Tah Dah!!!

The Useless Nations strikes again:

What this UN Climate Change official wants to do to Earth's population will leave you fuming

UN Climate Change Chief Pushes Depopulation of the Earth to ‘Fix’ Global Warming

As long as you and climate weenies go first. I'd be down with that.

Go Ahead, Dear

I wasn't going to vote for you anyway:

Tom Mulcair says NDP will oppose anti-terrorism bill C-51

Nearly Fifteen Years Ago

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

Now: 100 DAYS OF HEAVY SNOW: Britain now facing worst winter in SIXTY YEARS warn forecasters

Latest winter weather models show UK faces MONTHS of heavy snow

UK Weather: Britain prepares for worst weather in 200 years with temperatures colder than Lapland

"...with temperatures dropping to -8°C, with a wind chill making it colder than Lapland."

"The previous low of the year was set on February 17 in Altnaharra, Scotland. It was a low of -7.7°C but overnight we could see the temperature drop as low as -8°C in parts of Scotland, around the Braemar area.

"Temperatures will be cold across the country and we could see still temperatures dropping into minus figures in London and the south of England, with lows of around minus -1°C expected.""

Oh, the humanity.

Yawn

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

"If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like “climate change is real.”

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?

What you’ll find is that people don’t want to define what 97% agree on–because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels–which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.
Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:...

RTWT There are some nifty graphs and charts in the original, too.

Luv It!

The 50-1 Project

(50 to 1, BTW, is the ratio of what it would cost to fix the global warming "problem" versus the cost of adapting to it.)

It features in depth interviews with such heretics as:

Henry Ergas

Christopher Essex

David Evans

Donna Laframboise

Marc Moran

Joanne Nova

Fred Singer

and

Anthony Watts

Warning to warmanistas. This could be painful.

Yah, Sure

UPDATED AND BUMPED:

Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?

RTWT.  In short, this article sums up why the hype about polar bears being on the brink of extinction due to global warming, or any other cause, is pure bunk.
More.
=========Original Starts Here=========
By 2100, polar bears to be on brink of starvation

Have you noticed all these dire predictions have been put off to the very distance future when no one will be left alive who will be able to say the prognosticators were wrong. Hmmmm. Why would that be, I wonder.

From May 26, 1922

"Except over a small area, it is generally understood, the glaciers of the world are retreating to the mountains. The glacier on Mount Sermiento in South America, which descended to the sea when Darwin found it in 1836, is now separated from the shore by a vigorous growth of timber. The Jacobshaven glacier in Greenland has retreated four miles since 1850, and the East glacier in Spitzbergen is more than a milk away from its original terminal moraine. In Scandinavia the snowline is further up the mountains, and the glaciers have withdrawn 3,000ft. from the lowlands in a century. The Araphoe glacier in the Rocky Mountains, with characteristic American enterprise, has been melting at a rapid rate for several years. In the Eastern Alps and one or two other small districts the glaciers are growing. In view of these facts we should not be too sceptical when old men assure us that winters nowadays are not to be compared with the winters of their boyhood."

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Sea Level Hysterics

Rising sea levels of 1.8 meters in worst-case scenario

Yeah. Six feet, or thereabouts. Oh the humanity.

Recent Sea Level Rise is Truly Unnatural: Study

"A new study has revealed more evidence that the sea level rise the world has already experienced in recent years is not characteristic of the natural fluctuations the planet has seen over the past millennia, indicating that it is at least in-part a consequence of unnatural human influence."

Nice leap of logic there. It's "never" been seen before, and is therefore unnatural, and hence, due to human activity. And how old is the planet?

Is sea level rising?

"Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year."

0.12 inches per year. How will be ever adapt??? /sarc

Signs Of Desperation

Meet India’s widows of climate change


Climate change may slowdown crop production in 20 years

(Have you noticed how often they make sure to push off the fruition of their doom and gloom predictions into the future? Trying to scare the naive youth, I suppose. Get the kids to put pressure on the older folks and protect themselves from embarrassment in the present.)

And how's this for desperate?

In Chicago, climate change brings maggots

BWHAHAHAHA!

Fortunately, there are a few bright lights out there:

Climate Change and Corn in North Dakota

"Over the past year-and-a-half, the mainstream media has taken note of increasing corn production in North Dakota since the early 2000s. And, of course, climate change is trotted out as the cause (i.e., the supposed warming is leading to more favorable growing conditions), but—as is far too often the case—much of the journalism is lacking a complete characterization of what is going on.

We can start with this quote from a story that appeared in The Bismarck Tribune last November:

According to studies by North Dakota State Climatologist and North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network Director Adnan Akyuz, the average annual temperature in North Dakota has increased by 0.27 degrees in the last 10 years. Because of the temperature increase, the length of the growing season has increased 17.5 days in the last century.

The average annual temperature in North Dakota most certainly has not increased by 0.27 degrees in the last 10 years. The regression between 2003 and 2012 is massively non-significant (p-value=0.9; almost a perfect non-correlation), and from 2004 to 2013 the correlation was actually negative (i.e., cooling) but still highly non-significant. In other words, there has been absolutely no trend in North Dakota’s average annual temperature over the past decade.

[---]

Here are some quotes from the media articles I’ve cited already that explain what is really going on:

• “advancements in biotechnology and high corn prices are pushing the nation’s Corn Belt northward”

• “hardier seeds are enabling farmers to grow corn in areas once deemed inhospitable to the crop”

• “Corn prices are about double historical norms, driven by food demand in China and other fast-growing countries, as well as the rise of U.S. ethanol production. Farmer Steve Fritel planted more corn than wheat for the first time this spring. ‘Wheat is profitable; corn is just more profitable,’ said the 58-year-old, who farms about 4,000 acres near Rugby with his son Brad.”

• “Excluding labor and management costs, farmers here in north-central North Dakota will earn about $126 per acre in profit from corn this year, about double the expected return of $65 an acre for wheat, said Dwight Aakre, an extension economist at North Dakota State University.”

• “Corn is a higher grossing crop than either soybeans or wheat. In 2008, corn created $464/acre of cropland, which is $95/acre more than the second highest crop in wheat, and $192/acre more than soybeans.”

• “Researchers have developed corn varieties that mature faster and need less moisture, alleviating concern about the region’s relatively short growing season and variable precipitation.”

Now just remove the climate change related discussions surrounding these quotes in each story and we have a more accurate picture of what is happening with corn production in North Dakota."

I'll Wave When I Float By

Oops!

UPDATED AND BUMPED:  Update below.

I must say, I'm getting a little tired of this topic, but it seems to be taking some time for the true believers (ie- the flat earth society) to accept that Anthropogenic global warming just isn't happening. This is not to say that global warming isn't happening, just that any explanation of it that doesn't blame human produced CO2 just isn't allowed. This entry, on Joanne Nova's website, documents a case in point:

That West Antarctic melting couldn’t be caused by volcanoes could it?

"Despite the 95% certainty of doom, it’s not like we have all the data on heat sources in Antarctica either. Until November last year we didn’t even know one particular volcano was smoldering under a kilometer of ice in West Antarctica. [Emphasis, mine]

Do volcanoes melt much ice? Could be…

“Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.” Lough et al 2013

The fastest warming areas of Antarctica — the Peninsula and West Antarctica are part of the Pacific Rim of Fire. Not worth a mention in any “news” service? Not the right kind of propaganda…

Remember — if it’s broadcast on the ABC, BBC or CBC, the whole chain of one-sided-information is fully government funded. They have specialist science units trained not to ask hard questions."

I wonder which "CBC" she is referring to? Columbia Broadcasting Corporation or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or is their an Aussie CBC? Certainly the North American ones could be guilty of this kind bias.

To read more of my entries about volcanoes, go here.

UPDATE:

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

"Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."

Flatlined

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

No wonder the warmanistas have had to change the words, yet again:

Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming

Climate disruption! ROTFLMAO!!!

They Say With Global Warming...

...sea levels will rise to the point where coastal cities will be inundated. Well, that's not the only thing they have to worry about:

Coastal Cities Don't Just Need to Worry About Rising Seas; They're Also on Sinking Land

Doom And Gloom Is Not New - Just Boring

Predictions from Earth Day, 1970:

1. "CIVILIZATION WILL END within 15 to 30 years, unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
— Harvard biologist George Wald

2. "Most of the people who are going to die in THE GREATEST CATACLYSM IN THE HISTORY OF MAN have already been born… [BY 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into FAMINES OF UNBELIEVABLE PROPORTIONS. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
— Paul Ehrlich

3. "IT IS ALREADY TOO LATE TO AVOID MASS STARVATION."
— Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

4. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975, widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. BY THE YEAR 2000 -- thirty years from now -- THE ENTIRE WORLD, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, WILL BE IN FAMINE."
— North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

5. "In a decade, URBAN DWELLERS WILL HAVE TO WEAR GAS MASKS to survive air pollution… By 1985, air pollution will have REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF SUNLIGHT REACHING EARTH BY ONE HALF."
— Life magazine

6. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and NONE OF OUR LAND WILL BE USABLE."
— Ecologist Kenneth Watt

7. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
— Paul Ehrlich

8. "BY THE YEAR 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE CRUDE OIL. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
— Ecologist Kenneth Watt

9. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the
sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and A NEW ICE AGE WILL BE BORN."
— Newsweek magazine

10. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
— Kenneth Watt

There's Doom And Gloom

Civilization could crash in 15 years- NASA study

"A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of 'collapse' are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that "the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history." Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to "precipitous collapse - often lasting centuries - have been quite common."

And, obviously, none of them proved too accurate, did they?

Crop yields damaged earlier than expected by climate change: study

"Corn, wheat and rice yields will start to suffer from climate change in 2030, according to a study led by the UK's University of Leeds based on climate models and research on crop productivity.

“Crop yields will be negatively affected by climate change much earlier than expected,” Andy Challinor, a Leeds professor and lead author of the study, was cited as saying in a statement on the university's website.

Without adaptation by farmers, losses in aggregate production of wheat, rice and corn are predicted with local climate warming of 2 degrees Celsius, the researchers wrote in the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change."

And then there's this: Major new potash discovery south of Regina

"Rio Tinto calls the find a Tier 1 discovery, meaning the find is one of the top tier potash deposits in the world.

"It's large," North Atlantic Potash CEO David Waugh said.

He said if a three-million ton per year mine was built on the site, the deposit would last for more than 100 years."

Waiting For The Big One...

...never mind global warming, climate change, the really big earth quake on the left coast, try dealing with this one:

Yellowstone supervolcano larger than previously known, study shows

"...beneath the famous caldera and the steaming pools, there is a supervolcano that could erupt with 2,000 times the force of the 1980 Mount St. Helens blast." beneath the famous caldera and the steaming pools, there is a supervolcano that could erupt with 2,000 times the force of the 1980 Mount St. Helens blast.

[---]

"The massive chamber contains enough volcanic material to match the supervolcano's last three eruptions."

[---]

"If the next eruption is anything like its last, which happened 640,000 years ago, it will spew large amounts of volcanic ash and material into the atmosphere, Farrell said. The volcanic material will circle around the Earth."

Not Any More

Piltdown Man - the greatest hoax in the history of science?

That award goes to - you guessed it: CAGW

"Some argue the best way to reduce greenhouse gasses is by decreasing livestock production and eating more bugs, but one study shows we can cut methane by keeping a particular insect around the farm.

Research from the University of Helsinki finds beetles living in cow pats may reduce emissions of methane, a gas associated with global warming. Science Daily reports much of the methane from livestock enters the environment with every cow burp, but some escapes from dung pats. The study shows beetles tunneling through those pats aerates them, easing anaerobic conditions and preventing carbon dioxide from converting to methane.

Tomas Roslin, head of the research team explains the impact of the beetles in preventing the release of methane from cow pats and why carbon dioxide is easier to manage than methane."

An you thought it was settled. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Lots Of Stuff..

...that I like:

Resurrected protein's clue to origins of life

"The resurrected protein is thought to have existed almost four billion years ago in single-celled organisms linked to the earliest ancestor of all life.

The protein survives in the extreme environments of high acidity and temperature expected on early Earth and, intriguingly, also Mars."

Mind you, the language in the article is barely understandable to a non-scientist like me, but it does speak to the question about the origins of life, which has always fascinated me.

THAILAND: Muslims in the South are slaughtering Buddhists in order to ethnically cleanse the area (WARNING: Graphic Images)

"Muslims account for a mere 4.6% of population, yet have been spreading fear among the indigenous Buddhists of the region, using violence and brutality. They have resorted to the random killing of Buddhists, including school teachers and Buddhist monks."

Hardly news, but.... I went to graduate school with a woman from Thailand. I hope she's alright.

Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!

"So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics."

Really good read, BTW, but damn it!! I so wanted some of that global warming stuff. Oh well. This should solve some of that "overpopulation" hysteria. If only it would take "the sky is falling" hysterical folks first.

Don't Let That Out

Global warming making earth ‘greener’

"THE planet is getting lusher, and we are responsible. Carbon dioxide generated by human activity is stimulating photosynthesis and causing a beneficial greening of the Earth's surface. For the first time, researchers claim to have shown that the increase in plant cover is due to this "CO2 fertilisation effect" rather than other causes. However, it remains unclear whether the effect can counter any negative consequences of global warming, such as the spread of deserts.

Recent satellite studies have shown that the planet is harbouring more vegetation overall, but pinning down the cause has been difficult. Factors such as higher temperatures, extra rainfall, and an increase in atmospheric CO2 – which helps plants use water more efficiently – could all be boosting vegetation."

We told you that would happen, didn't we.

Of course, there is no doubt that all this is due to human activity, but we have to be cautious about which specifically, is the cause - the higher temps (which, btw, have flat-lined), the extra rainfall (which, btw, is the opposite of what they told us would happen), or the increase in atmospheric CO2.