America is witnessing the coldest start to spring since 1975.

Tornado activity is at a 60 year low.

And apparently increased burning of fossil fuels has made our planet greener.

This isn’t meant to prove anything. All I’m saying is that I would really hate to be a global warming/climate change alarmist right now.

8:41 pm  •  9 May 2013  •  37 notes

“

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: “Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C.

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland’s ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.

Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6°C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Center and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6°C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6°C.

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC’s existing 2°-4.5°C “likely” range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization’s record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

”

— Matt Ridley: Cooling Down The Fears of Climate Change

9:35 am  •  19 December 2012  •  17 notes

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

“Intergovernmental” -shudder-

9:51 am  •  30 January 2012  •  17 notes

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago. …

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

Interesting to say the least.

1:11 am  •  31 October 2011  •  124 notes

A Sun-Climate Link?

“Changes in the sun’s magnetism and in the reconstructed northern hemisphere’s land temperature are highly correlated over the last 240 years. The sun’s magnetic changes are associated with changes in its total energy output, and may explain the close connection to terrestrial temperatures on time scales of decades to centuries. The changes in the sun’s magnitism are represented by changes in the length of the “Hale polarity” or 22-year cycle, which is closely linked to the 11-year sunspot cycle. (Source: Baliunas and Soon, 1995, p. 896)”

12:22 pm  •  27 October 2011  •  88 notes

The following is a repost of something I put together on global warming. It discusses the policies of the EPA and “Cap and Tax” legislation. All of the graphs are taken from a PowerPoint presentation I got to see at the International Students for Liberty Conferece this past February (to give you guys a preview of what you will be seeing if you register for the conference) by the awesome Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. As far as I know he did the research/gathered the data to put these graphs together.

——————————————-

“When it doesn’t snow, global warming proponents blame global warming, and when winters are cold, they blame global warming, etc. This is what you call unfalsifiable science…it’s not science because it can’t be falsified.” — Dr. Patrick Michaels

I’m posting this today because with the heat wave coming through today you can bet the climate change cult will be out in full force. But where were they during the blizzards and snow storms this previous winter? They were either lambasting us “non-believers” as not understanding the difference between weather and climate or they were also chalking the blizzards up to climate change. Which is where Dr. Patrick Michaels comes in. When winters are brutal, it’s climate change. When winters are less than average, it’s climate change. When it rains a lot, it’s climate change. When it doesn’t rain a lot, it’s climate change. When summers are hot, it’s climate change. When summers cool down, it’s climate change.

Ignore that fact that temperatures have been on decline globally since 1998. Also, ignore the fact that in the last century the increasing global temperatures have amounted to a net increase in rainfall of a whopping one quarter of an inch.

Is the climate changing? Yes. Do humans play a roll in it? Marginally, yes. Is Cap and Trade the solution? Hell. Fucking. No.

Here’s the logic the Obama Regime and other Carbon hating politicians are deploying. Carbon Dioxide (which composes a very, very small % of green house gasses) is leading to a global increase in temperatures. How do we solve this? Return America and other developed countries to a time before the lightbulb, cars, the internet, air conditioning, and other modern wonders that make life today much more bearable.

That graph is the projected C02 emissions drafted under Waxman-Markey more commonly known as Cap and Trade. The Obama Administration, and some Republican presidential candidates whose names rhyme with Shmit Shomney and Stim Shawlenty, supported this legislation. Cap and Trade (which Obama is now pushing through the EPA, circumventing Congress and the legislation process altogether) would reduce C02 emissions to 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, 16% below 2005 levels in 2020, 42% below 2005 levels in 2030 and 83% below 2005 levels in 2050. Do you guys even realize how radical that is? Sure sure, you think Global Warming or Climate Change or w/e will lead to the downfall of man and life on Earth will end, but is this really the solution? Do you know what the net results of Cap and Trade will be?

Less than half a degree celsius. Returning America to 1870 in terms of CO2 emissions will result in less than half of a degree celsius in global temperatures. All to combat .25 inches in increased rainfall annually.

Projections have been routinely inaccurate:

(If I can remember correctly, that purple line way up at the top is from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth)

I have a solution that requires much less theft, compulsion and intrusion in everyone’s lives. Go buy a pair of rain boots.

The pictures in this post were taken from the Power Point Dr. Patrick Michaels gave at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. this February. It was awesome.

5:17 pm  •  13 October 2011  •  27 notes

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

8:16 pm  •  28 July 2011  •  29 notes

“When it doesn’t snow, global warming proponents blame global warming, and when winters are cold, they blame global warming, etc. This is what you call unfalsifiable science…it’s not science because it can’t be falsified.”

—

Dr. Patrick Michaels

I’m posting this today because with the heat wave coming through today you can bet the climate change cult will be out in full force. But where were they during the blizzards and snow storms this previous winter? They were either lambasting us “non-believers” as not understanding the difference between weather and climate or they were also chalking the blizzards up to climate change. Which is where Dr. Patrick Michaels comes in. When winters are brutal, it’s climate change. When winters are less than average, it’s climate change. When it rains a lot, it’s climate change. When it doesn’t rain a lot, it’s climate change. When summers are hot, it’s climate change. When summers cool down, it’s climate change.

Ignore that fact that temperatures have been on decline globally since 1998. Also, ignore the fact that in the last century the increasing global temperatures have amounted to a net increase in rainfall of a whopping one quarter of an inch.

Is the climate changing? Yes. Do humans play a roll in it? Marginally, yes. Is Cap and Trade the solution? Hell. Fucking. No.

Here’s the logic the Obama Regime and other Carbon hating politicians are deploying. Carbon Dioxide (which composes a very, very small % of green house gasses) is leading to a global increase in temperatures. How do we solve this? Return America and other developed countries to a time before the lightbulb, cars, the internet, air conditioning, and other modern wonders that make life today much more bearable.

That graph is the projected C02 emissions drafted under Waxman-Markey more commonly known as Cap and Trade. The Obama Administration, and some Republican presidential candidates whose names rhyme with Shmit Shomney and Stim Shawlenty, supported this legislation. Cap and Trade (which Obama is now pushing through the EPA, circumventing Congress and the legislation process altogether) would reduce C02 emissions to 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, 16% below 2005 levels in 2020, 42% below 2005 levels in 2030 and 83% below 2005 levels in 2050. Do you guys even realize how radical that is? Sure sure, you think Global Warming or Climate Change or w/e will lead to the downfall of man and life on Earth will end, but is this really the solution? Do you know what the net results of Cap and Trade will be?

Less than half a degree celsius. Returning America to 1870 in terms of C02 emissions will result in less than half of a degree celsius in global temperatures. All to combat .25 inches in increased rainfall annually.

Projections have been routinely inaccurate:

(If I can remember correctly, that purple line way up at the top is from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth)

I have a solution that requires much less theft, compulsion and intrusion in everyone’s lives. Go buy a pair of rain boots.

The pictures in this post were taken from the Power Point Dr. Patrick Michaels gave at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. this February. It was awesome.

12:29 pm  •  17 July 2011  •  13 notes

Why Anthropogenic Global Warming Hysteria is Overblown

4:23 pm  •  30 June 2011  •  7 notes

• Lemonade Stands: A Lesson in Government Regulations
• Osama bin Laden killed in Abottabad, Pakistan
• Austro-Libertarian book list
• Two papers argue that the stimulus failed miserably, may even have negatively impacted economic growth
• Obama Regime intimidating Boeing to cancel plans to hire hundreds in right-to-work state
• Cut entitlements, cut entitlements, cut entitlements
• 51% of households pay no income tax
• Ron Paul: Imagine
• White House thinking of taxing us per mile we drive
• Ron Paul succeeds in getting old, Conservative North Carolinians to applaud heroin
• The Brady Campaign’s PR manager obviously never passed Statistics
• Ron Paul on the issues
• Firefox sticks it to DHS
• Global Warming’s invasion of our government and our lives
• Study shows massive debt drove America recession and inhibits recovery
• Keynesianism debunked, for the zillionth time
• Who values freedom more? Liberals or Conservatives?
• Obama’s War on Oil showing results
• Rand Paul states the obvious, compulsory labor is slavery
• Ron Paul tries to explain the incredibly complex concept of property rights to Chris Matthews
• Is Washington bankrupting America?
• The truth about the debt ceiling
• Milton Friedman - The Pencil
• Social Security vs. Private Retirement Funds
• Transparency behind closed doors?
• Who does Geithner think he’s kidding?
• The morality of profit
• Obama’s War on Fun
• Understanding the Left
• While you were sleeping they abolished the 4th amendment
• Free markets are the way to save Medicare
• Healthcare costs to rise 8.5% in 2012
• Liberty loving liberals love limiting free speech
• AARP snags waiver exempting them from Obamacare
• Obama has adopted the Bush Doctrine
• Rand Paul lectures the Senate on the PATRIOT Act
• Obama Regime working to circumvent Congress on gun control
• Obama’s Rule of Law: Crony Capitalism, Gangster Government and Bailout Favoritism
• Goodwin Liu rejected by Senate Republicans for judicial nomination. We dodged a bullet with that one.
• Rand Paul hands Harry Reid his ass on the floor of the Senate
• Pending home sales plummet “far more than expected”
• Family facing $4 million in fines for selling bunnies
• The truth behind Chrysler’s fake bailout payback
• Rep. Weiner lies to NY Post about lewd photo sent to college woman
• MSNBC continues to cheerlead socialism, meanwhile those dirty Koch suckers last seen donating to a political campaign!!!!
• Memorial Day to cost 29% more than last year thanks to inflation

1:40 pm  •  1 June 2011  •  10 notes

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”

—

David Evans

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University.

(via Hot Air)

7:06 pm  •  15 May 2011  •  8 notes

Given its greenhouse gas benefits, environmental activists initially welcomed shale gas. For example, in August 2009 prominent liberals Timothy Wirth and John Podesta, writing on behalf of the Energy Future Coalition, hailed shale gas as “a bridge fuel to a 21st-century energy economy that relies on efficiency, renewable sources, and low-carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas.” The same year, environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr., head of the Waterkeeper Alliance, declared in the Financial Times, “In the short term, natural gas is an obvious bridge fuel to the ‘new’ energy economy.”

That was then, but this is now. Practically en masse, the herd of independent minds that constitutes the environmentalist community has now collectively decided that natural gas is a “bridge to nowhere.” Why? In his excellent overview, The Shale Gas Shock [download], published last week by the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, journalist Matt Ridley explains: “As it became apparent that shale gas was a competitive threat to renewable energy as well as to coal, the green movement has turned against shale.”

9:15 pm  •  10 May 2011  •  4 notes

Patrick J. Michaels Talks About Global Warming’s Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives

This guy is my hero. I got to sit through this lecture in February and it was awesome. Thanks to Megan for passing this on to me.

6:55 pm  •  9 May 2011  •  1 note

(Source: kaching)

12:40 am  •  23 April 2011  •  17 notes

nomosshere:

Penn & Teller Bullshit - Global Warming - Part 1 of 2

9:51 pm  •  22 April 2011  •  12 notes