Sunday, September 28, 2014
Muslim anger and global warming
The inability of Muslims to see any wrongdoing by their fellow Muslims seems to be common worldwide. And we have now seen a prime example of it in Australia. A report of it below. After a young Afghan Muslim, Numan Haider, was shot by police, the sentiment among his community seems to be that he had done no wrong. He had simply made a "mistake" and police should not have shot him. That the police shot him while he was stabbing them with a knife and inflicting serious injuries doesn't matter, apparently. "Infidel" police should let themselves be stabbed by Muslims seems to be the idea. Decent people would be embarrassed that one of their number had behaved so badly but brains rotted by Islam are apparently incapable of that.
The rage is so irrational that it reminds me of a couple of other things. In 1980 or thereabouts in Australia a Yugoslav hoodlum named Kresimir Dragosevic died in a hail of police bullets. Mrs Dragosevic, his mother, thought it was most unfair that the police shot her dear little Kresimir. The fact that Kresimir was shooting at the police at the time did not seem to matter.
So, clearly, for many people, reason flies out the window when their own personal interests are threatened or damaged. Which brings me to global warming. Warmists have the wonderful feelgood belief that they are "saving the planet" and that is far too rewarding to let facts get in the way of such a belief. They will even let themselves be lectured by an emptyheaded High School dropout like Leonardo di Caprio on the subject if it helps to bolster their feelings of righteousness and mission. No wonder there is so much poverty and so much suffering in the world when rationality can so easily be overwhelmed by personal emotional needs.
ANGER boiled over outside a mosque as the body of the shot teen was prepared for burial.
A man threw rocks at media waiting at the Doveton mosque after earlier being seen at Numan Haider’s family home.
The teen terror suspect’s family spoke of their devastation.
Others grieving the loss of Haider lashed out at police for shooting him.
Religious leaders told the Herald Sun Haider was expected to be buried as soon as today, after a Muslim service.
A friend who visited the family’s Endeavour Hills home said they were overwhelmed by grief. “They are very, very upset and devastated,” the family friend said.
“No one knows what happened. It’s a big shock to their family, and they can’t believe what has happened.
“This family is bright. They are well educated and have good connection to the Afghan families.”
There were angry scenes when a member of the Afghan community, on leaving the house, blamed police.
“They should not have shot him — he was 18,” the woman screamed. “If you (the police) can’t protect yourself, how are you going to protect the nation? Did you make mistakes when you were 18? “If someone makes a mistake, you can’t shoot him.”
Conservative sheik Mohammad Jamal Omran visited the home to offer his condolences, and said he was saddened by the tragedy.
“We spoke about their sadness and we spoke about their loss. “They cried on my shoulder, but still they need a long time to recover,” he said.
“There (is) trouble around us in the world. We don’t have to bring the trouble home.
“When I look at my right, I see the sorrow of the two police families.
“And I look at my left, and see this family losing a young man of theirs, of ours, and of Australia altogether.”
Warmist rage directed at Australia
Good to see that Australia's abolition of the carbon tax (etc.) has been widely noted
The United Nations has an awkward habit of using celebrities to give voice to its key concerns, at once amplifying its messages and somehow diminishing their significance.
At this week's General Assembly the key concern was global warming and the celebrity mouthpiece was Leonardo DiCaprio.
As though aware of the awkwardness of his position, in his address to the General Assembly, DiCaprio sought to buttress his call for drastic and immediate action to reduce carbon emissions with a voice harder to challenge than his own.
"The Chief of the US Navy's Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently said that climate change is our single greatest security threat," said DiCaprio. "My friends, this body – perhaps more than any other gathering in human history – now faces that difficult task. You can make history, or be vilified by it."
The speech was well given and well received, but it turned out that his prediction was not entirely correct. Australia did not have to wait for history, it was vilified for its stance on climate change on the spot.
On Sunday the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, told members of the Major Economies Forum at a side meeting that Australia intended to stick with its low target of 5 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
This, she said, was an ambitious target, and she noted that Australia was responsible for producing only 1.5 per cent of the world's greenhouse gasses.
"I'm disappointed but not surprised with Australia," Pa Ousman Jarju, Gambia's Climate Change Minister who represents the 54 least developed nations at UN climate talks, told the Responding to Climate Change analysis website later. "What the Foreign Minister said was as good as not coming. It's nothing… as good as not attending."
Indeed Tony Abbott did not attend Tuesday's meeting, though many attendees detected a reference to Australia – among a handful of other notable recalcitrants – in Barack Obama's keynote speech.
"We can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every nation – developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass," he said.
"The emerging economies that have experienced some of the most dynamic growth in recent years have also emitted rising levels of carbon pollution.
"It is those emerging economies that are likely to produce more and more carbon emissions in the years to come. So nobody can stand on the sidelines on this issue. We have to set aside the old divides. We have to raise our collective ambition, each of us doing what we can to confront this global challenge."
Obama appeared to be addressing not only Australia and Canada, the developed nations dependent on mineral exports, as well as China and India, the developing nations whose carbon footprint is expanding rapidly and which have asserted their right to economic expansion before carbon reduction.
As with Mr Abbott, China's Xi Jinping did not attend and Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, sent Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar. China now emits more greenhouse gases than the US and EU combined and India is the third-largest emitter.
But it was Australia and to an extent Canada that were subject to most of the opprobrium, in part because they have already enjoyed the economic benefits of carbon emissions, in part because China is perceived to be on the brink of significant action.
One of the successes of Tuesday's meeting was China's announcement for the first time ever that it would set an emissions target, aiming to reduce its emissions of carbon per unit of GDP by 45 per cent by 2020, compared with levels in 2005.
"As a responsible major country, a major developing country, China will make even greater effort to address climate change," Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli said.
"All countries need to follow the path of green and low carbon development that suits their national conditions, [and] set forth post-2020 actions in light of actual circumstances."
An adviser who attended a meeting of small island states that excoriated Australia's inaction on climate said the group now viewed China's commitments optimistically.
The reaction to Australia's presence could not have been more different. Tony de Brum, the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, told Fairfax that small islands states were frustrated and baffled by Australia's stance, especially as they had regarded the nation as a "big brother down south" and advocated for its seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Asked if "betrayal" was too strong a word, he paused and said, "Now it is, maybe not soon."
On Tuesday the Pulitzer Prize-winning climate change news website Inside Climate News published a story about the "Canada-Australia axis of carbon". It suggested that not only were the two nations not willing to pull their weight, but that they were seeking to derail the binding agreement on emissions reductions at next year's talks in Paris that many view as the world's last best hope to prevent catastrophic climate change.
"Neither the prime ministers of Canada nor Australia will speak at the summit, and the subordinates they have sent will not be offering the kind of "bold" new steps that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is seeking on the way to a treaty in Paris late next year," it reported.
"Instead, these two governments, with their energy-rich domains sprawling across opposite ends of the earth, will present strikingly similar defences against what much of the rest of the world is offering. And their stance is earning them opprobrium among advocates of strong and immediate action."
The online magazine Slate published a story headlined, "The Saudi Arabia of the Pacific, How Australia became the dirtiest polluter in the developed world."
It charted Australian climate politics since the last election – noting for an international audience Australia's history as a leader in solar technology, the creation and then scrapping of a carbon trading scheme, the promotion of climate change sceptics to key advisory roles, the attacks on the solar industry, the scrapping of the mining tax, the failed bid to expand logging in Tasmanian wilderness.
"Let's hope that the rapacious policies of the current government represent only a temporary bout of insanity," Slate concluded. "If the Australian people cannot recover some of their earlier regard for their environment they may find in time that their great land is no longer merely apathetic toward their residence there but openly hostile."
Whether or not the UN summit was a success is open to debate. Its organisers kept its goals vague enough so as to avoid failure, declaring its intention was to build momentum towards next year's critical talks in Paris, when it is hoped a binding international resolution will be hammered out.
China's announcement was welcomed, as was the declaration by pension funds, insurers and asset management firms controlling $2 trillion worth of funds that they wanted avenues for climate friendly investments. More than a 1000 business and investors backed a World Bank campaign for emissions taxes and trading schemes like the one Australia just abandoned. Leaders reaffirmed a goal to limit climate change to 2 degrees.
More than $US2.3 billion ($2.6 billion) of a called-for $US10 billion was pledged for a Green Climate Fund to help developing nations get access to clean technologies. Organisers of Sunday's march in support of action were thrilled at a turnout of between 300,000 and 400,000.
Whether it was enough to spur real action will not be known until December next year.
Another crooked scientist
Prof. Tyson is of course an energetic promoter of Warmism
Neil deGrasse Tyson may well be America’s most prominent scientist. He is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, and a research associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History, both in New York. He was the host for Fox’s “Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey” and PBS’s “NOVA ScienceNow.” He is a prominent lecturer and public intellectual, and may be more well known than Bill Nye, the Science Guy. He is a noted authority on science and current affairs — and yet, according to at least one critic, he may have a habit of making up some of the tales he tells in his speeches.
In a series of articles for The Federalist, a right-leaning Web magazine, Sean Davis makes a strong case that Tyson has a habit of telling tall tales. The details of one personal story – what happened when Tyson was called for jury duty — vary with each telling. Other tales, such as quotes attributed to members of Congress and unnamed journalists, seem too good to be true, and prove difficult to verify.
Most significantly, Tyson attributes a quote to a September 2001 speech by former President George W. Bush that no one can seem to find. Here’s Davis:
According to Tyson, in the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush uttered the phrase, “Our God is the God who named the stars.” According to Tyson, the president made that claim as a way of segregating radical Islam from religions like Christianity or Judaism.
TYSON: Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?
He says, “Our God” — of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, “Our God is the God” — he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis — “Our God is the God who named the stars.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson’s story has three central claims: 1) Bush uttered that precise phrase, 2) in the days immediately after 9/11, 3) in order to distance American religion from that practiced by radical Muslims.
As you have probably already guessed, every single claim is false. Every one! Then there’s Tyson’s aside that Bush’s quote was a “loose quote” of the book of Genesis. Yep, that’s false, too.
Davis could not find any account of Bush having said anything remotely resembling the quote in the days following 9/11, and Bush’s speechwriters deny this is something the president said. I checked the WhiteHouse.gov archive of Bush speeches, too, and it’s not there. (There is, however, a short speech on Islam as a religion of peace, which takes a very different tack than that which Tyson suggests.)
The closest thing Davis could find to the quote Tyson attributes to Bush is from remarks the president gave in 2003.
The only similar quote came in February of 2003 after the crash of the space shuttle Columbia, when the president said, “The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.”
However, contrary to what Tyson has repeatedly claimed, the Columbia space shuttle comment — which was wholly different in purpose, content, and timing than the alleged 9/11 quote cited by Tyson — was meant to unite the nation following a horrible tragedy, not divide it based on religion. And contrary to Tyson’s claim that the alleged quote was loosely taken from Genesis, the actual quote was taken from the book of Isaiah. A similar verse can also be found in Psalm 147.
Note that the claims Davis contests are not casual remarks in conversation or responses to questions, but planned and repeated accounts. The various stories Davis challenges are regularly repeated in Tyson’s lectures, and the Bush anecdote is highlighted on the Hayden planetarium Web site. They are the sorts of claims someone of Tyson’s stature should not be making in public lectures unless they are, in fact, true. Politicians are routinely flayed for less — and we know Tyson is much smarter than the average politician. He should not be held to a lower standard.
It is possible that all of the claims Tyson has made are accurate (save for all the variations of his jury duty tale). The various quotes, including that by Bush, may well exist. If so, I would think Tyson can provide citations. If not, Tyson should acknowledge his errors.
If the quotes are verified, by Tyson or someone else, I will update this post accordingly. I will also post any response I receive from Tyson, and link to any response from him published elsewhere. Tyson’s agent had no response to this Daily Beast story, though a representative of the Hayden Planetarium apparently verified the Tyson comment referenced here.
White-House fence jumper was a Greenie
“White House fence jumper had ammunition, machete in car, prosecutors said,” the Washington Post’s headline screams. As always during modern-day politically-related crime stories where weapons are involved, the ideology of the suspect is investigated by the MSM. If the suspect was a man of the right, those details would be in the lede of the article, or in the headline.
If he’s a man of the left? Well, it’s likely no coincidence that you have dig down eleven paragraphs into the Post’s story for this detail:
"According to an affidavit signed by Secret Service officer David Hochman, Gonzalez after his arrest told Agent Lee Smart that he was concerned that the “atmosphere was collapsing” and that he needed to inform the president to get the word out to the people."
However, neither prosecutors nor Gonzalez’s assigned defense attorneys invoked his mental competency as an issue for now. Assistant Federal Public Defender David Bos said Gonzalez understands the proceeding against him.
Yes, if the Post’s reporting is accurate concerning Gonzalez, anyone who believes “the atmosphere is collapsing” is some brand of nutter, and nutters can be found on both sides of the aisle.
Our previous post on Terry Gilliam noted that he called those who disagree with his far left environmentalist worldview “a fungus and if I was running the country I would take them out and shoot them.”
As I wrote, we live in a media world in which Sarah Palin was tied into the Gabrielle Giffords shooting over clip-art and ABC’s Brian Ross immediately smeared a Tea Party member with the the same name as the Aurora Colorado lunatic who shot up a Batman premiere, ideology trumps insanity in the eyes of the media.
Or as Ace of Spades wrote in December of 2012 after the New York Times began politicizing the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT from the left only a few hours after castigating the pro-Constitution side of the aisle for doing the same from their worldview:
Incidentally, the gun-rights people “politicizing” this are doing so pre-emptively, because they’ve seen this play six hundred times before and they know what happens in the Second Act.
I mean, it’s not like we’re as stupid as you claim. We are able to remember things that happened more than a week ago.
This is also why we now immediately search for a gunman’s political affiliation– because we know that’s the first thing you do.
This is the cynical world the media created, in service to their Democrat allies. Once again, the MSM should read Gabriel Malor’s “Tweetable Guide To Media Myths And Left-wing Violence.”
Chief Meteorologist At Weatherbell Analytics: Organizers Of People’s Climate March Were ‘Prostituting The Weather And Climate’
Dom Giordano talked to Joe Bastardi, from Weatherbell Analytics, on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT to discuss the People’s Climate March in New York City.
Bastardi said that people are not causing climate change and expects scientific data to eventually back that up.
“The debate on what is going on is over. It is over. Now we just have to see what happens when the Atlantic flips into its cold cycle and the cyclical nature of the sun, whether we return to the temperatures we were in the late seventies as measured by objective satellite readings.”
He commented that the protestors at the climate march were more concerned with their political agenda than climate science.
“If you really paid attention to what happened, the mask is off, and I appreciate that those people that organized this came out and let us know who they were. If you look at the list of people, Communist Party USA, Socialists. Fine, if you want to have that debate, that debate should be done at the polling place and should be done in the halls of Congress or try to change laws. It shouldn’t be prostituting the weather and climate for your own needs.”
Bastardi stated there are technical disagreements that can be addressed among scientists, but really doesn’t rise to any level of concern for the general public.
“This is ridiculous. This should be two weather geeks arguing over a chess game with a cup of tea or whatever you want to drink. The whole thing is blown out, it’s one of the weirdest arguments I’ve ever been involved with, because in the end, there is nothing new under the sun, and nature, not man, rules the climate system.”
West Coast warming blamed on natural causes, not human activity
A century-long warming of the West Coast of North America has occured mostly due to natural changes in winds and not human-induced activity such as greenhouse gas emissions, a new study suggests.
The average temperature along the West Coast increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit between 1900 and 2000. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that changing winds that affect ocean circulation were responsible for more than 80 percent of the warming trend along the Pacific Northwest coast between Washington and Northern California. In Southern California, wind patterns accounted for about 60 percent of the increased warming.
"Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term," study author James Johnstone, an independent climatologist who did most of the work for the study when he was at the University of Washington's Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, told the Los Angeles Times. The paper explains that a weakening of coastal winds slowed down evaporation and altered ocean currents, which boosted local temperatures.
The researchers determined that most of the temperature increase in the region happened before 1940, and that human activity such as greenhouse gas emissions was not a major factor.
"It's a simple story, but the results are very surprising: We do not see a human hand in the warming of the West Coast," study co-author Nate Mantua, now with NOAA Fisheries' Southwest Fisheries Science Center, told the Seattle Times. "That is taking people by surprise, and may generate some blowback."
But the results do not suggest there's no relationship between human activity and global climate change, the researchers stressed.
"This [study] doesn't say that global warming is not happening," Mantua told the paper. "It doesn't say human-caused climate change isn't happening globally. It's a regional story."
However, the new findings do raise questions about how well climate change models can predict information about changes in local temperatures.
Some experts who were not involved in the study expressed skepticism of the quality of the early 20th-century data the scientists used in the study.
"The principles they are putting forth in the paper I agree with, but as you go back further and further in time you start to increase the amount of error inherent in the data," John Abatzoglou, a climatologist at the University of Idaho, told the Seattle Times. Abatzoglu co-authored a study earlier this year that determined that human issues were a leading cause of temperature rise in the Northwest.
In addition, Amy Snover, the head of Climate Impacts Group at University of Washington, told the paper that the study doesn't contradict the long-term trend of global climate change.
"I think what it does show is that there are aspects of regional climate that these models could do better at," Snover said. "But we know we're in for a bumpy ride. We know that the influence of humans on climate is only growing over time. We expect over coming decades for that influence to get bigger and bigger."
The new study was published Monday in the journal PNAS.
UK: Power from wind turbines slumps - due to lack of wind
Power produced by wind farms slumped by a fifth in the second quarter of this year, despite hundreds of new turbines being built – because it wasn’t very windy.
Official Government statistics published on Thursday show that in the three months to the end of June, the amount of electricity produced by offshore wind farms fell by 22 per cent, to 2 terawatt-hours (TWh), compared with the same period the year before.
Yet the number of offshore wind turbines operating grew significantly – with 4.1 gigawatts (GW) of capacity installed in the seas around the UK by June this year, up from 3.5GW by June 2013.
Power output from onshore wind farms also fell, by 17 per cent to 3.22 TWh. The fall came despite dozens of new wind farms being built, increasing onshore wind capacity by 14 per cent over the same period.
There was 8GW of onshore capacity at the end of June, 1GW more than a year before.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said that the impact of increased capacity was “out-weighed by that of very low wind speeds”.
“Average wind speeds were 1.6 knots lower than a year earlier, and the lowest for quarter two for four years. Average wind speeds in June were the lowest for any month in the last 14 years,” it said.
About 900 turbines were constructed on and offshore over the course of 2013, according to Renewable UK.
Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which publishes data on the sector and is critical of subsidy costs, said: “The latest DECC data is further confirmation that wind power output is highly variable over all timescales, minutes, hours, months, and even from year to year.
“These variabilities are physically manageable but they have highly significant negative economic impacts on the rest of the power generation fleet, whose market is made very uncertain, and these uncertainties ultimately mean much higher costs for consumers.”
While wind power output fell, the amount of electricity generated from solar farms soared by 67 per cent, to 1.2TWh.
The rise was in line with a near-identical increase in the amount of solar capacity installed.
Ministers have admitted that solar farms have been installed far more rapidly than they had expected, thanks to costs falling and developers taking advantage of generous subsidies.
In May they announced they were closing a subsidy scheme two years earlier than planned to stop the spread of the farms, which critics say are blighting the countryside.
Ministers originally anticipated between 2.4-4GW of large-scale solar being installed by 2020. Yet the latest DECC statistics show that the upper end of that range has now been exceeded, with 4.1GW installed by the end of June.
A spokesman for the wind industry trade association RenewableUK said: "Although it's no secret that there are some periods that are even windier than others, the wider statistics show that wind energy is generating increasing amounts of clean electricity for British homes and businesses year on year.
"When you look at the last twelve months as a whole, generation from renewable sources in the UK went up to just over 17 per cent - up from 13 per cent in the previous 12 months. The lion's share of that came from onshore and offshore wind - just over 50 per cent of it.
"In August, wind energy outstripped coal and nuclear for several days, and hit at all time 24-hour record high of 22 per cent of the UK's electricity needs.
"National Grid has no problem taking clean power generated by wind whenever it's available as often as it can, and it can predict exactly where the power will come from in advance with pinpoint accuracy. Every unit of electricity we generate from wind offsets a unit from polluting fossil fuels, so anyone who cares about climate change knows that we need to make the most of it whenever we can."
One green power company, Infinis Energy, reported last month that its onshore wind farms had exported a third less power in the three months to June, compared to the same period the year before, blaming “low wind speeds experienced across the UK throughout the period”.
However, it said it would be “well placed to benefit from recovering wind speeds when they occur”.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. 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 or here
Posted by JR at 12:38 AM