm-monger blames the Moore, Okla., disaster on GOP "polluters and deniers."
Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., thought the devastation of Moore was a crisis that should not be wasted as he took to the Senate floor Monday to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (known by its acronym, AGW).
Other Democratic leaders like Al Gore, who profited handsomely off the manufactured hysteria, and President Obama, who promised the sea level would stop rising and the planet would begin to heal upon his election, have exploited every natural disaster, such as Superstorm Sandy, as proof that fossil-fuel pollution is leading us to planetary doom.
Whitehouse's rant was epic. "So, you may have a question for me," Whitehouse said. "Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I'll tell you why. We're stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn't just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas."
Whitehouse went on to blame AGW for floods, storms, dying forests and acidified sea, stopping just this side of plagues of locusts.
We do have a question for him: Why are you, Sen. Whitehouse, politicizing this tragedy without one shred of scientific evidence to back you up?
The fact is, we have just left a tornado drought. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "The 12-month period from May 2012 to April 2013 was remarkable for the absence of tornado activity and tornado impacts in the United States."
NOAA tornado expert Harold Brooks notes that during that period there were just 197 tornadoes rated EF1 or stronger, the fewest since at least 1954.
It's also a fact that tornado frequency and intensity vary over time like, well, what we used to call weather before every storm was attributed to climate change.
As we've said before, whether it's too hot or too cold, too wet or too dry, too stormy or too quiet, it's always blamed on climate change.
So 2011, when an F5 tornado tore through Joplin, Mo., was a particularly bad year for tornado damage. But so were 1853, 1865 and 1974.
During 1953, 519 people died and more than 5,000 were injured. Three tornadoes killed a total of 320 people in Waco, Texas; Flint, Mich. and Worcester, Mass., during May and June of that year.
In 1965, 301 people were killed by tornadoes, 260 of those on April 11, Palm Sunday.
Like the 1965 Palm Sunday outbreak, the largest outbreak in 1974 occurred on one day, Wednesday, April 3. For 1974 in total, 348 people perished.
When President Obama linked Superstorm Sandy to climate change, Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder, wrote: "The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane."
As for tornadoes, Pielke reports : "Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way".
As renowned meteorologist Joe Bastardi notes, storm cycles are heavily, and perhaps mainly, influenced by natural ocean phenomena known scientifically as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. When the Atlantic is warming and the Pacific is cooling, as they are now,we tend to see more tornadoes and hurricanes.
Unfortunately, we also see more demagogues exploiting tragedy for political and ideological purposes.
Latest figures: The USA continues to cool
Very late again, the official April temperature figures are out. Last year the temperature anomaly was 3.66 F and this year it is - 1.35 F.
As a complement to my previous post Recent 3 Months U.S. Temperature trend/decade: - 4.1 F COOLER in 100 years, I thought it also would be interesting to look at the recent 4 months (year to date, January- April) US temperature from a "historic" perspective. To see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 113 years.
Especially to see how the decade trends have evolved during the last 43 years. The period that according to the Global Warming Hysterics and computer models they worship should show a steady and accelerated increase in temperature.
I don't know about you, but I consider a 4 month, a year by year consecutive trend 113 years long to be a "quite good" indicator.
And as I always point out:
Remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect, use huge smoothing radius, the historical "adjustment and tweaking" to cool the past etc.
So here are the trends:
US temperature recent 4 months (Jan- Apr) 1900-2013
The trend for 1900 to 2013 is 0.17 F / Decade
US temperature recent 4 months (Jan- Apr) 1970-2013
The trend for 1970 to 2013 is 0.63 F / Decade
US temperature recent 4 months (Jan- Apr) 1980-2013
The trend for 1980 to 2013 is 0.38 F / Decade
US temperature recent 4 months (Jan- Apr) 1990-2013
The trend for 1990 to 2013 is - 0.07 F / Decade
US temperature recent 4 months (Jan- Apr) 2000-2013
The trend for 2000 to 2013 is - 0.54 F / Decade
So the "warming trend" 2000-2013 for Jan- Apr is exactly - 0.54 F degrees a decade. That is - 5.4 F COOLER in 100 years. That's what I call "warming"!
More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)
High energy costs may drive German firms to US
Soaring German energy costs in the wake of the country's transition to renewable energy have seen more and more firms thinking abut relocating their operations. The US looks like a sound alternative, associations claim.
German industry lobby associations on Wednesday sent a warning shot towards the government in Berlin, saying that rising energy costs in the country would drive away more and more German companies.
Risky Business: The fracking controversy
"If we don't get on top of the country's energy transition to renewables and are not able to rein in energy costs in the process, German industry's competitiveness stands to suffer," the chief of the Federation of German Industry (BDI), Ulrich Grillo, told the business newspaper "Handelsblatt."
He said that while Germans are embroiled in a debate about the right energy mix, the US was getting more and more attractive as a business location for German firms, thanks not least to President Barack Obama's support for the fracking technology resulting in much cheaper energy prices.
Time to act
"That means that German companies are bound to invest a lot more in the US," Grillo commented. Energy-intensive firms like Wacker and BASF speak of clear competitive advantages in the US, with the first already building a production facility in Tennessee.
The Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) said its own surveys had shown German companies' increasing willingness to move parts of their operations to the US rather than to fellow European nations in search of more favorable framework conditions.
"The US has become much more attractive to companies than Europe," DIHK chief Martin Wansleben told the "Handelsblatt". "Germany is in the process of getting sandwiched between eastern Europe with its low labor costs and the US with low energy costs," Wansleben claimed.
EU Summit: Climate Protection Is Not That Important Anymore
Europe's heads of State and government want to promote shale gas and to reduce energy prices. They would rather promote competition than stop global warming.
EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy wanted to hear answers to three questions, from the assembled heads of state and government at the EU summit on Wednesday: How can we further accelerate energy saving at European level? How can energy policy be made so reliable as to attract the necessary investments in grid networks? And how can domestic resources be better utilized? The last question in his letter of invitation which alludes to controversial shale gas fracking carries much political dynamite.
But there is need for action.
"For European companies, rising energy prices have become a competitive disadvantage," said Martin Schulz (Social Democrats, Germany), President of the European Parliament. "If we do nothing, the energy prices will continue to rise, and our reliance on third countries for energy supply will continue to increase." Without a change in course, energy imports will have to cover 80 percent of demand in 2035, according to the European Commission.
To consume less energy would be a way. However, energy efficiency is not given much space in the final declaration of the summit. The EU Commission is encouraged to propose strict efficiency standards for energy-consuming appliances by next year. In addition, the implementation of the already adopted directives is called for. Thus, the Irish presidency suggests that improving the insulation of buildings "could give a great boost to the struggling European construction sector". Electricity prices could be held in check at least by some degree by completion of the European internal energy market by next year. The leaders insist on this too.
What is new foremost is that EU leaders "are viewing energy policy not through the lens of climate change, but through the lens of competitiveness for the first time" an EU diplomat said. The summit still espouses new climate goals when it demands "a predictable climate and energy policy framework for the period after 2020?. The necessity of a "well-functioning emissions trading" also emerges briefly in the text of the summit, but the question how this can be achieved is not answered.
So is it true when German liberal MEP Holger Krahmer (Free Democrats) is delighted that "the EU summit heralds the end of climate hysteria" and that a "new realism" is now in place? His conservative colleague Herbert Reul (Christian Democrats), head of the parliamentary CDU in the European Parliament, openly calls for a "U-turn in energy policy. It can no longer be preferentially aligned to climate change ". Accordingly, the Green Party leader Rebecca Harms warns of a "roll back into the energy past." It was still important, she adds, to "make us less dependent on climate-damaging fossil fuels."
However, it may be taken as evidence to the contrary that the summit expressly approved the approach by the EU Commission to develop a framework for the "safe and sustainable exploitation of indigenous energy sources", such as shale gas, this year. In German government circles there is talk about "an important contribution to the enhancement of objectivity of the debate". German Chancellor Angela Merkel, however, does not want to see it as a "change of course". She agrees that the shale gas revolution in the United States has created "a completely changed global situation". "But just because you pronounce such a truth, you do not turn away from climate protection."
"In an optimistic scenario," a paper of the European Commission says "unconventional gas could limit the dependence on imports to about 60 percent". But this does not mean a radical change of course insists Energy Commissioner Gnther Oettinger: "I do not seek a U-turn. I want a balance between climate policy and a solution of the economic problems in Europe."
The costs of climate protection, however, Oettinger does want to contain. Later this year, his agency will propose a claw back of subsidies for solar and wind power. "We cannot expand renewable energy sources at any price forever," said his party colleague Reul. At the same time, subsidies for new power plants should be avoided. In order to eliminate bottlenecks, the European Commission favours contracts with neighbours, according to sources close to Oettinger. "In Baden-Wrttemberg, it is better to talk with Austria and France instead of building new gas-fired plants."
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here and here
Posted by JR at 4:33 PM