Bummer: Global Temps Might Possibly Maybe Blow Past Paris Climate Agreement Limit Within 5 Years

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 4:19 pm

I should put a reminder on this post for 5 years to see if it comes to pass

Global temperatures could pass limit set by Paris climate deal within 5 years

Global temperatures could surpass a limit set by the Paris climate agreement within the next five years, according to a new forecast by British scientists.

At least one year in the next five could exceed the threshold the deal set of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, the forecast from the United Kingdom’s Met Office says. It’s now likely temperatures will exceed 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, as soon as 2022.

“It is the first time that such high values have been highlighted within these forecasts,” the Met Office said in a statement.

The Paris agreement aims to limit warming well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius by gradually reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, which come from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

Global average temperatures already have neared the 1 degree Celsius mark over the past three years. That combined with continued warming from greenhouse gases and natural variations in temperatures means it’s possible for the world to temporarily exceed the 1.5 degree Celsius mark in the next five years, said Stephen Belcher, chief scientist at the Met Office.

One does have to admire the constant scaremongering combined with an included out through weasel words like “could” and “might”. That’s not science.

Read: Bummer: Global Temps Might Possibly Maybe Blow Past Paris Climate Agreement Limit Within 5 Years »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil music player sucking up vast amounts of energy, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Ice Age Now, with a post on record snowfall in Moscow.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology: Cooling Sun Could Offset Warming By Mankind

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 10:30 am

Could this become the next talking point from the CoC? Remember, many of them blamed natural variation for the Great Pause (when they admitted that it actually existed). Many of them blame natural variation when their prognostications fail to materialize. And there are many scientists, and, let’s admit it, some skeptic prognosticators, who are saying that the Earth is due for a dip in temperatures, and expect this to start by 2030. On that, we’ll see. Till then

Scripps: Cooling Sun May Partially Offset Climate Change by Humans

The Sun might emit less radiation by mid-century, giving Earth a chance to warm a bit more slowly but not halting human-induced climate change, according to a new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Our star’s cool down would be the result of what astrophysicists call a “grand minimum,” a periodic event during which the Sun’s magnetism diminishes, sunspots form infrequently, and less ultraviolet radiation makes it to the surface of Earth. This last happened in the 17th century.

A team of scientists led by research physicist Dan Lubin at Scripps has created the first estimate of how much dimmer the Sun should be when the next minimum takes place, which could be by the middle of this century.

His team’s study, “Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs,” appears in the publication Astrophysical Journal Letters and was funded by the state of California.

This sets the stage for a talking point that the cooling would be much deeper without people like you driving fossil fueled vehicles and daring to eat meat.

The reduced energy from the Sun would set into motion a sequence of events on Earth beginning with a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer.

The cooling is not uniform. In the last grand minimum, during the 17th Century, areas of Europe chilled –the Baltic Sea froze — while Alaska and southern Greenland warmed correspondingly. (snip)

Lubin’s team predicts a significant probability of a grand minimum in this century because the downward sunspot pattern in recent solar cycles resembles the run-ups to past grand minimum events.

It’s always interesting that these Warmists can never admit that the Sun and natural variability could be mostly causing the warming, yet, are so willing to blame those same things for warming, sea rise, ice loss, etc, not going with their computer models.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology: Cooling Sun Could Offset Warming By Mankind »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Canadian P.M. Trudeau Interrupts, Mansplains To Woman Over Use Of “Mankind”

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 7:44 am

Usually, when feminists hear that a man has mansplained something to a woman, they become apoplectic. In this case, they all cheered

(Fox News) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a woman on her language when she asked a question during a town hall Friday.

The unidentified woman asked Trudeau whether the Canadian government could ease regulations on volunteering with religious organizations, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

“So, that’s why we came here today to ask you, to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislation so that it can also be changed because maternal love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind,” said the woman, who was reportedly affiliated with the World Mission Society Church of God.

Trudeau immediately corrected her.

“We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive,” he said.

The crowd clapped after Trudeau’s comments.

In all fairness, the woman showed appreciation to the change for inclusivity, because Canada.

The one thing I can’t seem to find anywhere is whether he actually answered her question.

Unfortunately, that’s not his worst gaffe of the week

The third gaffe was the absolute worst. Here’s what Trudeau said when asked about his government’s troubled relationship with many of Canada’s veterans: “Why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court? Because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.”

That’s right. We’re able to give Omar Khadr $10.5 million and throw hundreds of millions into feel good green energy projects, but we’re not “able” to give veterans more.

Peak wokeness?

Read: Canadian P.M. Trudeau Interrupts, Mansplains To Woman Over Use Of “Mankind” »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Citizenship Question Causes Uncertainty On Census Or Something

By William Teach February 6, 2018 – 7:29 am

Some people are pretty upset that a question will ask if people are citizens

(The Hill) Uncertainly is swirling over whether the Census Bureau will be able to get an accurate population count for the 2020 census, as the agency considers a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to add a controversial question about citizenship status to the census questionnaire.

The stakes are enormously high.

Census data is used to redraw House districts, and the number of House seats each state receives also plays a part in determining each state’s number of electoral votes.

Experts say a citizenship question could seriously skew the numbers if people are too frightened to respond.

It’s simple: if you aren’t here legally, you should not be counted. Heck, if you are here legally as someone on a visa or some sort of temporary status, you shouldn’t be counted. The only ones who should be counted are citizens and permanent legal residents.

But given Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, experts say the question would likely make Latinos, who are already hesitant to answer the questionnaire, even less likely to respond.

“We know that 7 percent of the population are people who are foreign born, but not citizens, which is about 22 million undocumented and documented people,” said William Frey, a senior fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.

And those 22 million should not count. Their presence should have nothing to do with the census, which apportions House seats and federal money, among others. However

Vincent Barabba, who served as director of the Census Bureau during the Nixon and Carter administrations, said citizenship isn’t part of the constitutionally mandated census.

“The Constitution says it will be a census of the inhabitants of the states,” he said. “It doesn’t say it’ll be a census of citizens.”

Amendment 14 over-rode part of Article 1, Section 2, which had originally stated

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

That was partly changed to

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

It says to count them, however, it doesn’t say they have to be used to determine House apportionment. In fact, Article 1, Section 2 gives Congress the power to direct by law. The law can determine who are Persons. Should non-citizens determine apportionment? No.

Read: Citizenship Question Causes Uncertainty On Census Or Something »

Posted in Constitution, Current Affairs, Illegal Immigration | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Thinks We’re Living In A Mad Max ‘Climate Change’ World

By William Teach February 5, 2018 – 3:12 pm

Did you know there’s a reason there aren’t any good ‘climate change’ movies?

It’s Oscar season, and Hollywood is abuzz with chatter about the year’s best flicks, which include films about poverty, racism and war. Not mentioned by prognosticators is 2017’s one big movie about climate change, Geostorm, a sci-fi thriller so thin on story, drama and spectacle, it earned a rating of just 13% on Rotten Tomatoes.

It’s hard to make a good movie, but it seems especially hard to make a good movie about climate change. There are plenty of great documentaries about the carbon crisis — Chasing Coral, The Age of Consequences, An Inconvenient Sequel, to name three released in just the last year — but Hollywood has yet to produce a top-rate drama that is explicitly about global warming. That’s at least partly because climate change doesn’t fit into the blockbuster mold. To understand why, take a look at Star Wars.

Basically, the reasoning is that ‘climate change’ makes a bad villain, and it’s boring as hell. Not mentioned is that most people do not care, and do not want to pay to see a movie pushed by nutty people who are nutty nutters nuttering. Which leads to

The article doesn’t get any better, as you can well imagine. That said, it would be best to encourage Warmists to have no children, that way they aren’t teaching the next generation their insane Beliefs.

Read: NY Times Thinks We’re Living In A Mad Max ‘Climate Change’ World »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 5, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is the flag of a big carbon polluting nation causing everything to dry out, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Proof Positive, with a post on King family approved ad offending the easily Offended.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

Today’s Hottest Of Hot Takes

By William Teach February 5, 2018 – 11:27 am

Scorching (via Twitchy)

https://twitter.com/DanielJCamacho/status/960349280711135235

Beaten by a, get this, white QB. Both teams have majority Black players. Eh, why bother, some people are just wankers.

BTW, as a Giants fan, I despise the Eagles. But, damned if they didn’t put on one hell of a game. That TD before halftime? Heck of a gutsy call. And they got the big play they needed with the strip sack fumble recovery at the end. Have at discussion if you want.

Read: Today’s Hottest Of Hot Takes »

Posted in Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Apparently, Male Warmists Think Female Warmists Are Hothouse Flowers

By William Teach February 5, 2018 – 10:30 am

Politics is a dirty, nasty business. If you don’t know that, or if you do not want to be attacked, then you should stay out of it. It’s always been this way. ‘Climate change’ is really all about politics, and it seems that male Warmists think their women folk aren’t strong enough to be involved

Why climate deniers target women

Harassment is no stranger to the reporters, researchers and policymakers who work on climate change, but it is particularly severe for the women in those fields.

Canadian environment minister Catherine McKenna was labeled“climate Barbie” by the right-wing political blog The Rebel Media. Kait Parker of the Weather Channel suffered attacks from Breitbart News, which dismissed her forceful and lucid explanation of climate science as an “argument from a pretty girl.” Emily Atkin, who covers climate and energy for The New Republic, also has endured sexist barbs from Breitbart,which said she had “kitty claws,” and Rush Limbaugh, who called her an “infobabe.” In similar fashion, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe earned the moniker “climate babe” from Limbaugh.

Not mentioned are the names and stuff that male Warmists are tagged with.

Nor that the article itself uses a term mean to smear people who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change as the same as people who deny the Holocaust.

It is interesting, as well, that, again, male Warmists think so little of the females that they have to protect them and shelter them.

Fortunately, the article goes down typical stupid roads

Certainly, sexist attacks are not unique to climate science, journalism or advocacy, but research into public understanding of climate change reveals an important link between sexism and climate denial — support for the existing social hierarchy.

Often, in studying how humans arrive at their values, attitudes and beliefs, social scientists will ask people about their views of hierarchy. Do they believe that some groups should have more power and influence than others? Or, do they believe that power and influence should be broadly shared? Research shows that men who value hierarchy are more likely to downplay the risks of climate change and more likely to hold sexist views.

What you have going on is people who start the attacks with terms like denier having fits that people would dare respond back.

Read: Apparently, Male Warmists Think Female Warmists Are Hothouse Flowers »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump Looks To Slash DOE Programs For Renewable Energy, Puts Us On The Ropes Or Something

By William Teach February 5, 2018 – 7:15 am

This has made Warmists very upset, because Gaia forbid they spend their own money on these things

Trump’s cuts to renewable energy put us on the ropes in the fight against climate change

News that the Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for deep budget cuts to the Energy Department’s renewable energy and energy efficiency programs has thus far generated less outrage than the White House’s abandonment of the Paris Climate Treaty, yet has the potential to be far more damaging to efforts to respond to climate change.

According to documents obtained by the Washington Post, the White House is seeking to slash the budgets by 72% in fiscal year 2019, which would cut research in fuel efficient vehicles by 82%, bioenergy technologies by 82%, advanced manufacturing by 75%, and solar energy technology by 78%.

Realistically, it shouldn’t be the federal government subsidizing nor giving loans that do not seem to get paid back for these things, it should be the private sector.

Some of the spending being cut goes toward electric cars and fuel efficient vehicles — spending that ultimately subsidizes a deep-pocketed industry and wealthy drivers while doing next-to-nothing for the environment: One U.S. study shows the richest quarter of the population receives almost all the public money spent on subsidies to discount the vehicles, while the entire fleet makes almost zero impact on climate change. The International Energy Agency predicts that even by 2040, when there will be 280 million electric vehicles, this will only reduce global emissions by 1%. In the words of Fatih Biurol, the IEA head: “if you think you can save the climate with electric cars, you’re completely wrong.”

But, it’s fashionable for the rich to get these types of cars.

But by not just slashing the vehicle spending but also cutting back on investment in clean energy R&D, the administration is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

We need to invest in this R&D because alternative energy sources like solar and wind are far from ready to compete with fossil fuels on the market. President Trump’s references to “beautiful clean coal” notwithstanding, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most effective source of energy for most places most of the time — indeed the International Energy Agency estimates that on our current trajectory, even in 2040 non-hydro renewables will on average be more expensive than any other form of power both at a global level, and in industrialized and developing nations.

It’s not the job of the federal government to do the research, nor pay for others to do it. If someone has a great idea, let them pay for it. Develop it. Bring it to market.

After decades of heavy investment in subsidies to support green energy production, the latest numbers from the International Energy Agency reveal that wind provides just 0.6% of today’s energy needs, and solar a miniscule 0.2%. Even by 2040, if all of the Paris Treaty’s promises were to be fulfilled (which already seems unlikely), the IEA finds this will be 2.1% and 1.5%. Green energy is currently inefficient because it is almost entirely reliant on subsidies that added up to more than $150 billion in 2016. When the United Kingdom cancelled solar power subsidies, UK solar power installations plummeted. When Spain cut its subsidies, the renewable industry took a “brutal trajectory” downward.

In other words, after all that forcibly taken taxpayer money used, it’s still a pipe-dream. And, it barely works. Many in Europe are turning to wood, cutting down trees and using wood pellets for heating and energy. Because solar and wind is unreliable. Maybe one day, but, it’s not up to the government to spend our money on these boondoggles. Especially not when linked to a scam.

Read: Bummer: Trump Looks To Slash DOE Programs For Renewable Energy, Puts Us On The Ropes Or Something »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove