Tuesday, September 15, 2015


Lord Monckton reacts below to Snyder's 'climate scam' piece in the NYT, warning of a 'next genocide'.  I thought I was pretty acerbic at times but Monckton leaves me far behind.

There is a small coda to this Snyder nonsense that I would like to mention: As Monckton documents below, Snyder explicitly compares climate skeptics to Hitler.  In my comment on Snyder yesterday I pointed out that was actually Snyder who was comparable to Hitler!  Fair enough?  Apparently not. I got a tweet about that from someone who calls himself The Tracker -- @IdiotTracker .  His  tweet in full was:

"@jonjayray @ClimateDepot That is possibly the dumbest attempt at guilt by association I've ever seen. And I've read @JoanneNova's blog. #sad"

He shows absolutely no awareness that it was Snyder who was attempting to create guilt by association.  Selective vision at its finest! Only Leftists are allowed to talk about Hitler, apparently.  I don't in fact think I was attempting to create guilt by association.  I think I was making an accurate historical comparison, while Snyder certainly was not

The Marxstream news media have always been champions of every passing totalitarian fad, however murderous. Hitler only got away with the slaughter of 6 million Jews because the Western news media fawned upon him and demanded appeasement almost until the first shots were fired in the Second World War. Likewise, the totalitarian press fawned upon Communism, even as it killed 100 million in the 20th century alone, to such an extent that some papers could scarcely bring themselves to cheer when the Berlin wall was torn down.

Naturally, therefore, they all signed up dutifully to the climate scam, the new and ingenious but false and intrinsically genocidal pretext for the global government centered on the U.N. that, barring a miracle, will be established in Paris this December. In support of this ghastly endeavor, the New York Times ran an outstandingly repellent opinion piece on Sept. 12 by a useless professor of tiddlywinks and raffia work at Yale, one Snyder (by name and nature) describing those of us who dare to question the climate scam as adopting “an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”

Let us put that revolting and stunningly inapt comparison into its context. This is what the evil Snyder wrote and the New York Times(“all the junk that’s fit to debunk”) published, under the headline, “The Next Genocide”:

“Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science – an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”

I have no idea how much taxpayer money this egregious waste of space has accumulated over the decades. Every cent of it was wasted.

Let us take apart Snyder’s tortuous attempt not only to deny that Hitler was a greenie but also to make out that he was somehow “anti-science.” First, Hitler did not “spread ecological panic”; he exploited environmentalism as a method of ruthless control.

The National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany was the first in the world to adopt the “green” mantle, for Hitler and his goons were ahead of the pack in appreciating what Snyder and his overpaid, under-educated fellow goons in the batik and tie-dyeing department at Yale kindergarten well understand: If you are arrogant enough to want to control the populace, the “green” agenda – let us call it “Agenda 21″ – is the very best program to provide nonsensical excuses for the governing elite to interfere expensively in every tiny detail of our lives.

And Hitler’s problem was not that he “denied the science that promised alternatives to war.” He wanted war, and he embraced the science that made it possible.

The reason for Snyder’s more than usually dumb comparison was, of course, so that he could clamber onto the “global-warming” bandwagon just as all the wheels are coming off. Snyder, plainly no scientist, labors under the elementary delusion that CO2 is “pollution.” For what does a communist need to know about science? One thing and one thing only – the party line. And Snyder knows the party line all right, for it is spouted interminably in the knitting and crochet-work department at Yale and Harvard and other places where they used to think and now merely chant currently fashionable hard-left slogans.

Snyder is, in effect, accusing the Republican Party and the few business interests not yet profiteering monstrously from the climate fraud of being as genocidal as Hitler. The truth, of course, is that the real genocide is happening unseen every day in Africa, where for a tenth of what we are already squandering on the non-problem that was “global warming,” we could give everyone cheap, reliable, clean, fossil-fueled electric power, lift them out of poverty, disease and death, and hence stabilize the population, minimizing its environmental footprint.

To get the scare going, the climate communists made certain definite predictions that have just as definitely not come to pass. Those first predictions in 1990 were to the effect that by now there would have been almost three times as much global warming. It is legitimate, therefore, to raise questions about why there has been negligible global warming in the oceans throughout the entire 11 years of systematic measurement, and none at all in the lower atmosphere for 18 years and eight months, according to the satellites.

It is Snyder, then, who is anti-science – or would be, if he or anyone in the origami and card-tricks department at Yale were bright enough. All the predictions of doom in which he believes because they constitute the party line have been proven utterly false. All the ice gone in the Arctic by 2013: Nope, it’s still there. Droughts increasing (Snyder’s hate speech is illustrated with a photo captioned to the effect that droughts are worsening): Nope, the area of the globe under drought has been declining for 30 years. Sea-level rise accelerating (Snyder’s article has a photo caption alleging that “in Bangladesh millions of people have been displaced by floods and the rising sea level”): Nope, sea level off Bangladesh has actually fallen throughout the recent record. Storms increasing: Nope, there’s been no land-falling hurricane in the U.S. for longer than at any time since records began, and global storminess has remained much the same throughout the satellite era.

Should Snyder have been allowed to preach so much malice and hate so openly, so mendaciously, and with so scandalously little intellectual rigor or moral justification? One might have hoped for better from the coloring-by-numbers department at Yale. Your Constitution, though, says hate speech is fine, and the Supreme clots will uphold it as long as the speaker is left-wing.

However, the New York Times,though it takes full advantage of the constitutional right of free speech, has shown itself to be culpably determined not to allow any point of view but its own to be argued in its pages, particularly on any question – such as climate – that lies at the heart of the communist party line that it espouses. Do not hold your breath for an early reply to Snyder’s goose-stepping in that once-great paper’s shabby columns.

Let us hope that the Grand Old Party will remember Snyder’s words of sheer, hate-filled wickedness and make absolutely sure that every penny that might otherwise have gone to the face-painting and dressing-up department at Yale in funding for any purpose is cut off and put straight back into the pockets of the hard-pressed taxpayers from which it was wrenched.

It is Snyder who is the little Hitler here. Like Hitler, he believes that only one point of view is permissible on the question of the hour. Like Hitler, he espouses what history will reveal to have been entirely the wrong point of view. Like Hitler, he accuses his opponents of genocide while advocating it himself by demanding that the U.S. should adopt the brutal, genocidal climate-communist party line. Like Hitler, he uses the environment as a threadbare cloak for rank totalitarian advocacy. Like Hitler, he hates his own country enough to spit upon it and to wish to do it harm for absolutely no good reason. Like Hitler, he distorts the scientific truth and exploits it in an unprincipled fashion for the sake of spreading hatred. Like Hitler, he knows little or no science himself. Like Hitler, he flagrantly, knowingly, repeatedly, hatefully states the direct opposite of the objective truth.

What, then, to do about Snyder? No doubt there are still a few red-blooded Americans at Yale, mingling among the etiolated, apolaustic epicenes who mince about the place. Let them, passing Snyder as he scurries earnestly toward the stenciling-and-crayons department, throw him a mocking Nazi salute and, at the tops of their voices, yell “Heil Snyder!”

The odious Snyder deserves the minting of a new word. For there are two species of totalitarian socialism on this planet, alas, and that shambling, bleating wretch is the very embodiment and quintessence of both. There is communist socialism, which believes that everything that moves should be nationalized and that everything that doesn’t move should be arrested or left to rust, and down with the United States. And there is fascist socialism, which believes grinding the poor under its jack-booted heel and cozying up to big business and allowing it to be independent just so long as it toes the party line, and down with the United States.

The New York Times and its dismal professor of silly walks and cupcake-baking are communists and fascists rolled up into one. They are fasmunists. It’s an ugly word for ugly people. Heil Snyder!


Physicists Predict Rapid Fall In Solar Activity -- to mini ice age levels

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.

Results were presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova to the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno on 9 July 2015.

It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.  Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

Journal abstract:

Heartbeat of the sun derived with principal component analyses and prediction of solar activity on millennium scale

by Valentina Zharkova et al


In this talk we present new results of principal component analysis of the solar background magnetic field and sunspot magnetic field measured in the cycles 21-24 by Wilcox Solar Observatory and SOHO/MDI. We report a pair of principal components (PCs) of magnetic field waves covering more than 30% of the data variance and attribute these components to dynamo waves generated in two layer dynamo model. We derive mathematical laws describing these dynamo waves and describe their link to the solar activity index of sunspot numbers. Using the derived laws we predict the solar activity backward and forward for two millenniums and reveal close fit to all the observed activity features and the presence of a long-term activity cycle of 320-400 years in addition to the regular 22 year cycle. Preliminary interpretation of the PCA results with the modified Parker's two layer dynamo model accounting for both cycles (22 and 350 years) is also discussed.


Britain facing a decade of colder summers – but we'll still have global warming

Global warming is now a sort of rosary: You just keep chanting it no matter what

After a somewhat underwhelming summer, it might not come as much of a surprise.  British summers could get cooler over the next decade, according to the Met Office.

But don’t throw away the barbecue just yet, as it’s not all bad news. Summers are also likely to be significantly drier than in recent years, a report predicts.

The changes are being driven by north Atlantic sea temperatures, which are expected to drop by around half a degree over the next decade.

While this does not sound like much, it could be enough to cool our summers by an average of 1C over ten years.

But higher temperatures elsewhere might cancel out the effect on Britain, the Met Office said.

And at the same time, the UK’s tendency for wet summers could be about to change, with far fewer showers ahead.

The Met Office has had a controversial record on forecasting summer weather. In April 2009, it predicted that Britain was ‘odds-on for a barbecue summer’ – which instead went on to be one of the wettest on record.

Professor Adam Scaife, of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for long-range forecasting, said sea temperatures in the north Atlantic have risen in recent years, but are now expected to fall.

He told the Daily Mail the cooling effect on the UK was likely to be ‘less than a degree’, adding that other influences – such as global warming and a weather phenomenon called El Nino which heats up the Pacific Ocean – could possibly cancel out the temperature drop.

Professor Rowan Sutton of Reading University, one of the experts who reviewed the report’s findings, told a press conference: ‘Let me be absolutely clear: This does not mean we are heading for the next ice age.  ‘Absolutely not. We are talking about a modest cooling. Maybe half a degree centigrade for example in the north Atlantic.  ‘That might not sound very much but it is potentially enough to affect weather patterns in Europe and elsewhere.’

He said that a drop in Atlantic temperatures ‘favours cooler and possibly drier summers in northern Europe’. British summers could be ‘significantly drier’, he added.

Professor Sutton also said it was too early to tell whether the slower global warming seen in the past ten years – sometimes called the ‘global warming slowdown’ – was coming to an end.

While average temperatures worldwide have risen in the past decade, increases have been far slower than they were in the last 30 years of the 20th century.

The experts said other factors that could affect our weather include a potential volcanic eruption – when ash blocks out the sun’s rays causing cooler temperatures.

The El Nino phenomenon is also likely to raise temperatures in the Pacific by 2-3C.

The knock-on effects of this could heighten the risk of a particularly cold end to winter in the UK, forecasters said.


Global warming hiatus could be coming to an end: UK’s Met Office

And pigs might fly.  Lots of things COULD happen! Speculation is all that Warmists have got.  Amusing that it the report above they predicted cooling but below they are predicting warming. They sure spread their bets

Record temperatures and changes to climate patterns in the world’s oceans are among signs that a global warming pause is coming to an end, Britain’s Met Office said in a report on Monday.

The report comes just over two months before negotiators from almost 200 countries meet in Paris to thrash out a U.N. deal to curb global climate change.

In 2013, a United Nations report on climate science made an observation that temperatures had increased at a slower rate in the years since 1998 than the preceding 50 years.

But on Monday, the Met said in a report that observations of climate patterns in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans combined with record global temperatures last year and expectations 2015 and 2016 would be near record highs pointed to a changing trend.

"All of these signals are consistent with what we would expect to see at the end of the slowdown," Adam Scaife, one of the reports authors, said at a press briefing.

Last year was the warmest since records began in the 19th century, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization.

The El Nino weather phenomenon - a warming of sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific - is likely to contribute to another year of record temperatures in 2015. But Scaife said man-made contributions to global warming would also play a part.

"A lot of things can occur without the influence of human beings. However, they are now occurring on top of the influence coming from man’s activity," Scaife said.

"When an El Nino comes and raises the global temperature...that is the extra bit that creates a record," he said.

One of the main goals of the U.N. climate pact is to stop global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, what scientist say is needed to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change such as worsening floods, droughts, storms and rising seas.


U-turn! Diesel car owners betrayed in Britain

Diesel cars were supposed to be "Green">  Now they are apparently becoming "Brown"

Diesel drivers could face charges of up to £12.50 to travel into city centres across England in a bid to reduce air pollution.

The charges, expected to be introduced by 2020, are likely to affect diesel vehicles entering parts of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Derby, Nottingham and Southampton.

It comes as part of the Government’s bid to reduce levels of the pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which official figures claim is responsible for 23,500 deaths in Britain a year, and has led to soaring rates of respiratory illnesses in children. A further 29,000 deaths a year are thought to be caused by sooty particles also produced by diesel vehicles.

But last night motoring organisations and green groups reacted furiously to the proposals – pointing out drivers had been encouraged by Government tax incentives to buy diesel cars when they were thought to be less polluting because they produced less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).

These drivers now face the prospect of increased costs for using their vehicles.

Critics also attacked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for attempting to ‘bury bad news’, with the plans revealed in a consultation paper released just before Jeremy Corbyn was announced as Labour leader on Saturday morning.

Alan Andrews of lobby group ClientEarth, which brought proceedings against the Government for failing to meet clean air targets, said: ‘If they genuinely had good things to shout about... they would not have sneaked it out at 9.30am on Saturday.’

London officials have said all but the cleanest diesel cars entering its Ultra Low Emission Zone from September 2020 will have to pay £12.50. This is on top of the existing congestion charge, currently at £10.

Buses and lorries will have to pay £100, but classic cars, agricultural and military vehicles and excavators will be exempt. Petrol cars registered before 2006 would also have to pay, but diesel vehicles that meet Europe’s 2015 emissions standards will not.

The other cities earmarked for the charges are likely to follow suit, with exact details to be set by local authorities.

Britain has breached the safe limits set by Brussels for NO2 in the atmosphere, and has until December 21 to submit plans to the European Commission on how it will meet tough EU targets. Earlier this year the Supreme Court also ordered the Government to cut NO2 levels.

The report divides the UK into 43 clean air areas. Scientists estimate eight will still breach pollution requirements by 2020.

These include the six city centres likely to be the target of the new charges, a stretch of road in Wales and an ‘Eastern Zone’ – including parts of Essex and East Anglia – that would come under London measures. The report says that although the new measures would reduce London’s NO2 levels to a safer target, Eastern Zone levels would still breach guidelines.

The report includes no details of measures which would help motorists who bought diesel vehicles in good faith, such as a scrappage scheme.

AA spokesman Paul Watters last night branded the proposals ‘unworkable’. He said: ‘We obviously need cleaner air, but we need to address it in a much more mature way and work towards these goals, rather than just saying “We’ll ban diesels”.

‘Drivers are confused, they have been encouraged to have low CO2 cars which were diesels and now this.’

Jenny Bates, of Friends of the Earth, said: ‘The Government’s response to the UK’s air pollution is breathtaking. It’s inadequate and it has no detail. Children and pensioners have got another five to ten years of breathing illegally filthy air before there is any action.’


Britain's government is shooting itself in the foot with array of green taxes

A punishing array of green taxes is damaging Britain’s competitiveness while failing to drive up investment or lower emissions in a significant way, the EEF has warned. In a major report, the industry body said a “decade of tinkering” had left businesses strangled by red tape and energy bills that were much higher than those faced by European competitors.

The manufacturers’ organisation said tax breaks and not tax hikes were the only way to keep Britain at the forefront of innovation while lowering emissions. Paul Raynes, the EEF’s director of policy said: “The current system of energy taxation is too complex and is hurting Britain’s competitiveness.

So instead of simply hitting firms with the big stick of ever-higher carbon taxes and levies, we should be offering them the carrot of tax breaks to invest in advanced low carbon technologies.”

George Osborne, the Chancellor, has announced a review of the green tax landscape designed to simplify and streamline the regime.

The EEF, which represents more than 20,000 companies, is calling on the Government to reduce the overall burden of energy taxation by the end of this parliament. It also wants policymakers to scrap the carbon floor price, which doubled to £18.08 per tonne of CO2 this year.

The shock announcement of the early closure of one of Britain's biggest power stations, at Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire – seven years before it needed to be closed – has come as a body blow to Britain's energy security

The top-up carbon tax was intended to provide an incentive to invest in new wind farms and nuclear plants by making it more expensive to run coal and gas plants that emit carbon. The EEF estimated the levy would cost consumers £23bn between 2013 and 2020. However, it said just £6.5bn of this would feed through to investment in renewables.

The EEF also called on the Government to scrap the “overly-complex” Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC), an energy efficiency scheme that it said would cost businesses £900m this year alone but translate into just £334m of investment over the next decade.

It wants policymakers to introduce a new tax break that would allow companies to offset their climate change levy bill against investment in enegy efficiiency improvements. While the EEF estimated this could cost £1.5bn between 2016 and 2020, it claimed that a new incentive scheme could deliver ten times as much new green investment.

“Government should use the energy taxation review as an opportunity to step back, and make some bold decisions that we believe can reduce energy costs as well as cutting back on carbon emissions, and improving the environment,” said Mr Raynes.



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


No comments: