Looking At “Climate Change” Politically Is Amoral Or Something

Interestingly, all the solutions advanced by Warmists are political ones based on Doing Something to Other People. Rarely do they involved practical application of their talking points to their own lives

(Guardian) Devastating extreme weather including recent flooding in England, Australia’s hottest year on record and the US being hit by a polar vortex have a “silver lining” of boosting climate change to the highest level of politics and reminding politicians that climate change is not a partisan issue, according to the UN’s climate chief.

Christiana Figueres said that it was amoral for people to look at climate change from a politically partisan perspective, because of its impact on future generations.

So, wait, it’s a “silver lining” that these weather events, which have happened before and will happen again regardless of whether Ms. Figueres takes a fossil fueled flight, allow Warmists to bring “climate change” up politically, but it’s “amoral” that people look at this from a politically partisan position? Oh, right, what her inner fascist is saying is that people who do not subscribe to the notion of man caused Hotcoldwetdry should just shut up.

She added: “We are reminded that climate change events are for everyone, they’re affecting everyone, they have much, much longer effects than a political cycle. Frankly, they’re intergenerational, so morally we cannot afford to look at climate change from a partisan perspective.”

Intergenerational, huh?

(Lord Monckton) Seventeen and a half years. Not a flicker of global warming. The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.

You can insult Lord Christopher Monckton personally all you want, Warmists, but the data speaks for itself. And hard data is more important than “computer models”, most of which have failed. Predictions of snow and ice free have failed. The Great Lakes have the 2nd highest ice extent on record. Niagara Falls froze for the 2nd time this winter. Record snow in Scotland. Cold and snow records have fallen across the US, Canada, and Europe. Lots and lots of subzero days. What we’re seeing is a pause where the global temp is elevated from the beginning of the 20th century, which goes 95% against the grain of Warmists models, and 100% against Warmist talking points. It in no means there hasn’t been warming, and won’t be again. It does highlight that it is mostly/solely natural, rather than man-induced.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

39 Responses to “Looking At “Climate Change” Politically Is Amoral Or Something”

  1. Blick says:

    She confused me. Is it amoral or moral to address GW policies politically? I did not know it was a moral question but thought it was a scientific one. If it is a moral one then there is a right and wrong side to it. That means there is a standard that should not be violated. That brings into the discussion “who sets the standard?” Intelligent Design, God, the UN, the consensus of Scientists, philosopher kings, what Guru will tell us that climate change is all and blowing in the wind?

    If it is a moral question, where does the shame and guilt lie? We need confessors and absolution. What does the AGW hell look like, a burning world? Damn this is too complicated.

    Warmists are mixing religion and government together. I thought we had agreed on the separation of the two? The Law should not be used to impose our morals on others.

  2. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    There is a new generation out there that won’t know what global warming is.

    And the fact that idiot Figueres calls it “amoral” only highlights that these idiots think this is all a religion.

    Right blick.. who set that morality standard? Where is it defined?

  3. Jeffery says:

    The RSS database of one of several and the only one that shows no warming. But look, it warmed significantly from 2008 to 2014! It cooled from 1998 to 2000! It warmed from 2000 to 2010 almost 0.5 C!

    One needs not demean poor Monckton any more than he’s been. He’s a non-entity outside the far-right network of deniers.

  4. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    what the bleepin’ hell are you on about j? Please stick to the topic. And for crimeny’s sake, make at least some sense when you construct sentences.

  5. Blick says:

    Do y’all notice when Jeffery doesn’t have an argument, he starts calling names?

  6. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    Just a bit.
    It’s ok. I deny his cult and their illogical anti-human screaming.

  7. jl says:

    “One need not demean poor Monckton any more than he’s been.” Uh, J, he’s the one laughing at your type.

  8. It warmed from 2000 to 2010 almost 0.5 C!

    Citation, please.

    And it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

  9. Friday morning links

    Can you guess which offense puts the most Americans in federal prison? The Next Ailes: Newsmax’s Chris Ruddy Preps TV Rival to Fox News RadioShack Still Stuck in the ’80s Staples to Close 225 North American Stores – Radio Shack to Close 1100 Stores

  10. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    Ok. here it goes. See, this is the way it is. I’ll tell ya. Ok. Ready? Ok. See. In that very short time span, between 2000, the year 2000 that is, and the year 2010… that time frame between those years, so like it was like 10 years or so, they say that the fever of the planet got hotter. It was like sick or something and got like sicker. So, our planet got sicker by about 0.5C because, well.. because it did and he said so.

    So, the link to causation is that without humans alive, the CO2 would not be higher at all, it would be, like, a static level or something. Therefore, Man caused CO2 which like caused Global Warming. Without Man, there would be no Global Warming. More Man, more global warming. We can only sustain a 1990’s level of population and the heat that those people generate.

    And, since man causes CO2, which causes Global Warming, then by default, man causes global warming.

    So.. BAM!! Like, You lose Teach.

  11. So, essentially, Jeff wants mankind to be eradicated? He’s one of those wackos?

  12. Trog says:

    It’s getting colder. The Global Warming proponents have won.

  13. Jeffery says:

    The citation is the graph you display from Monckton! Look at 2000 and compare it to 2010. The temperature soared! And from 1998 to 2000 the Earth cooled a whopping 0.7C. The global surface temperature is whip-sawing up and down from year to year!

    Land/Ocean Datasets
    GISTEMP = 0.11 C/decade
    NOAA = 0.09 C/decade
    HADCRUT4 = 0.09 C/decade
    HADCRUT4h = 0.14 C/decade

    Land Only Datasets

  14. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    Ok. J has officially lost his few remaining marbles.
    J, you’ve lost all credibility when it comes to speaking about …. well, just speaking.

    But, we thank you for making our points for us, and against the CAGW belief system. For others, recall that the CAGW belief system demands that temperature continue to rise in an ever increasing arc. This is their foundational belief system. J, being one of it’s biggest prophets has turned sides (he does so from time to time, then jumps the shark back) and shown how the CAGW cult is a sham for all to see.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Land Only Datasets

    BEST = 0.21 C/decade
    NOAA = 0.19 C/decade

    Satellite Datasets

    RSS = 0.03 C/decade
    UAH = 0.11 C/decade

    Of the 8 datasets, note that RSS shows the least warming for the last 20 years. Monckton of course cherrypicks this dataset and further cherry picks the start time to find 0 increase! And you wonder why the non-scientist Monckton is ignored?

  16. Jeffery says:

    My point on pointing out the ridiculousness of the Pirate and Monckton and their ilk cherry-picking datasets and timeframes to prove their “points”.

    Also note that the two datasets managed by former and current AGW deniers, BEST (Prof Richard Muller at Berkeley) and UAH (Profs John Christy and Roy Spencer at U Alabama) show consistent warming.

    The Earth is warming. Why do you keep running pieces denying that?

    Why is the Earth warming? The most feasible explanation at this time is that atmospheric greenhouse gases are trapping more and more of the sun’s heat. The only alternative explanation is that it’s all natural, whatever that means.

  17. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Once again the question about the acidity of the ocean. Answer it and people will believe your spill. Otherwise, you are just flapping your gums.

    By the way, I am signing up for Medicare and SSA this year. Can’t wait to take my trip to Europe on the SSA check.

  18. gitarcarver says:

    My point on pointing out the ridiculousness of the Pirate and Monckton and their ilk cherry-picking datasets and timeframes to prove their “points”.

    Translation: “How dare people use data that doesn’t fit our hypothesis!

    Only the so called “scientists” can cherry pick data!

    Silly minions! Bow to your masters who want only to control your lives!”

  19. Jay says:

    You are just demonstrating your own scientific ignorance here. The cold winter in North America was caused by global warming. That’s why the more accurate term is “global climate change”.

    Let me explain:

    If a season is warmer than the historical average, that’s proof of global warming.

    If a season is colder than the historical average, that’s proof of global warming.

    If a season is exactly average, that’s proof of global warming.

  20. Jeffery says:

    butt,

    Let’s deal with one lie at a time.

    If we examine all the datasets, not just the outlier, we see the Earth continues to warm, correct? Why would you trust the data from the only dataset that confirms your bias, and ignore the other 7? Why would Monckton do that if not to make a political argument rather than a scientific one?

  21. Butt-Frozen_Gumballs says:

    For the benefit of those who are knew to reading this blog, or even knew to science (this is not directed at J as he’s been told this numerous times and refuses to see and find the truth for its self), the RSS is one of many datasets on temperature. RSS is the satellite based temperature set. It is the ONLY one that has extremely minute adjustments applied to it, compared to all the other datasets that are changed and manipulated more than spaghetti in a boiling pot of water.

    The RSS is also the most trusted dataset.

    Monckton did not cherry pick. He is taking a insignificant value of 0 and seeing how far back in time he can go while that trend line is still 0. He didn’t START in 1997. He started with today and went backward.

    Yes, he could go back farther and get an upward trend, but that was not the point of his exercise. And, he could go back to the Medieval Warm Period and find a 0C trend line as well. But we all know that would be a bit out of line. I mean, who points out that temps are not that different now than >1000 years ago??? That’s silly talk.

    And yes, J knows that the BEST dataset is a Pro-CAGW dataset that has its problems identified and no sound person now relies upon or cites the BEST dataset. It’s not a Dataset anyway. it’s a reanalysis.

  22. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Good for you. Enjoy your trip.

    The commenters here will never believe what I say regardless.

    Your question about the acidity of seawater is irrelevant and you pretend it is important for motives you keep to yourself. Carbon dioxide equilibrates between the atmosphere and the ocean (it’s measured in both). CO2 in aqueous media combines with water to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid) which dissociates into HCO3- (bicarbonate anion) and H+ (hydrogen cation- which you claim does not exist). “Acidity” is defined by pH (negative log of H+ (which you claim does not exist)concentration), so pH 8 means the free H+ (which you claim does not exist) concentration is 1 x 10-8 mol/L or 10 nmol/L. Carbonic acid is not routinely measured in solutions, although CO2, bicarbonate and H+ (which you claim does not exist) are. But as a physician, you know all that since this system is THE primary buffering system in most animals. The human body regulates CO2, HCO3- and H+ (but not carbonic acid, curious isn’t it?) to maintain the pH of the extracellular fluid space at near 7.4

    Is it your contention that the CO2, bicarbonate and H+ system does not operate in sea water? Do you have evidence that other acids (H+ donors) are present? I suspect there are other acids including organic acids from sea life, sulfuric and hydrochloric acids from volcanic activity. But as you know, strong acids such as H2SO4 and HCl dissociate fully so you don’t measure the parent acids. So we’re left trying to explain what acid source is so immense that it can lower the pH of trillions of gallons of seawater.

    Until you explain your intense fetish over carbonic acid I have nothing more to contribute on the subject. Enjoy your European vacation. Will you visit with Mr. Putin and see if he wants to invade the US south and liberate southern men from the iron-handed, dictatorial grip of our mom-jeans wearing President? If Obama is such a pussy how is he keeping all the manly conservative southern men like you and Lyndsey Graham oppressed?

  23. Jeffery says:

    butt,

    I trust you, but others may not. Can you please justify that the RSS is the “most trusted” dataset?

    If you can prove that it is the most reliable I will concede the point.

    you typed: “Monckton did not cherry pick. He is taking a insignificant value of 0 and seeing how far back in time he can go while that trend line is still 0”

    Actually, that is the definition of cherry-picking! Select the result you want (no warming), select a single dataset (that you claim is the most relevant) and select the data that supports your desired result. Why not select 2012 to 2014, which is certainly temporally more relevant. Suddenly, it’s warming again!

    So, please prove that the RSS dataset is significantly better than all the others. Otherwise, this entire thread is refuted.

  24. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    There are several datasets to consider. I have supplied the 20 yr trends, and all show upward trends, from a low of 0.03 C/decade (RSS) to a high of 0.14 C/decade (HADCRUT4hybrid). I’ve left the Land Only datasets out of the mix.

    So how is it cherry-picking to include all the data but sound science to limit the databases and dates?

  25. Jeffery says:

    butt and g2,

    The average change in temperature in the 6 datasets (not including the Land based BEST and NOAA datasets) is positive 0.1 C/decade for the past 20 years.

    What is your argument to support your claim that warming has stopped?

  26. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You do realize that everyone can read on this post and that they can look up what an acid is and thus you screed is bogus. Just like your model of CO2. Now, what acid is causing the increase in acidity in the oceans, according to the believers and to Science Magazine, it is very important to the warming theory. Yet no one will measure the acid content and correlate the data. So, the issue of CO2 excess is bogus. You have admitted that. As to equating the ocean to acid-base reactions in the human body, that is a stretch, even for a liberal. The more you comment on this site, the more people are doubting the whole issue. You are doing more than anyone to undermine confidence in the “science”.

  27. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You are just bothered because I stomp your butt up and down the sidewalk. Of course, you wish I’d not comment here so that you and your ilk could continue to lie unchecked.

    Carbonic acid. If you have a different notion, present it. I’m through with your ignorance. Enjoy your vacation.

  28. gitarcarver says:

    NOAA datasets…..

    That would be the set of data from which NOAA deleted 75% of the data points, right?

    Yeah.

    And you have the nerve to talk about “cherry picking data?”

  29. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    Can you supply the source of your information on the NOAA data?

    thanks.

  30. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    Look it up for yourself.

    It isn’t hard to find.

    I would give you the source (one of many) but you have a tendency to attack the source or forget that the source was ever given as you have done in the past.

    In other words, I am not playing your game anymore.

    Oh….. you’re welcome.

  31. jl says:

    J-“The most feasible explanation at this time is that atmospheric gases are trapping the heat.” Wow. You have to have data, not feasable explanations. “At this time”. You mean it could change? How could it if the “science is settled”? “Atmospheric gases.” I thought it was just CO2. And if not, please give us the percentage that CO2 is doing it compared to water vapor. Thanks. And if atmospheric gases are trapping the heat, that means the atmosphere would be heating up- not the oceans. Thanks for helping us make our points, J.

  32. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    There is always the opportunity in science for you to falsify the theory – unlikely, but possible.

    Since you stated earlier that you do not believe that atmospheric gases can absorb and release infrared radiation, why are you concerned about atmospheric gases? I’ve never said it was “just CO2”, just that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas related to global warming. Why? Because it’s the gas that is changing.

    You don’t believe that heat can transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans?

    Let’s revisit your denial that the Earth is warming. Do you not believe the temperature record from the databases? If your answer is no, than we have little to discuss, do we? If your answer is yes, than you’ve admitted what you also deny – that the Earth is warming.

    Come back, when you grow up, boy.

  33. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    It dawned on me that you just don’t understand the very basics of acid-base chemistry. My apologies if my explanations were too technical. I assumed that a physician as yourself was well versed on such things, but we all forget things.

    Here’s an easy experiment. Collect seawater, and in a laboratory, place some in separate closed containers with various concentrations of CO2 in the air in the containers, allow sufficient time for the CO2 to equilibrate between the air (the atmosphere) and the seawater. Then measure the pH (concentration of free H+). As you increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water, the pH will drop (become more acidic). Yet, the calculated concentration of H2CO3 (carbonic acid) will be quite low, in the 0.1 pMol/L range! At these pH levels the carbonic acid formed from water and CO2 rapidly dissociates to H+ and bicarbonate.

    What do you believe is causing the decrease in the ocean pH?

  34. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    “Look it up for yourself.”

    Understood. You make an outrageous claim and instruct those that question you to prove your point for you. “That would be the set of data from which NOAA deleted 75% of the data points, right?”

    I will counter with, “I assume you are lying unless you prove your outrageous claim.”

    Your behavior is typical right-wing hit and run. You drop a bumpersticker claim but refuse to discuss it, defend it or even reveal where you obtained it.

    The temperature evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Earth is warming.

  35. Jeffery says:

    Butt,

    Did you find the evidence that the RSS is the “most trusted” data set, and that it has only minute adjustments?

    “Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.”

    That doesn’t sound like “minute adjustements” to me.

    Did you just make all that stuff up about “most trusted”? I’ll assume you lied about it unless you can back it up.

  36. Jeffery says:

    Coolists,

    I feel for you guys. It’s not all your fault. The ones you rely on for information on these topics, Marc Morano, Monckton, jimhoft, rush, Republicans, FOX and the Pirate et al lie to you on a daily basis. You deserve better. But you are not blameless and need to take responsibility for your own beliefs. Good luck.

    Clearly the temperature record demonstrates that the Earth is still warming despite the occasional claims of a man who calls himself Lord Monckton. The data are clear. Why do we keep re-litigating this point?

  37. gitarcarver says:

    Understood. You make an outrageous claim and instruct those that question you to prove your point for you.

    No Jeffery, it is just that I am not playing your silly little game where you try and get people to waste their time and then not deal with the points, facts and citations they raise.

    The first time you did that I thought “odd….. he wanted the citation and then skipped out.”

    The second time was “interesting…. a pattern.”

    The third time was “he is wasting my time.”

    It is easy to look up Jeffery. It is not hard to find. You claim that we don’t know much about AGW and when we there is an opportunity for you to learn something new, you blame us.

    Your behavior is typical right-wing hit and run. You drop a bumpersticker claim but refuse to discuss it, defend it or even reveal where you obtained it.

    This from the guy who drops this on people?

    I feel for you guys. It’s not all your fault. The ones you rely on for information on these topics, Marc Morano, Monckton, jimhoft, rush, Republicans, FOX and the Pirate et al lie to you on a daily basis.

    Yeah. Sure. Once again we see your hypocrisy in action because that is all you have.

    But you are not blameless and need to take responsibility for your own beliefs.

    And yet you say that you continue to add to the CO2 in the atmosphere. You are the one that says people con’t have to act on their belief that AGW is real. You claim that the patent system is messed up but continue to make money off of it even though you could release the patent.

    You can’t or won’t even act on your own beliefs and yet you try and claim some moral high ground in berating others for acting on theirs.

  38. Jeffery says:

    g2,

    I assume from your lack of a response that you cannot refute the factual nature of global warming. All evidence confirms that the Earth is still warming. So far, the sum total of Coolists’ refutations here have been 1) the RSS the best data set and 2) the NOAA data set has had 75% of its data removed. Neither claim was supported by any evidence.

    Of course you want to change the subject to pharmaceutical patents.

    For some reason the Pirate decided to add the Lord Monckton (lmfao) claim to his post, a claim that was easily refuted by referring to the readily available evidence.

    Now you want to change the subject to my personal success and smear me. Although I am grateful for the system that allowed me to become wealthy, that doesn’t mean the system is perfect. I will always work to make it better for all Americans, not just the wealthy.

  39. gitarcarver says:

    I assume from your lack of a response that you cannot refute the factual nature of global warming.

    You can make an ass out of yourself all you want by assuming, Jeffery. The fact of the matter is that while you claim that global warming is a huge issue, you won’t act on it in your own life. You think anyone who points out that hypocrisy is somehow denying whether AGW exists or not.

    If you believe it, act on it.

    Otherwise, stay in the rear.

    Of course you want to change the subject to pharmaceutical patents.

    Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. I did not change the subject, but rather cited more evidence (evidence that came from your own mouth) that you are a hypocrite in wanting others to do what you will not do.

    Now you want to change the subject to my personal success and smear me.

    That’s funny considering all the shots you take at people around here.

    The bottom line is that it is not what I say or anyone else says that “smears” you.

    It is your own actions that smear and ultimately condemn you as a fraud, liar and hypocrite.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9773 access attempts in the last 7 days.