Cult of Climastrology: ‘Climate Change’ Will Make Ocean Levels Swing Like A Seesaw

By William Teach October 1, 2015 – 8:46 am

It’s a day ending in a “Y”, so it must be time for yet another scaremongering prognostication

Climate Change and El Niño Will Make Ocean Levels Swing Like a Seesaw

The ups and downs experienced on a Seesaw may be fun for kids in the park, but it’s alarming when climate scientists start comparing our ocean levels to the child’s plaything in research.

But that’s exactly what oceanographers are predicting will happen, as our planet heats up and stronger El Niño events in the future trigger an even more extreme pendulum effect in sea levels.

“This is like climate change on steroids,” said Axel Timmermann, a climate researcher and oceanographer with the University of Hawaii, who along with other scientists analyzed these extreme swings in sea level.

Fortunately, according to the satellite data and land measurements outside of areas suffering from massive UHI/land use increases, there has been no warming/statistically insignificant warming for anywhere from 12-26 years, depending on the source.

A typical El Niño event induces changes in wind patterns and cause changes in ocean currents, which redistribute warm water and results in sea levels dropping as warm water flows east. That leaves sea levels in the western Pacific lower than normal.

And with global temperatures rising, scientists expect El Niño events to become more pronounced, and force sea levels to swing from one extreme to the other.

In other words, the Cult of Climastrology is telling us they’re going to blame all ocean height swings on ‘climate change’, even though they have always happened. They will say that the swings are much, much worse because Someone Else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, and they’ll attempt to prove this with anecdotal evidence gathered when they take long, long trips to exotic vacation spots.

The researchers conducted computer simulations for four years and published a report that predicts these extremes will happen much more frequently 50 to 100 years from now. And the changes in sea level, which ranges from 6 to 12 inches now, will escalate to 18 to 24 inches by 2100, they predict.

Prognosticating computer models?

Oh, and let’s not forget that if this doesn’t happen, they will blame ‘climate change’.

Read: Cult of Climastrology: ‘Climate Change’ Will Make Ocean Levels Swing Like A Seesaw »

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

Obama Admin. Says They Totally Won’t Be Bullied By Russia

By William Teach October 1, 2015 – 8:19 am

Too late for that

(Washington Post) Blindsided by the unexpected swiftness of Russia’s air attacks in Syria, the Obama administration scrambled Wednesday to retake the diplomatic and military initiatives, saying that it would not be bullied into supporting President Bashar al-Assad and that it was about to significantly expand its own Syrian air operations.

After spending much of the day together here behind closed doors, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, said in terse evening statements that U.S. and Russian military officials would meet, perhaps as soon as Thursday, to “deconflict” their operations in Syria.

Remember, early on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Assad as a “reformer”. Obama has had years to force Assad out. He established his “red lines”, then, when Assad crossed them, Obama retreated and attempted to shift control over to Congress. What, exactly, do they do now? Does this give Obama the out in escaping the Middle East, like he has seemed to want for a long time? Of course, this means a loss of influence in the ME for the U.S., with Iran and Russia increasing their influence.

What else is Obama to do? If he doesn’t support Assad (which, personally, I prefer he didn’t), does he throw his support behind the rebels, whom Russia is apparently bombing (instead of ISIS), which would bring US forces into conflict with Russia? Does he continue to (supposedly) bomb ISIS in Syria? Which could still bring US air forces into conflict with Russian forces? Does he wash his hands of the whole mess? Sadly, Obama has put the US in a position to be bullied by Putin/Russia. Whatever happened with that Crimea and Ukraine?

Fortunately, the Washington Post provides a little humor with the article, though it’s not apparent whether this is intentional or not, with a video of SecState John Kerry

Perhaps they should have started the video at a different spot. But, then, we all feel this facepalmy way about Obama’s foreign policies.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Admin. Says They Totally Won’t Be Bullied By Russia »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

There Are 5 Reasons Hotcoldwetdry Is Worse Than You Think Or Something

By William Teach September 30, 2015 – 3:53 pm

Not just doom, but super doom! This comes way of the World Economic Forum in their Agenda area. Think they have an agenda?

5 reasons why climate change may be worse than we think

Goal 13 of the Sustainable Development Goals is about taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Superstitious about the number 13 or not, climate change really will be unlucky for some people; if we do not control the problem it will be devastating for all. Here are five areas of concern.

1. Severe impacts of climate change are happening now. With “only” a 0.85oC rise in global average temperature, we are already seeing changes in extreme weather and this is driving the most damaging impacts. The frequency and intensity of heatwaves have increased in Europe, Asia and Australia. The global water cycle is intensifying. More places around the globe are being hit by more rain and heavier rain, including Europe and North America, while some regions have seen increases in the duration and intensity of drought. Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic.

Of course, in reality, extreme weather has not increased, and North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity has fallen sharply over the past 10 years.

Then we get (you’ll have to hit the link for the full paragraphs)

2. The polar ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates

Nope. And it still couldn’t be scientifically linked to anthopogenic activities. Unless you count all the Warmists taking fossil fueled planes, vehicles, and boats to check out the poles.

3. The risk of abrupt, irreversible changes looms ahead.

Again, a future doom prognostication.

4. Climate change is a threat multiplier.

Yes, perhaps. Heck, certainly. That doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation.

5. The more we learn about climate change, the riskier it looks.

That’s not an actual reason per the fable’s headline, it’s just sort of reiterating the headline. I was expecting some sort of actual scientific proof.

We have collectively built and optimized all of human civilization for the relatively stable climate that has existed for thousands of years.

The climate which has flipped multiple times from warm to cool, for which many of the warm periods were warmer than the current minor warm period. Facts are immaterial to the Cult of Climastrology. This is about politics.

Read: There Are 5 Reasons Hotcoldwetdry Is Worse Than You Think Or Something »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 30, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a deluge from extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the military being degraded by Obama.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Hurricane Joaquin Is #ClimateChange Or Something

By William Teach September 30, 2015 – 10:25 am

I’m actually surprised that so few members of the Cult of Climastrology have linked Joaquin to climate change, but, hey, it just reached hurricane status, so there is plenty of time for them to trot out their stale talking points. So far, here’s the winner

This brings to mind a question: if that warm blob is so bad, why are we only at the 10th named storm in late September? Remember, we were told that Hotcoldwetdry would mean more hurricanes, that the massive 2005 season would be the new normal. Yet, the US has only seen one landfalling hurricane since 2008, and few tropical storm landfalls. That’s not to say even tropical storms, heck, depressions, can’t be dangerous. But, we certainly aren’t seeing even normal land strikes from tropical systems.

We also have

Read More »

Read: Hurricane Joaquin Is #ClimateChange Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Russia Tells Obama To Stop All Military Flights Over Syria

By William Teach September 30, 2015 – 7:17 am

Is this “leading from behind”?

(Fox News) Russian officials have demanded that American warplanes exit Syrian airspace immediately, a senior U.S. official told Fox News early Wendesday.

The official told Fox News that Russian diplomats sent an official demarche ordering U.S. planes out of Syria, adding that Russian fighter jets were now flying over Syrian territory. U.S. military sources told Fox News that U.S. planes would not comply with the Russian demand.

“There is nothing to indicate that we are changing operations over Syria,” a senior defense official said.

Well, at least we’ve said “no”. For the moment.

The move by Moscow marks a major escalation in ongoing tensions between the two countries over military action in the war-torn country and comes moments after Russian lawmakers formally approved a request from the country’s president, Vladimir Putin, to authorize the use of troops in Syria.

On the bright side, at least it will be Russians dying, rather than US troops. On the down side, this could mean even more Russian influence in the region. It certainly means Syrian leader Assad is going nowhere. Thanks to Obama’s fecklessness, American credibility and leadership in the Middle East has waned. Remember his “red lines”?

Read: Russia Tells Obama To Stop All Military Flights Over Syria »

Posted in Barry Obama | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Report: Many UN Sustainable Development Goals Have No Pathways To Success

By William Teach September 30, 2015 – 7:03 am

Supporters of the United Nations and Progressive goal were thrilled when the UN released their Sustainable Development Goals, which are kind of about everything

These replace the Millennium Development Goals, which, unsurprisingly, failed, and were more of a monetary boondoggle with little direction. How about the SDGs?

(Fox News) When the United Nations approved a massive agenda of sustainable development goals last week, it over-rode pointed warnings by two international science councils that the program is in many ways uncoordinated, unmeasurable and unrealistically ambitious.

Managers of the vast exercise in setting the global, progressive agenda for the next 15 years known as the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) decided it would be “too dangerous” to reopen the sprawling package to improve it, according to Anne-Sophie Stevance, lead coordinator of the critical analysis and a science officer with the International Council for Science (ICSU), the most prominent voice of the international scientific community. (snip)

“Many sets of goals and targets do not provide any pathways to how to achieve them,” Stevance declared. “Nor do we know if we will achieve global prosperity if we do meet them.”

Oops?

The virtually unaltered SDGs were hailed by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as “a defining moment in human history” as he opened the summit meeting on Sept. 25 that introduced the goals, as well as a “universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.” Two days later President Barack Obama pledged U.S. support for the effort “whatever it takes.”

“Whatever it takes” is likely to be very big challenge. A better description of the SDGs than a “transformative vision” might be a sprawling and shapeless bid to establish a truly global socialist and progressive agenda, not to mention a blank check required for trillions of dollars annually in development spending to achieve—if even achievable.

Article writer George Russell editorializes a bit more than should be acceptable for a straight news story, but, he hits the nail on the head. If your goal is to lose weight and get in shape, how are you going to do that? Having goals is laudable. Not having a plan to achieve them, and having no idea if you will achieve them if you put your plan in place is not. Spending trillions of Other People’s money is, likewise, not.

There are 17 goals and 169 targets (which all seem to demand that More Government is the answer). What do they look like?

Among the 169 targets, for example, the report’s authors—40 of them, from 21 countries—declared that only 49, or 29 per cent, could be “considered well developed (i.e. thought out), 91, or 54 per cent, required more specificity, and 29, or 17 per cent, required “significant work” to be useful.

In other words, well over two-thirds of the targets that are supposed to reorganize much of the world’s sweeping self-improvement over the next 15 years are not deemed particularly useful or specific as currently laid out and approved.

And, as noted in the article, many contradict each other. And, again, follow the MDGs, which, according to Elham Seyedsayamdost, “the data indicates that the MDGs did not necessarily translate into real changes.” How much did the MDGs cost? $61bn? $152bn? Or was it “the only correct answer to questions about the cost of the MDGs is “more””? What do we think will happen with the SDGs?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Report: Many UN Sustainable Development Goals Have No Pathways To Success »

Posted in Progressive Goals, UN | Comments Off on Report: Many UN Sustainable Development Goals Have No Pathways To Success | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Very Upset Over AP Changes To Using Phrase “Climate Denier”

By William Teach September 29, 2015 – 3:23 pm

Especially ultra-Warmist Eric Holthaus

Doubt Denies Denial

Words matter, and in journalism, what the Associated Press says matters the most. Thousands of publications around the world use its style guidelines, so last week, when AP announced it was scrapping the terms climate deniers and climate skeptics to refer to those who don’t accept human influence on climate change, the decision immediately became controversial, and for good reason.

Instead of denier or skeptic, the news outlet now prefers the term climate doubters, or, for the long-winded: those who reject mainstream climate science. The problem is, while this terminology is well intentioned, this change is a step backward. And the choice ofdoubters, specifically, is wrong.

As Denise Robbins, a researcher for Media Matters for America, a progressive science advocacy organization, pointed out on Twitter, the people who deny climate change “are NOT doubters. They are VERY certain that human-caused global warming isn’t happening.”

Wow. Who new that Media Matters is now a “science advocacy organization”? But, yes, we are very certain that mankind is not mostly/solely causing global warming. The argument is not over warming, but causation. As I’ve said many times, and, heck, you’re welcome to check my Twitter feed from the past couple days, those who say there has been no warming since 1850 I’ll refer to as deniers, or, better yet, idiots. There has been warming.

Most of the Republicans running for president are opposed to any effort to slow America’s emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Climate-denying conservatives have tried for decades to deliberately change public perception on the issue while at the same time raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. This is not “doubt.” This is vested interest. (ThinkProgress has a good overview of the background of the AP’s decision, and Science magazine has a roundup of other reactions to the changes including, notably, praise by noted climate science deniers Anthony Watts and Marc Morano.)

Vested interest, eh? The COC has tens of billions on the line yearly. They receive massive funding from government, NGOs, left wing orgs, etc, not mention all the glowing support from government and the media. Yet, for all that, they still haven’t proven that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the current warm period, in part or whole.

Read: Warmists Are Very Upset Over AP Changes To Using Phrase “Climate Denier” »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach September 29, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrendous downpour caused by carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post wondering if Obama’s Internet plan is unconstitutional.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Cult Of Climastrology RICO Letter Disappears Into Memory Hole

By William Teach September 29, 2015 – 10:06 am

Too bad the Internet is forever

Via Bishop Hill, who notes “You can imagine the horror on the signatories’ faces when they realised that some very determined people were about to take a close interest in their financial arrangements and those of their colleagues at IGES.”

That letter is already out there, and has been published by many, many outlets.

Judith Curry has an Op-ed about the letter itself, and notes

The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.

The role of these 20 scientists is particularly troubling. The consequence of this persecution, intended or not, is to make pariahs of scientists who are doing exactly what we expect of researchers: to critically evaluate evidence and publish that work in the scientific literature. (snip)

What these 20 scientists have done with their letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy. Attempts by powerful people to silence other scientists, especially in this brutal fashion, is a recipe for stifling scientific progress and for making poor policies.

Cultists do not care, because this is politics for them.

Read: Cult Of Climastrology RICO Letter Disappears Into Memory Hole »

Posted in Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove