Say, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

By William Teach April 5, 2015 – 8:02 am

This should make Warmists happy: an actual Republican voter (supposedly, being that the writer, Ronald Bailey, is a Libertarian) who joined their Cult Of Climastrology, and writes at the always squishy hotbed of libertarianism known as Reason

What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

First, call it “anthropogenic global warming” again, and change your entire life to match your beliefs. That might go a ways to convincing me.

In 2005, I changed my mind about climate change: I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century. My new assessment did not please a number of my friends, some of whom made their disappointment clear. (snip)

So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real? Keep in mind that despite what progressive dimwits like Naomi Klein might assert, the scientific evidence does not mandate any particular program.

What about higher temperatures? Obviously, in order for there to be any man-made global warming, temperatures must be going up. Are they? Yes.

Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million in the late 18th century to around 400 ppm today. And the trend in average global surface temperatures has been increasing since the late 19th century. As I’ve reported before, all of the global temperature datasets, both the instrumental and satellite, find that the atmosphere has warmed since the 1950s.

Of course, what is going on here is belief that one causes the other, despite the history of the Holocene. Just because you wore your lucky socks the past few games and your favorite team one doesn’t mean wearing your lucky socks is real. What caused the previous warm periods, which were actually warmer than the current Modern Warm Period? Warmists will say “it was nature then, but it simply cannot be nature now, because shut up, you must be anti-science and believe in God.” As the saying goes, correlation is not causation. We could blame leaves turning and falling on the NHL and NBA, because the NHL and NBA start playing right about the time the leaves turn and fall. Several hundred years ago they blamed Bad Weather on witchcraft.

We also get

  • What about converging daytime and nighttime temperatures?
  • What about earlier spring and later fall seasons?
  • What about disappearing glaciers and Arctic sea ice?
  • What about warming oceans?

None of those are unreasonable during a Holocene warm period. Furthermore, none prove anthropogenic causation, at least not how the CoC portrays it, being mostly/solely caused by Mankind. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mankind does play a small roll, mostly through agriculture, landfills, pollution, the Urban Heat Island effect, and land use. Not too mention falsified data, smoothed data, manufactured data, data invented out of thin air, and garbage in garbage out computer models. The scientific evidence that says that CO2 from Mankind is causing the Modern Warm period is thin to non-existent, scientifically.

It might be that it is just so happens that natural climate variability has boosted global temperatures and the trends discussed above are occurring coincidentally at the same time the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years. Correlation does not imply causation. The data cited (and uncited) do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is real. However, in my best judgment the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the greenhouse gases produced by humanity are warming the climate and that it could be a significant issue later in this century. In the foregoing I have aimed to cite data, not model outputs. I have long been a critic of computer climate models.

There’s no “might” about it. If Warmists really believed, they’d modify their own behavior. Warmists will cite that as some sort of strawman, but, if you believe in something, you should do all you can to match your life to those beliefs.

To restate: The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies. So back to the headline question: If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate is occurring, what evidence would be?

In the comments at Reason, LC Bennet asks a better question

I propose that you are asking the wrong question and omitting the companion question. First, most skeptics and lukewarmers know that AGW is real so the better question, imo, is – What would persuade skeptics and lukewarmers that AGW is catastrophic? Second, given the many failures of the models, decline of extreme weather, greening of the planet, increase in crops, fewer cold-related deaths, increased standard of living and “The Pause” – What would persuade alarmists that AGW is not catastrophic?

Now that they have stopped denying the pause, climate scientists seem to be coalescing around the idea that the pause i(15-18 years and counting) is caused by natural variability and natural cycles that are suppressing the AGW warming trend. If true, wouldn’t it be plausible, even probable, that the warming of the 80s and 90s (18-20 years)was amplified by those same forces. If so, catastrophic (CAGW) human-caused warming seems even less likely. Mild warming – yes, catastrophic – unproven and leaning towards no. The truth is that climate science needs better data and more decades of observation to see if warming/cooling is actually a sine wave with a mild upward trend due to recovery from the Little Ice Age and CO2 emissions or an unprecedented linear warming caused by humans. Note: All those events you have listed as proof have happened before so they prove neither the claim to being catastrophic nor unprecedented.

I’d actually go with “what would persuade Warmists that AGW/climate change/climate disruption/etc is not mostly/solely caused by Mankind?

Read: Say, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?” »

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

Climate Change Is Totally Linked To Voter ID Laws Or Something

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 2:49 pm

Apparently, the members of the Cult Of Climastrology are too stupid to obtain proper identification

If You Care About Climate Change, You Need to Care About Voter ID Laws

In late 2014, the Supreme Court gave the nod to Texas’ tough voter ID law, despite cries that it would unconstitutionally disenfranchise thousands of American voters who would otherwise be perfectly eligible to register and cast ballots. Voters in the state would be required to present Texan or federal identification to cast their ballots—and poll workers could be quite choosy about what they’d accept. That presented a problem for Lindsay Gonzales, a voter who only had an out of state driver’s license, and consequently would be cut out of the vote, like many Texans.

Voter ID laws are a pressing political issue, but as Brentin Mock at Grist notes, there’s another problem with them: They’re terrible for the climate. The very same population that’s most invested in action on climate change is the population that is getting the short end of the stick on such laws, leaving them unable to cast votes to make their opinions heard. Republican pushes to pass and protect voter ID laws are, along the way, limiting action on climate change, and in some cases that’s a deliberate decision. By pushing for the election of Republican lawmakers who aren’t interested in climate change action, lobbyists and supporters can avoid potential policy changes like increased fines for polluters and pressure to adopt more environmentally-friendly business practices.

If Warmists are too moronic to be able to obtain an ID, perhaps they’re too dopey to listen to on Hotcoldwetdry.

Low-income people are at a particular disadvantage with voter identification laws because they may lack the funds needed to procure the necessary documentation..

Of course, all the States that require voter ID have included measures to make sure that these people can obtain them for little to no cost.

Many are also racial minorities, as people of color are more likely to be poor.

That’s a rather racist attitude, wouldn’t you say?

Some immigrants, moreover, may have difficulty tracking down documents like birth certificates and translating them so they can be used to apply for American identification documents, even if they are in the United States legally and have taken citizenship in the U.S.

If they’ve gone through the citizenship process or are here legally, then they would have needed identification in the first place. Of course, what this is really pushing is getting illegals to vote, linking another issue into the mix.

In theory, fair elections could create a radical push for climate change action as politicians would be forced to respond to voter questions and to make good on campaign promises. Voter ID laws, however, are making it difficult to put that theory into action. Thanks to such laws, minority voters can’t hit the polls, and the status quo is upheld—no wonder the faces promoting voter ID tend to be conservative and white.

Gotta love that Warmists, typically part of the Far Left, have such a low opinion of minority (meaning Black) people.

Anyhow, what could be more fair than making sure that the person voting is eligible to vote and is the actual voter? This is just more confirmation that “climate change” is not about science, but about far left Progressive politics.

Read: Climate Change Is Totally Linked To Voter ID Laws Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a society devastated and desertified by climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on Gays pushing for churches to lose their tax exempt status.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Warmists Desperately Praying For A Jump In Global Temperatures

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 10:28 am

They really, really, really, really are hoping. Here’s George Soros funded Cultist Joe Romm

Long-Awaited ‘Jump’ In Global Warming Now Appears ‘Imminent’

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

This is simply desperation on the part of the Cult Of Climastrology. And wishful thinking. What they’re positing is that all the “missing” heat that was eaten by their dog the oceans will suddenly start pouring forth. Their computer models tell them so!

Indeed it will be a very bad year for the Earth and for climate science deniers if 2015 proves to be the beginning of the long-awaited temperature jump.

Not really. Because this wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation, just what happens in a typical Holocene warm period. Climate fluctuates on Earth. It always has, and always will.

But, question: what if it doesn’t happen? Will this mean a very bad year for Warmists? Of course not. They’ll simply trot out more excuses, as well as blaming Mankind for whatever happens.

Read: Warmists Desperately Praying For A Jump In Global Temperatures »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Is Totally Up For A Robust Debate On Iran Deal

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 7:37 am

He really wants one. Which, of course, means he wants everyone to shut the hell up, and he’ll trot out lots of strawmen and Blamestorming

(The Hill) President Obama said he expects a “robust debate” about the budding deal with Iran over its nuclear program and fervently defended the draft accord.

“Here in the United States, I expect a robust debate,” he said in his weekly address, released Saturday. “We’ll keep Congress and the American people fully briefed on the substance of the deal.”

Well, that would be a first. He failed to keep the Congress and the People fully briefed as the deal was being negotiated, and don’t expect much more than a rah rah campaign as the time comes to actually sign a printed deal.

“As we engage in this debate, let’s remember — we really only have three options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program,” Obama said, before enumerating them: “Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities — which will only set its program back a few years — while starting another war in the Middle East; abandoning negotiations and hoping for the best with sanctions — even though that’s always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program; or a robust and verifiable deal like this one that peacefully prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Of course, his “robust deal” only pushes back Iran’s nuclear weapons program about a decade. Bombing the facilities back to the stone age, and bombing them if we see them restarted, would put a serious crimp in the program. I’m not advocating for this, just making note. Let’s consider

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

Mr. Obama argued forcefully — and sometimes combatively — Thursday that the United States and its partners had obtained “a good deal” and that it was preferable to the alternatives, which he described as a nearly inevitable slide toward war. He also said he welcomed a “robust debate.” We hope that, as that debate goes forward, the president and his aides will respond substantively to legitimate questions, rather than claim, as Mr. Obama did, that the “inevitable critics” who “sound off” prefer “the risk of another war in the Middle East.”

That’s not from some Conservative site, like National Review or the Weekly Standard. That comes directly from the Washington Post Editorial Board. They see this deal for what it is: a temporary fix that helps out Iran and kicks the can down the road, while also noting that Mr. Obama generally act particularly well when he himself is calling for debate.

The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region.

Strange, wouldn’t you say? Obama, in his Weekly Address, talked about “phased removal of sanctions”.

(Powerline) Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani went on state-run television today to explain the deal that has been reached (in principle, at least) to the Iranian people. FARS News describes the speech:

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani underlined on Friday that all the UN and economic, financial and banking sanctions against Iran will be annuled the moment a final nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers goes into effect.

Of course, at the end of the day, the deal is not finalized. Right now it seems that Iran is getting everything they want, namely, the removal of sanctions while still having the ability to seek nuclear weapons, albeit at a slower pace. We’ll have to see what the end result is.

Read: Obama Is Totally Up For A Robust Debate On Iran Deal »

Posted in Barry Obama, Iran | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Los Federales To Fly In Children From Central America For Illegals

By William Teach April 4, 2015 – 7:13 am

Is it any wonder that “57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally”?

(Fox News) Images of unaccompanied children flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border defined the immigration crisis last summer.

Now, the federal government is intervening so these children won’t have to make that trek -– they’ll get to fly into the U.S. instead. For free.

A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security program seeks to stop the surge of immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador at the southern border by giving their U.S.-based parents the option to apply to have their kids picked up and put on a plane, without paying a penny.

The parents are eligible as long as they have some sort of legal status. As first reported in The Daily Caller, this would include permanent residents and even illegal immigrants given a work permit and deportation reprieve under President Obama’s recent executive actions, though much of that is on hold due to a pending court case. Of them, those with children under 21 and living in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras reportedly could apply.

“I think many Americans are going to be surprised to learn that illegal aliens here in the United States are getting the Obama administration to go and get their children and fetch them,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, told Fox News. “And all at our expense.”

I’m not surprised in the least by this action. I wouldn’t even have been surprised had this occurred under President Bush, much less under Mr. Obama. The kids would be considered “refugees”, hence, eligible for all sorts of government benefits, including food stamps and living expenses.

Obviously, Democrats are for this, creating an interesting political fantasy

“I think it’s good for the tax base,” said Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. “Every year, 13 billion dollars are put into the Social Security Trust Fund from undocumented immigrants. So if you have immigrants here who are working, who are doing the jobs that need to be done, that’s money going into our tax system. People will say that it’s free health care, that it’s free education. Nothing in this town is free.”

How, exactly, do kids add to the tax base? Is Mr. Rocha suggesting that we put them to work? How many illegals are paid under the table, because they are, you know, illegal? But the ultimate point is that they should not be here. We have laws for a reason

“My gosh, what does the rule of law mean if you break the law to get here, and then you get the government to help bring the rest of your family?” Fitton asked.

If you are caught driving drunk, and haven’t harmed anyone or damaged any property, you’ll still be penalized heavily under the rule of law. If you refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you’ll have the Government breathing down your neck, possibly fining you or forcing you out of business. If you come across the border illegally or overstay your visa (the true cost of illegal immigration is more than just economic), the Government will attempt to legalize you, give you government benefits, and even fly in your kids free of charge!

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Los Federales To Fly In Children From Central America For Illegals »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 3, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon lifestyle, living by candlelight, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Fire Andrea Mitchell, with a post on the silence of the media when it comes to Muslim bakers refusing to bake a cake for gay weddings.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Is A New Study A “Death Blow” To Global Warming Hysteria?

By William Teach April 3, 2015 – 11:33 am

Interesting question

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

I’ll leave it to you to dig into the details of the study. There’s no point in writing nor posting those details, because adherents of the Cult Of Climastrology mostly won’t, and those few who do will blow it off. But still won’t give up their own fossil fueled Big Carbon Footprint lives

“Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

I have to completely disagree. This whole issue is not about science, but about Far Left politics. The Warmists will never give it up, no matter what happens. If the Earth suddenly entered an actual glaciation period, they would still find a way to blame it on Mankind’s output of “carbon pollution”, and the policy prescriptions would all involve bigger and bigger government with more and more power over our lives.

Read: Is A New Study A “Death Blow” To Global Warming Hysteria? »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Obama Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Push “Clean Energy”

By William Teach April 3, 2015 – 7:45 am

Nothing says “clean energy” like a long fossil fueled flight, accompanied by other fossil fueled aircraft, followed by multiple trips to and fro in a fossil fueled limo accompanied by 17 or so other fossil fueled vehicles

(Salt Lake Tribune) President Barack Obama will stress the importance of investing in clean-energy technology and training workers for this growing field as part of his remarks at Hill Air Force Base in Utah on Friday, and will use the opportunity in a deep-red state to highlight that supporting such innovations isn’t a partisan issue.

“[Utah] is an example of a state that has made smart investments in clean energy and has yielded great benefits for the economy,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told The Salt Lake Tribune. “This is something the president has advocated in Washington, D.C., and he has not been able to make much progress, or at least as much progress as we would like, because these are proposals that are opposed by Republicans in Washington even though Republicans in Utah had deployed them to good effect.”

This is all about pushing solar energy. And, of course, climate change. It might be worthwhile if this wasn’t coming from the man with the Largest Carbon Footprint In The World.

Read: Good News: Obama Takes Long Fossil Fueled Flight To Push “Clean Energy” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

As Higher Minimum Wage Takes Effect In Seattle, Costs Rise

By William Teach April 3, 2015 – 6:42 am

Who could have seen this coming?

(Fox News) Eating meals out in Seattle just got more expensive as tens of thousands of low wage workers got a raise this week to $11 an hour. It was the first scheduled pay increase on the way to $15 an hour, the highest minimum wage in the country.

Ivar’s Salmon House, an iconic Seattle seafood restaurant, decided to skip the phase-in period and began paying $15 right away.

It also raised menu prices 21 percent. The famous Fish ‘n Chips will run you $20.60 and the Wild Alaska Halibut is now $43.50. The restaurant also wrote on the menu, “Tipping is no longer necessary…we have changed the way we pay our employees.”

In my opinion, that last part was unnecessary, and a shot at employees. But, hey, why not go with the European model and pay a higher wage with not tipping? Telling patrons that tipping is not necessary is also a way to keep the overall cost of the dining experience down.

Fast food restaurants are taking it much slower, but they’re still charging more. One Subway in South Seattle that’s now paying workers $11 raised prices four percent.

“I don’t have a choice but to increase prices,” said Subway franchisee David Jones. “I just hope that the public rewards us for giving good service and having good food.

I think we can all visualize the Liberal response “hey, it’s just 4%. What’s the big deal?” Well, 4% here, 4% there, spread the 4% all around, and pretty soon this becomes some real money, especially as the same people who got this government mandated raise see a complementary cost of living increase.

From the Seattle school district to King County, every other public employer said it now is paying the higher wages. None would detail how they will afford the higher labor costs, but the Seattle College District listed some options. That list includes reduction in services, increase in fees/prices and eliminating services such as catering and fitness centers.

Um, surprise?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: As Higher Minimum Wage Takes Effect In Seattle, Costs Rise »

Posted in Economy, Liberal World | 5 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove