…is precious water which can never be used again being wasted on a fossil fueled planet killer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the latest from the NRA.
Read: If All You See… »
…is precious water which can never be used again being wasted on a fossil fueled planet killer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on the latest from the NRA.
Read: If All You See… »
Um, why isn’t he living them and many others every day? (via Tom Nelson)
Tomorrow I will pick 5 ideas out of my green ideas list and promise to live by them the week leading up to @earthhour on March 23rd #IWIYW
— Kumi Naidoo (@kuminaidoo) March 7, 2013
So far he hasn’t announced any today.

Read: We’re Saved! Greenpeace Executive Director To (Supposedly) Live By Green Ideas For A Week »
Wait, what?
(NY Times) Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,†Dr. Marcott said.
Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.
As Open Blogger at Ace of Spades points out “can someone explain to me again why mile thick glaciers over the northern states are desirable again? I missed that explanation the first time.”
This is all in conjunction with the new and breathtakingly alarmist report about “The Scariest Hotcoldwetdry Graph Just Got Scarier“. Of course, Mother Jones climate astrologer calls it “climate change”, not hotcoldwetdry. All sorts of other Warmists are freaking out and saying Something Has To Be Done, yet none are calling for Warmists to change their own behavior and give up fossil fuels. Strange that, eh?
Even if the temperature increase from human activity that is projected for later this century comes out on the low end of estimates, scientists said, the planet will be at least as warm as it was during the warmest periods of the modern geological era, known as the Holocene, and probably warmer than that.
So, it was actually warmer during the Holocene?
That epoch began about 12,000 years ago, after changes in incoming sunshine caused vast ice sheets to melt across the Northern Hemisphere. Scientists believe the moderate climate of the Holocene set the stage for the rise of human civilization roughly 8,000 years ago and continues to sustain it by, for example, permitting a high level of food production.
Humans have done better during this warmer period than during a glacial period? Who would have thought that?
In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.
Anthony Watts has a few things to say about the data and methods, and is not impressed. The GWFP notes
In the paper, and in the many press reports of it, it said that the climate has been warming since the industrial revolution kicked into gear, and that the two are related via greenhouse gas emissions. But prior to 1950 anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were to weak to have an a significant effect on the atmosphere. It is implausible to suggest that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions in the 19th century were changing the climate causing global temperature rise.
And there’s the rub of the matter: CO2 and other GHG emissions were at low levels when this “spike” started, not enough to have any sort of real effect. In fact, some have suggested that all the smoke and other particulates from the industrial revolution (which has given Warmists the cushy lifestyles that allow them the time to decry Other People’s modern lifestyles) would have blocked sunlight and decreased temps. What we have here is a casual link without proof of anthropogenic causation. It simply implies that Mankind is at fault without definitive proof.
What caused the end of the last glacial period? The study says the Sun and other natural factors. What caused the other warm periods during the Holocene, interspersed with cool periods? The study says the Sun and other natural factors. Why can’t that be the answer now, with a small percent caused by anthropogenic factors (many of which are localized, not global)?
But, again, if you Believers truly believe, you’ll make your own lives “carbon neutral.”
Read: Uh Oh: Because You Drive A Fossil Fueled Vehicle A New Ice Age Was Averted »
…is a horrible drought world because of Keystone XL, you might just be a Warmsit

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post about lying by euphemism.
Read: If All You See… »
Soros funded climate monkey Jeff Spross sprays his insanity over at Climate Progress
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere underwent one of its biggest single-year jumps ever in 2012, according to researchers at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Between the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2013, carbon dioxide levels increased by 2.67 parts per million — a rise topped only by the spike in 1998.
Jeff is really unhappy that his Little Brown Brothers in 3rd world shit holes developing nations are daring to use evil coal to provide power in an attempt to increase their standard of living. Don’t they know that they should get with the “climate change” program and just take one for Gaia? Anyhow if Someone Else doesn’t Do Something
….we face destructively high sea level rise, water supplies for hundreds of millions of people threatened by climate shifts, global crop declines, bleached coral reefs around the world, a rise in ocean acidification threatening marine ecosystems, and a host of other crises.
Right. Let’s look at this Andrew Bolt article I linked to the other day
But when Brozek checks for statistically significant warming, the warming pause extends by every measure to more than 15 years:
- For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years…
- For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years…
- For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years…
- For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years…
- For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years…
Once warmists said 15 years of no statistically significant warming invalidated their models. Draw your own conclusions.
And this has all occurred while atmospheric CO2 has continued to go up up up. And Warmists have refused to give up their own big “carbon” lifestyles.
Read: Warmists Really Worried About Coming Climate Catastrophe As CO2 Jumps »
Who would have thought that Bloomberg’s rule would turn baristas into government enforcement workers?
(NY Times) Come Tuesday, when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of large sugary drinks goes into effect after months of public debate over the measure, its impact on beverages like soda will be clear: no more jumbo colas. But coffee drinkers, and those who pour them, are likely to face a thicket of complications as varied as the lattes, macchiatos and Americanos on a Starbucks menu.
Customers at Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s can expect to add their own sugar packets and flavor swirls to large and larger coffees.
At other cafes, some will be given one lump, or perhaps two, in their coffees; those seeking more will need to visit the condiment stand.
Starbucks regulars will at first see no change at all, then may find a raft of them waiting one morning. Some large drinks will be affected, others not at all.
Oh, it can’t be that bad, can it?
The city’s new regulations regarding coffee hinge on delicate calculations about milk, calorie and sugar ratios. As with other sugary drinks, coffee cups 16 ounces or smaller are unaffected. But unlike sodas, which will max out at 16 ounces, cups of coffee larger than 16 ounces can still be served as long as the barista adds no more than three to five packets of sugar. (The limit depends on the size of the drink.) (snip)
None of those rules apply to drinks that are more than 50 percent milk, like lattes, because the city considers milk a valuable source of nutrition. And there is no limit to the number of Splenda, Equal and Sweet ’n Low packets a barista can pour in. (snip)
Given some coffee sellers’ uncertainty over how much sugar and milk is in their drinks, however, compliance can be a tricky game. And different companies appear to be interpreting the added-sugar rules differently, perhaps to circumvent a predictable kink in the morning-coffee routine: As baristas ponder how many packets of sugar are allowed in different cup sizes, the line of frustrated customers will no doubt grow.
Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s will no longer add sugar at all. Dunkin’ is handing out fliers explaining what’s going on and have trained their workers to explain it all to customers. Some independent coffee shops have simply eliminated drinks above 16 ounces. There’s lots of confusion and angst. Starbucks is waiting for the result of the lawsuit filed against the city.
Meanwhile, as Erika Johnson points out, Bloomberg’s next target is loud music from using ear buds. This will (for now) only be a public education program costing $250,000. Good thing NYC has solved all their other problems and has money to piss away.
Read: Nanny Bloomberg’s Big Sugary Drinks To Cause Problems With Coffee Shops »