Sunday, July 15, 2012

Gauleiter Michael Mann says there is no room for good faith debate about global warming

Lies and distortions are OK then? A rather surprising revelation of his thinking, but it was part of a discussion with a Warmist journalist, so he appears to have let caution slip

And it wasn't that many years ago when this really wasn't a partisan issue, when politicians of conscience on both sides of the aisle recognized that we needed to have a good faith discussion about what to do about the problem.

There is no room anymore to have a good faith discussion about whether the problem is real. But there is a worthy discussion to be had about what to do about that problem, and wouldn't it be great if we could get beyond this false debate about whether the problem even exists, and on to the legitimate debate that is to be had about what to do about it?


Global Warming Fosters High-Latitude Cooling?

Discussing: Cohen, J., Foster, J., Barlow, M., Saito, K. and Jones, J. 2010. Winter 2009/10: a case study of an extreme Arctic Oscillation event. Geophysical Research Letters 37: 10.1029/2010GL044256.

In a study published in Environmental Research Letters, Cohen et al. (2012) note that over the last four decades Arctic temperatures have warmed at nearly double the global rate, citing Solomon et al. (2007) and Screen and Simmonds (2010); and they state that "coupled climate models attribute much of this warming to rapid increases in greenhouse gases and project the strongest warming across the extratropical Northern Hemisphere during boreal winter due to 'winter (or Arctic) amplification'," citing Holland and Bitz (2003), Hansen and Nazarenko (2004), Alexeev et al. (2005) and Langen and Alexeev (2007).

However, they say that "recent trends in observed Northern Hemisphere winter surface temperatures diverge from these projections," noting that "while the planet has steadily warmed, Northern Hemisphere winters have recently grown more extreme across the major industrialized centers," and reporting that "record cold snaps and heavy snowfall events across the United States, Europe and East Asia garnered much public attention during the winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 (Blunden et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2010)," with the latter set of researchers suggesting that "the occurrence of more severe Northern Hemisphere winter weather is a two-decade-long trend starting around 1988."

So what's going on here?

Cohen et al. say that "whether the recent colder winters are a consequence of internal variability or a response to changes in boundary forcings resulting from climate change remains an open question." But like most scientists who love to resolve dilemmas, they go on to propose their answer to the puzzle, suggesting that "summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling."

But, again, who knows? The only thing that is certain, as Cohen et al. describe it, is that "traditional radiative greenhouse gas theory and coupled climate models forced by increasing greenhouse gases alone cannot account for this seasonal asymmetry." And so we have yet another reason why so many scientists are so skeptical about the ability of even the most sophisticated of today's climate models to adequately portray reality.

SOURCE (See the original for references)

How neo-Malthusians demonise dissent

In branding those who disagree with them `deniers', the overpopulation lobby reveals its allergy to debate

Michael Buerk, the broadcaster famous for bringing images of Ethiopia's famine to BBC viewers' attention in 1984, claimed this week that the issue of human population growth is the `invisible issue of the twenty-first century'.

And why is population growth the great unmentionable of our time? Because, as Buerk puts it, of `the population deniers'. This evil constituency seems `to regard the whole issue as bad taste, a kind of disguised racism', he said. As a result, overpopulation `does not seem to be up for discussion'.

Really? An `invisible issue'? Not `up for discussion'? In fact, here's just a few of the people who have joined the choir singing about the perils of population growth: former US president George HW Bush, the Dalai Lama, Hillary Clinton, David Attenborough, Bob Geldof and Cameron Diaz. They're not exactly low-profile people. Even Queen Elizabeth II has chimed in with some miserable Malthusian rhetoric. When speaking of the Caribbean island of St Vincent's, she said: `One must remember that its resources are finite and cannot accommodate indefinite population growth.'

And if recent surveys are any indication, this `invisible issue' which is `not up for discussion' seems to be pretty visible and widely discussed among the public. According to a Guardian poll, for instance, 75 per cent of respondents agreed that `the planet can't sustain more mouths to feed'. Elsewhere, a YouGov poll found that `over four out of five (84 per cent) thought the world population was too high'. Overpopulation hardly seems to be a taboo issue in polite conversation.

In fact, it seems to be Buerk himself who is attempting to shut down debate about population growth by using the pejorative `population deniers' to describe those with differing views. The use of the term `deniers' is a cheap attempt to place those who dissent from neo-Malthusian malarkey on the same level as those with whom the term is most closely associated: Holocaust deniers. By labelling opponents as such, Buerk is trying to portray them as being as mad and irrational as those who refuse to acknowledge the mass slaughter of European Jewry during the Second World War.

Besides, there's a reason why neo-Malthusian population obsessives are accused of racism - and it has nothing to do with trying to shut down debate. Rather, racism is an inescapable feature of the Malthusian tradition. Thomas Malthus, the awkward godfather of the modern overpopulation movement, attempted to set in biological stone the social problems of early industrial Britain at the turn of the nineteenth century. By claiming that population always outgrew the development of the means to support it, he was able to blame poverty on the copulating habits of, as he put it, the `race of labourers'. This elitist and prejudiced view of Britain's emerging working class is now projected on to the people of Africa and Asia by today's neo-Malthusians. Where Malthus portrayed the impoverished workers of early capitalism as causing their own misfortune and misery through being so stupid as to have lots of children, his contemporary equivalents frame the impoverished Africans and Asians in the same way.

The racism of neo-Malthusian types is often apparent today. Hence when ever the alleged issue of overpopulation is discussed, the focus is always on the dark-skinned people of the Third World. Despite their meagre consumption levels, the dark mass of people Over There are accused of using up too many of the world's resources. That's why, as Brendan O'Neill has pointed out, news articles discussing overpopulation often use pictures of `Indians squeezing on to a train, Chinese women going shopping, [and] black babies sleeping'.

The problem with the overpopulation theorists, be it Malthus or Michael Buerk, is their dismal view of humanity. When looking at the population of the earth, they view humans simply as mouths to feed, a plague of locusts that consumes all it can. They don't take into account the other side, that humans are also producers. Each mouth to feed also comes with a pair of hands and a brain. The problem of poverty in the Third World is not due to Africans' feckless, contraceptive-averse behaviour creating too many mouths to feed; it is a product of a lack of economic growth, growth that would allow the hands and brains to be used to create more goods for more people to consume.

As Karl Marx pointed out, poverty that may seem to be the result of overpopulation is due to limits `posited rather by specific conditions of production. How small do the numbers which meant overpopulation for the Athenians appear to us!' As economies and societies develop, so too does the ability to support more and more people. The Malthusians view resources as fixed and finite; they ignore advances in human productivity. What was a useless piece of the earth one day becomes a highly useful resource the next. When pre-industrial man used oil to water-seal boats, none would have imagined that this black liquid would one day power the world. As human progress continues, so will our ability to produce more stuff for ever larger numbers of people.


Caught in a Green Crossfire

President Obama has waged war on fossil fuels for three and a half years - and American consumers and families are caught in the green energy crossfire.

They are getting hit with higher energy prices, dismal employment prospects and a floundering economy, as billions go to unfriendly overseas countries for oil we could produce in the USA, and billions of tax dollars are wasted on subsidy schemes designed to make "green" energy more competitive - by raising the cost of electricity and fossil fuels that really power our economy. Even worse, his policies are actively killing jobs and preventing job creation: in the oil patch, coal country, and hundreds of industries whose survival depends on reliable, affordable energy. Family salaries and budgets, health and welfare, hopes and dreams are being pummeled. In reality, the only thing "green" about his ideologically driven energy policies is the money leaving our wallets. Mr. Obama's energy policy isn't about serving American consumers. It's about appeasing environmentalists and crony capitalists whom the President is counting on for his reelection campaign.

In an incredible "coincidence," some of the "green" energy companies that received portions of the $15 billion in taxpayer-financed US Energy Department loans and grants are run or backed by some of President Obama's biggest campaign donors. Solyndra - the solar company that went bankrupt, fired its employees and now cannot repay its $535-million loan - is just one example. Presidential candidate Obama said energy prices "would necessarily skyrocket" under his policies. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said "somehow we have to figure out a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" (over $8 per gallon), to reduce consumption. And EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is issuing carbon dioxide and other regulations that will drive coal-based electricity out of existence, make cars even more expensive and less safe, and give her agency effective control over our entire economy.

Belatedly realizing that supporting $8 gasoline is not politically astute, President Obama and many Democrats are now trying to recast themselves as friends of consumers, at least until November, by backing a few oil and gas projects - while strangling other projects and entire industries in miles of regulatory red tape.

When the House Appropriations Committee asked Secretary Chu if his goal now was to lower gasoline prices, he responded: "No, the overall goal is to reduce our dependency on oil, and build and strengthen our economy" - via algae and other "alternative" or "green" energy projects, mandates for further improved energy efficiency, and even expensive biofuel for fighter jets and navy ships, to justify keeping America's abundant petroleum resources off limits.

When his comments sparked new torrents of criticism, Mr. Chu did another flip-flop, saying days later, "Both I and the President and everybody in the administration want to do what we can to lower the price of gasoline." Their anti-leasing, anti-drilling, anti-pipeline policies are a strange way to do that.

Even former Tennessee Democrat Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. has called on President Obama to support more production from federal lands and waters, and approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada, Montana and North Dakota to Gulf Coast refineries - and create 180,000 direct and indirect jobs in the process. These are two long overdue steps, but there is no indication that the President will take them. Worse, his administration is doing just the opposite.

His Interior Secretary says drilling proponents live in "a world of fairy tales," if they think we can drill our way into more jobs and greater prosperity. He sends helicopters out to find 28 ducks that died when they landed in oilfield waste pits - and then proposes regulations that would allow wind turbine operators to kill hundreds of bald and golden eagles annually, without penalty, and fast-track wind and solar projects that would severely impact wildlife, habitats and scenic areas.

His Environmental Protection Agency issued 588 pages of new rules to over-regulate hydraulic fracturing that has been the only reason American oil and gas production has increased under Mr. Obama's watch. Meanwhile, EPA, Interior and other federal agencies are issuing extreme, often conflicting, environmental regulations that do little or nothing for human health or the environment, delay oil and gas production, saddle consumers with billions of dollars in extra expenses, drive up pump prices, impair job creation, and deprive America of billions in bonus, royalty and tax revenues.

In an attempt to distract voters from these real issues, President Obama calls incessantly for investigation into alleged "oil speculators" and for an end to what he falsely labels "oil company subsidies." In reality, he wants to block certain oil companies from getting the same tax deductions that other American companies are allowed to claim, and hit the oil companies with $4 billion in tax hikes that will drive gasoline prices even higher.

It's like saying new regulations and taxes on coffee will make a cup of java cost less. The only way any of this makes sense is when you realize that higher gasoline (and electricity) prices are the very purpose of Obama policies. The President just wants to achieve his goals without leaving any fingerprints - and by getting people to blame oil companies instead. President Obama and his allies need to stop masquerading as friends of American motorists, workers and families - and change their energy policies so that they become friends in reality. But don't bet on that happening.


The relentless drumbeat of Warmist false prophecy continues

The article below is from December 12, 2007 and was headed "Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?". It was by the inimitable Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press. The Arctic sea ice has of course since bounced back

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer-a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.

Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years ago, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by the Associated Press (AP).

"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."


Australia too: The relentless Warmist drone of false prophecy continues
January 4, 2008

This drought may never break

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation's most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

"Perhaps we should call it our new climate," said the Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis, David Jones.

Sydney's nights were its warmest since records were first kept 149 years ago.

"There is absolutely no debate that Australia is warming," said Dr Jones. "It is very easy to see . it is happening before our eyes."

Four and a half years later - drought in Australia is at historic lows (we are having unseasonable winter rain outside my window right now -- JR), and Sydney just had their coldest summer on record.
February 15, 2012

Sydney's record cool weather to continue

WESTERN Sydney is experiencing its coldest summer on record thanks to cloud and rain associated with the La Nina weather cycle.

Tom Saunders, senior meteorologist at The Weather Channel, said Penrith had experienced average maximum temperatures of 26.2C, while Parramatta recorded an average of 24.6C.

Blacktown hit an average 25C.

Meanwhile, Sydney was only able to record an average 24.6C, putting it on track for the coldest summer since 1953.

SOURCE (See the original for links and graphics)


For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here


No comments: