If All You See…

By William Teach November 12, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is snow and cold that suddenly appears because of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Rhymes With Right, with a post featuring interesting numbers on super PAC spending.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Finds “Peak Warmth” Of Medieval Warm Period Warmer Than Current

By William Teach November 12, 2014 – 11:33 am

This is what the UN IPCC and other Warmist scientists used to say, before that became inconvenient. Via The Hockey Schtick, which provides this excerpt from the beginning of the study

Between the 10th and 14th centuries AD, earth’s average global temperature may have been warmer than it is today, according to the analyses of Lamb (1977, 1984, 1988) and Grove (1988). The existence of this Medieval Warm Period was initially deduced from historical weather records and proxy climate data from England and Northern Europe. Interestingly, the warmer conditions associated with this interval of time are also known to have had a largely beneficial impact on earth’s plant and animal life. In fact, the environmental conditions of this time period have been determined to have been so favorable that it was often referred to as the Little Climatic Optimum (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979; Dean, 1994; Petersen, 1994; Serre-Bachet, 1994; Villalba, 1994)

At the end of the day, then, it would indeed appear that the peak warmth of the global Medieval Warm Period clearly exceeded that of the global Current Warm Period.

There is lots of information, bring lots and lots of studies together. We find out things like China being around 1.0C higher in temperature, the tree lines where higher and tree rings bigger in North America, suggesting higher temps. “Other data document vast glacial retreats during the MWP in parts of South America, Scandinavia, New Zealand and Alaska (Grove and Switsur, 1994; Villalba, 1994); and ocean-bed cores suggest that global sea surface temperatures were warmer then as well (Keigwin, 1996a, 1996b).” I hate pulling quotes from PDF’s, since they require massive reformatting, so I suggest you read it all. Just 23 pages long. I will pull two more, though.

In the area of human enterprise, the climatic conditions of the MWP proved providential. The Arctic ice pack, for example, substantially retreated, allowing the settlement of both Iceland and Greenland; while alpine passes normally blocked with snow and ice became traversable, opening trade routes between Italy and Germany (Crowley and North, 1991). Contemporaneously, on the northern Colorado Plate au in America, the Anasazi Indian civilization reached its climax, as warmer temperatures and better soil moisture conditions allowed them to farm a region twice as large as is presently possible (MacCracken et al ., 1990).

Huh.

In further discussing their findings, Perry and Hsu commented that “current global warming commonly is attributed to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.” However, as they continued, “geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model.” And they thus concluded that the idea of “the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable.”

Of course, nothing will dissuade our Warmist brethren from their Beliefs, because this is a political issue for them, not a scientific one.

Read: Study Finds “Peak Warmth” Of Medieval Warm Period Warmer Than Current »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Jonathan Gruber Totally Regrets Saying Americans Are Stupid …. In First Video

By William Teach November 12, 2014 – 8:25 am

That’s right, there are two videos

(Mediaite) Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor and so-called architect of Obamacare, is walking back year-old remarks that the health care system overhaul passed only because of a “lack of transparency” and the “stupidity of the American voter.”

On MSNBC Tuesday, Gruber told Ronan Farrowthat he “spoke inappropriately” when he made the comments, which surfaced this week in an online video.

“The comments in the video were made at an academic conference,” Gruber said. “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments.”

He never actually apologizes nor says he’s sorry, he just regrets the comments. And was inappropriate. Probably because he got caught. Well, not probably. You know he meant it when he said it.

And then this happened

(Daily Caller) Fox News’ Megyn Kelly was the first to air the video on her program, “The Kelly File.” Kelly played the video of Gruber appearing on MSNBC’s “Ronan Farrow Daily” apologizing for his earlier remarks. “I was speaking off the cuff and I spoke inappropriately, and I regret making those comments,” he said.

“But now tonight,” Kelly reported, ” more video has surfaced showing this was not the first time Mr. Gruber called the American people stupid in an ‘off-the-cuff’ remark. In this next clip from also last year, Mr. Gruber explains how Democrats played with the language of the Obamacare law so that it achieved their goals, by again, fooling the stupid public.”

She then played a short 5-second clip of Gruber, saying the following, that a part of the Obamacare passed because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

Kelly didn’t say much about the background of the clip, but the video appears to be from a lecture Gruber gave at Washington University in St. Louis in October of last year, entitled “Cost of Health Care.” Indeed, Gruber’s remarks can be heard around the 31-minute mark of the University’s video of the event.

So, if the first was just an off-the-cuff remark, what is the second?

Protein Wisdom makes an interesting point

Each time the repeal bill is passed and Obama vetoes it, the leadership from both Houses should call press conferences highlighting Obama’s obstructionism in service to a law one of its architects boasted only passed thanks to the stupidity of American voters and a concerted effort by those who drafted it to keep it confusing and to make its redistributive attributes as non-transparent as they could. They should note that sweeping GOP gains in the House and a comfortable control of the Senate — along with changes in governorships and state asssemblies favoring the GOP — represents a mandate to repeal the unpopular and financially devastating law, with many of those who unseated Democrats having run on the repeal of ObamaCare. They should refer time and time again to the denigration of the American electorate by one of the law’s main architects (who also was an architect of RomneyCare, for those of you who are interested in such things), and reprising the key phrases Gruber used, first, about the “stupidity of the American voter” and second, how a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” when trying to fool the electorate.

Liberals really do think the rest of the American public is stupid, and that they Know What’s Best For Everyone Else. I suggest that the GOP call the repeal bills Democrats Think Americans Are Stupid Obamacare Repeal Act.

Read: Jonathan Gruber Totally Regrets Saying Americans Are Stupid …. In First Video »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

John Kerry: Obama’s Climate Agreement With China Is Like Totally Historic!

By William Teach November 12, 2014 – 8:01 am

Secretary Of State John Kerry is totally psyched over the so-called carbon reduction agreement between his boss and China. Because they totally want other people to be forced to reduce their carbon footprints. Not themselves, though. Obama has a carbon footprint somewhere around 41,000 metric tons, while the average American comes in around 19 metric tons. No one has estimated Kerry’s actual yearly footprint, but, considering he’s flying all over the world all the time, he’s probably in the hundreds, if not thousands. Anyway

China, America and Our Warming Planet
John Kerry: Our Historic Agreement With China on Climate Change

Has anyone showed Kerry this yet?

This is confirmed by HADCRUT.

The United States and China are the world’s two largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Together we account for about 40 percent of the world’s emissions.

We need to solve this problem together because neither one of us can solve it alone. Even if the United States somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still wouldn’t be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. Likewise, even if China went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t make enough of a difference if the United States and the rest of the world didn’t change direction.

Today, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are jointly announcing targets to reduce carbon emissions in the post-2020 period. By doing this – together, and well before the deadline established by the international community – we are encouraging other countries to put forward their own ambitious emissions reduction targets soon and to overcome traditional divisions so we can conclude a strong global climate agreement in 2015.

Ah, so after Obama is long gone. Of course, it’s not one of those real treaty thingies, because that would require Senate approval. Hence, it really has no force of law.

Our announcement can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations, which resume in less than three weeks in Lima, Peru, and culminate next year in Paris. The commitment of both presidents to take ambitious action in our own countries, and work closely to remove obstacles on the road to Paris, sends an important signal that we must get this agreement done, that we can get it done, and that we will get it done.

This is also a milestone in the United States-China relationship, the outcome of a concerted effort that began last year in Beijing, when State Councilor Yang Jiechi and I started the United States-China Climate Change Working Group. It was an effort inspired not just by our shared concern about the impact of climate change, but by our belief that the world’s largest economies, energy consumers and carbon emitters have a responsibility to lead.

Such pretty words! Will Obama start with his own footprint? The carbon footprint for him to travel with a large convoy to and from the golf course alone is rather big. And all those cross-country flights for campaign speeches, which we can bet do not stop despite the midterms being over and him not eligible for re-election, are pretty darn big, too.

But, what are the details of this super-historic, milestone agreement?

The targets themselves are also important. Ambitious action by our countries together is the foundation to build the low-carbon global economy needed to combat climate change. The United States intends to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 – a target that is both ambitious and feasible. It roughly doubles the pace of carbon reductions in the period from 2020 to 2025 as compared to the period from 2005 to 2020. It puts us on a path to transform our economy, with emissions reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050. It is grounded in an extensive analysis of the potential to reduce emissions in all sectors of our economy, with significant added benefits for health, clean air, and energy security.

And China?

The Chinese targets also represent a major advance. For the first time China is announcing a peak year for its carbon emissions – around 2030 – along with a commitment to try to reach the peak earlier.

So, essentially, China did not pledge anything but a nebulous thought to have a peak year in 2030, and maybe do it earlier. The steps they will take will mostly have to do with using alternative methods to coal and other actual pollutants in order to increase their air quality, which is pretty darned bad. That smog you see in pictures of China? That’s not carbon dioxide, or, as Warmists like to call it, “carbon pollution”. China has not had the safeguards for air quality that the United States has, so using more nuclear and other alternatives (meaning, they will be slapping up lots of nuclear plants, mostly), along with decreasing the factories, automobiles, and such which contribute to actual air pollution will make it appear as if they are Doing Something about their carbon footprint.

At the end of the day, though, this agreement has no force of law unless ratified by the US Senate. An Executive Agreement can be politically binding, but not legally binding. And, since this is an Executive Agreement, it cannot take precedence over domestic law. So, it’s a feel good agreement for lame-duck Obama and his Warmist base, with no actual hard targets for China.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: John Kerry: Obama’s Climate Agreement With China Is Like Totally Historic! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Barry Obama, Climahypocrites, Global Warming, Kerry | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcoldwetdry Is Like Totally Making Human Rights Abuses Worse Or Something

By William Teach November 11, 2014 – 6:37 pm

It’s always something with this crowd

(Daily Princetonian) Climate change is having an intensifying impact on human rights in developing countries, former President of the Republic of Ireland Mary Robinson said in a lecture on Tuesday.

Noting the rapid deterioration of natural environments in Africa and numerous multinational conferences on combating climate change in the past two decades, Robinson said the audience, especially University students, should take immediate and personal responsibility for protecting the environment.

I agree. All the believers, such as…..Mary Robinson, who jets all around the world on fossil fueled vehicles….should immediately give up their…..well, you know what I’m thinking.

“There are extraordinary years of human history, and 2014 and 2015 are two years with the same magnitude in changing our lives as 1914 and 1945,” she said. “Currently the world is not on course to safety but two degrees Celsius strayed. We need to change course. There’s no plan B for the world.”

Holy Shit! I’m generally not one for cursing within a blog post, but, did she really compare Hotcoldwetdry with the ending of WWI and WWII?

“The link between human rights and climate change is gaining recognition,” Robinson said. “To achieve climate justice, we must first acknowledge human engendered climate injustice. Second, we must mitigate the climate by helping the poorer countries. We need to endow a voice for the marginalized and vulnerable people.”

In other words, this is about Leftist politics. Taxation and redistribution.

“In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called upon to reach a higher consciousness, a higher moral ground,” Robinson said. “That moment has come.”

If so, why don’t Warmists give up their own big carbon footprints?

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Is Like Totally Making Human Rights Abuses Worse Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach November 11, 2014 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil war machine that causes climate change and also uses lots of fossil fuels, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is House Of Eratosthenes, with a post on Veteran’s Day 2014.

Also mentioning (at time of putting this post together in the early am) Veteran’s Day are: Maggie’s Farm, Patriot’s Corner, Political Clown Parade, Proof Positive, Raised On Hoecakes, Reaganite Republican, The Last Refuge, This Ain’t Hell…, Weasel Zippers, Yid With Lid, 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny (and here), Ace Of Spades HQ, Adrienne’s Corner, Allen B. West, Average Bubba.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Another “What Are Republicans Thinking About Climate Change” Article

By William Teach November 11, 2014 – 12:33 pm

Warmists keep trying and trying and trying to come up with excuses for why Republicans aren’t buying into the left leaning cult of climatism, much like they keep coming up with excuses for The Pause. It would seem much easier, though, more painful, to just admit that Warmists are wrong. But, that won’t keep the gravy train going, nor the rational to implement heavy handed Government controls on Other People. And, most definitely, remember that “Other People”

Here’s What Republicans Are Thinking When They Deny Climate Change

Conservatives are more likely to report belief in climate science if they’re presented with solutions to climate change that emphasize technological innovation and free market principles rather than government regulation, according to a new study from Troy Campbell of Duke University’s Furqa School of Business.

Cambell calls this phenomenon solution aversion, and it affects liberals too.

“It’s about ideology not about party membership,” Campbell told VICE News. “It’s really specifically about your belief. It’s not about being a part of a group; it’s about this personal ideology.”

Here’s the thing: many of the solutions between Warmists and Skeptics, the end points, overlap. We’re for alternative energy. We’re for clean air, water, and land (Warmists roll real environmental issues under the banner of the Cult). But, we are not for draconian governmental controls and taxation based on what is essentially a lie, namely, anthropogenic climate change.

Campbell asked self-identified Republicans and Democrats to read a statement about global warming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and quotes that said climate change could be solved by either developing profitable green technologies or increasing government regulation, such as imposing a tax on carbon pollution.

Of course, the article doesn’t tell us what the questions are, nor the actual responses, and, unless you happen to have a subscription to the journal with the article, you cannot read it.

“The free market solution we gave them is still addressing an issue Democrats really care about, which is fixing the environment,” Campbell told VICE News. “It’s not an intensive free market solution that Democrats would normally be against. Most Democrats generally agree with some free market ideology.”

“Some”. Meaning, virtually none. Except for themselves.

Then we get some psychobabble about trying to get people to change, use more marketing, the norm, ending with the money quote

“It’s not enough just to be right,” Campbell told VICE News. “You have to find a way to convince other people that you are right and that they need to change their behavior.”

It’s always about Someone Else, Other People, to change their behavior. Never about changing it themselves.

Read: Another “What Are Republicans Thinking About Climate Change” Article »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

GOP Has An Immoral Agenda To Destroy The Climate Or Something

By William Teach November 11, 2014 – 9:05 am

Another day, another Warmist losing his mind. In this case, it is the Washington Post’s Tom Toles

Remember how the GOP swept into the Senate by promising to cripple the EPA and its ability to enforce its mandate to protect against pollution that will damage the climate? No, they really didn’t get a mandate for that, but details, details,they are planning to try it anyway.

Yes, they are. They plan on pushing the Keystone XL pipeline through, and limiting the EPA mission creep, which ranges anywhere from their absurd economy killing regulations on “climate change” to wetlands overreach to many other things of which there is massive mission creep/overreach (read here, here, here, and so many more).

Is anyone surprised? No, because this is how they operate. Get people mad about this thing over here, and then get elected and go to work on this other thing over there. The other thing in this instance is the EPA, and the work to be done is to get the EPA out of the way of the fossil fuel industry’s ability to offload carbon waste into the atmosphere. The industry’s profit model is profits for them and somebody else pays to deal with the climate consequences. What a deal!

Carbon waste! That’s a new one. I wonder if Tom has given up his own use of fossil fuels?

But doesn’t the GOP dispute the science on climate change? Well yes they do, of course, because there is no other way to execute this particular policy play if you have to face the data squarely. So they deny the facts, do a mumble-mumble campaign about feckless Obama something-something, get elected, and then go about their dirty business of facilitating climate disaster for the short-term profits of their core corporate constituency.

Climate disaster! Because that massive, whopping, gigantic 1.4F increase in global temperatures in 160 years is like the apocalypse, y’all! Especially with the 18+ years of no statistically significant warming. Here’s the money quote

But even if they HAD gotten a mandate to destroy the climate, it’s still an immoral agenda, and needs to be stopped

An immoral agenda! Interestingly, Democrats had two full years of controlling the House, Senate, and White House, and did not pass anything. And the GOP will destroy the climate! Someone has lost their mind.

Read: GOP Has An Immoral Agenda To Destroy The Climate Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Pushes FCC On Net Neutrality

By William Teach November 11, 2014 – 8:22 am

Mr. Obama has decided to weight in on net neutrality, which has mostly been some sort of minor Progressive issue that they want because….well, no one is really sure. Most of them are probably not sure. They just know that Government Regulation Is Awesome. As long as it only negatively affects Other People, of course. Interestingly, Mr. Obama made the pronouncement while in China, because we all know just how open China is

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE/status/531871003610472449

China has massive regulations on the Internet. If any Chinese people would like to read this post, they can’t, because my little blog is blocked in China. The government of India also asked providers to block my site, along with 17 others. They eventually rescinded that order, but, in some cases, it is still blocked. Would the US government go that far? Probably not, and, that is not the issue at hand. But, as we’ve seen with government intrusion into the free market, there can be mission creep. Here’s Hit And Run’s Nick Gillespie

Obama: Government Should Regulate Internet to Keep it Free

So President Obama has announced that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility. He’s asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) from “information services” under Title I as telecommunications providers under Title II regulatory guidelines. (See here for background on the distinction.)

This is all being done in the name of “Net Neutrality,” keeping the Internet free and open, prohibiting “fast lanes” for certain services and sites, making sure no legal content is blocked, and all other horribles that…have failed to materialize in the absence of increased federal regulation.

Nick makes an interesting comparison to the old landline (a word that didn’t exist at the time) phone companies which were massively regulated when Obama was growing up. The explosion of service happened when they were deregulated. In my lifetime I’ve seen the Internet go from something no one knew about, to using dial up to access a tiny amount of information via a Radio Shack program, to true dial up programs, of which AOL was the biggest (remember all the floppy disks and CDs?). Then to true broadband, with continuously faster and faster speeds. There are all sorts of packages available for the speed you want. And, if they do not give you the choice you want? Switch. Verizon has one speed where my parents live, and it is not fast enough for Mom to stream Amazon and Netflix on here new TV (nor on her Kindle Fire), so, she’s switching to Comcast.

The same could be said of the mobile web. When it first went live here in Raleigh, it was called WAP (wireless access protocol), and had a top throughput of 14.4kbs, with a real throughput of no more than 9.6kbs. Then on to Edge, with a top speed of 56kbs (actual speed was less). Then 3G. Now 4G. What’s next?

Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro offers 7 reasons net neutrality is a dumb idea (I’m not going to excerpt them all, that would be Bad Form, so head over to the article)

On Monday, President Obama announced that he would be pushing the Federal Communications Commission to begin enforcing “net neutrality” – a policy by which internet service providers would be forced to load all web sites at the same speed. While the internet works just fine as is, President Obama believes we’re mere moments away from the system breaking down barring massive government intervention:

We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. (WT note: Obama wants The Government to be that gatekeeper)

If this sounds suspiciously like the language President Obama used with regard to health insurance in his pitch for Obamacare – unlimited access and zero scarcity, as dictated by the government – that’s because it is. Free market economics generally create higher supply, lower price, and better service. But President Obama believes that markets inevitably fail.

We Already Have Net Neutrality. As a result of competition between internet service providers in the marketplace, ISPs generally do not discriminate against highly-trafficked websites. If they did – holding a figurative gun to the head of those websites by throttling back speed to those websites – consumers would dump those ISPs in favor of others. Competition ensures that companies do not have the leverage to discriminate against particular websites.

Interesting, that’s what my mom did. I know several people in my community who had AT&T Internet, and AT&T intentionally did away with their 3.6mbs plan, leaving just the two slower plans. We thought this was because their Uverse was coming. Nope. So, they switched to Time Warner.

Some Companies Take Up More Bandwidth Than Others. Netflix consumes a huge amount of peak traffic bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Pornography sites consume a huge amount of bandwidth. That costs ISPs money. Were an ISP to push YouPorn to pay fees for its higher bandwidth, consumers of the ISP who did not use YouPorn would be the beneficiaries – they wouldn’t be subsidizing YouPorn. As Alexandra Petri of Washington Post writes, “To use one of those dreaded analogies, if you are constantly driving huge trucks, full of big deliveries of pornography, along a road, why shouldn’t you have to pay more for the road’s upkeep?”

Interestingly, Liberals are pushing for something similar, whereby ever car is tracked (surprise!) and charged a tax for miles driven.

Content Restrictions From The Government. The government promises that it will use the power of net neutrality for good, not evil. But just like the government’s once-infamous Fairness Doctrine, the notion of the government determining what equal access to the internet looks like is deeply problematic. Kessler writes:

You can already smell the mandates and the loopholes once Congress gets involved. Think special, high-speed priority for campaign commercials or educational videos about global warming. Or roadblocks–like requiring emergency 911 service–to try to kill off free Internet telephone services such as Skype.

Could it happen? Fairness Doctrine. Which liberals are pushing to reinstate, because they are getting their butts kicked by conservative talk radio.

You can read Obama’s full statement here. Why is he pushing this now? We can only guess. It could be a Typical Obama Distraction issue. He loves those, and, being that he and the Democrats lost big during the midterms, he needs a distraction. He may be looking for a fight with Republicans. He loves fighting. It’s part of his community organizer background, creating strife and conflict. At the end of the day, though, he’s asking the FCC to solve a problem that only exists in the minds of liberals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Obama Pushes FCC On Net Neutrality »

Posted in Barry Obama, Web/Tech | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Global Warming To Make Increased Cold Outbreaks

By William Teach November 10, 2014 – 4:02 pm

Because there is nothing that you driving a fossil fueled vehicle, using a hair dryer, and owning a pet doesn’t cause

As the climate warms, it could actually be generating more cold outbreaks in the USA. Here’s how

GLOBAL warming could be making parts of the world colder. Yes, you read that right. Here’s why this is not a crazy thing to say. (no, it’s still pretty much bat guano insane)

There’s a strong outbreak of cold weather across parts of the United States this week. It’s similar in some ways to last year’s so-called polar vortex — that conveyor belt of frigid Arctic air which parked itself on top of large parts of the United States, bringing bitter cold for days.

This week’s cold outbreak is much weaker, but it’s again making people question the widely accepted narrative of global warming.

The sceptic’s logic train is understandable: if it’s so damn cold, how can the world be warming?

No, that’s not the question we ask. The question is “if CO2 is the main driver of warming, far and above anything else, as Climatists state uncategorically, then how is it that we’ve had no statistically significant warming for 18+ years, and keep having these massive cold snaps?” We also also ask of Warmists “what they hell have you been mainlining to come up with this mularky that cold is caused by warming?” Oh, they have an answer

Time magazine did a fair job of explaining all that earlier this year. We paraphrase a little here, but here’s how their theory works in regards to the polar vortex:

1. Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic, which leaves behind dark open ocean water.

2. That water absorbs more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice.

3. Relatively warmer water is the main reason the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.

4. As the temperature difference between the polar north and more temperate latitudes diminishes, a band of high-level strong winds called the “jet stream” weakens.

5. For want of a more technical description, the jet stream kind of holds all the weather systems in place. Most of the time it keeps the cold stuff north and the warm stuff south.

6. But a weakened jet stream can develop what Time calls “kinks”. Time reportedthat an unusually large kink in the jet stream was what allowed all that Arctic air to flow much further south than normal during the polar vortex.

We used to just call it “winter”. We used to think that things like this could be caused by cooling as part of a natural cycle, which could be short term, or a longer term development. Now these nutjobs think that warming is causing cold.

Seriously, this schtick has already been debunked (for instance, this paper). NASA data shows that polar vortexes are linked to previous frigid winters. Some Warmists have taken to calling it bombogenesis. And only 8 states will avoid the massive frigid air. Warmists are nuts.

BTW, this may be the coldest November in 50 years. Back when the “climate scientists” and leftist media were predicting doom from a coming ice age. Which will, as seen above, be blamed on “climate change”.

Read: Good News: Global Warming To Make Increased Cold Outbreaks »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, New Climate Deniers, Unhinged Tools | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove