0:00 Stuart Varney, Fox News
1:35 My video “The Evidence for Climate Change Without Computer Models or the IPCC” is at Youtube Video
4:06 Exchange with PrairieDoggedRez is on the forum at
4:40 The RSS trend line is calculated through an interactive graph at woodfortrees.org. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this site, and neither does the site’s owner (in a disclaimer.) I use it simply because this is the source PDR uses.
10:04 - Decadal temp graph from “The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes?” — Met Office, July 2013
14:14 - Graph of CO2 correlation from “Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future” - Royer, 2009.
So here are the notes I alluded to at the end of the video. Remember, you have to explain all the things carbon dioxide explains:
1) How did the Earth escape from its ice-bound conditions during the pre-Cambrian?
2) Why was the Earth much hotter than today during the Cambrian, even though solar output was much weaker.
3) What caused past temperature swings lasting millions of years, and why does CO2 correlate so well with these temperature swings over the last 500 million years?
4) What caused the ice sheets to melt during the most recent deglaciation?
5) What has caused temperatures to rise so steeply in the last 40 years?
6) Why have temperatures been hitting record highs over the last 18 years, even though all other factors have been conspiring to push temperatures down? What’s keeping them up?
And please don’t post these, for the reasons given:
Galactic rays did it
This is a hypothesis expounded by Nur Shaviv, so read Shaviv’s paper. Even if the hypothesis is sound, galactic rays work on periods of around 20 million years, not on decadal timescales, and Shaviv says they don’t explain recent warming (#5 on the list). Neither do they explain deglaciation (#4) or the escape from snowball Earth (#1).
Cosmic rays did it
Cosmic rays become more intense during weak periods of solar activity every 11 years. The hypothesis is that they seed clouds, and that clouds cool the Earth down. Whether or not they do seed clouds has still not been shown. But even if they do, clouds have a warming as well as a cooling effect, and most research shows their overall effect is neutral. And of course cosmic rays don’t explain the recent rise in temperature (#5), because solar output has been getting weaker, so there should be more cosmic rays and that is supposedly another cooling factor. Yet the Earth is not cooling. And cosmic rays don’t explain past temperature swings (#3) or the escape from snowball Earth (#1) or deglaciation (#4) etc.
The sun did it
Clearly not. The Earth was much hotter than today at a time when solar output was much weaker (#2 on the list). The sun can’t explain the escape from snowball Earth (#1) or the swings in temperature over the last 500 million years (#3) or the recent rise in temperature (#5). And while slightly greater insolation explains the spark that started deglaciation, it doesn’t explain what amplified this warming to melt a chunk of ice the size of a continent (#4).
God did it
Sign of desperation.
There are many reasons why we must increase trade with our neighbors in the Americas, but there’s one huge one.
Forget that it’s not comfortable being the shining city on the hill if everyone else is starving. Forget that our border with Mexico could be as boring and as little a concern as the Canadian one if we trade with them and create a burgeoning middle class as we’ve done in China and India over the past decades. Forget that our biggest security threats come from unstable regions of the world, forget that our security is based on their security. Don’t ask yourself why we enrich the last remaining large communist government on the planet instead of our more desperate neighbors to the South, and which makes more sense for our well being and security.
Instead think of just this one thing and it should sell you on why we must trade more in the Americas: Every item that comes from China burns shipping diesel. Every cheap bauble burns diesel, and lots of it. Getting things from our closer neighbors would use less fuel, would put less carbon in the air. We could improve that fuel equation even more with high speed electric freight rail. It’s frankly stupid with what we know about Global Warming to freight junk across the Pacific when we could buy it much closer to home.
AS we were reminded last summer when thousands of unaccompanied children showed up on our southwestern border, the security and prosperity of Central America are inextricably linked with our own.
The economies of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras remain bogged down as the rest of the Americas surge forward. Inadequate education, institutional corruption, rampant crime and a lack of investment are holding these countries back. Six million young Central Americans are to enter the labor force in the next decade. If opportunity isn’t there for them, the entire Western Hemisphere will feel the consequences.
Confronting these challenges requires nothing less than systemic change, which we in the United States have a direct interest in helping to bring about. Toward that end, on Monday, President Obama will request from Congress $1 billion to help Central America’s leaders make the difficult reforms and investments required to address the region’s interlocking security, governance and economic challenges. That is almost three times what we generally have provided to Central America.
George Dvorsky at Io9 has some really bad news for us. If only all those people out there denying that our actions are effecting the climate, had stopped and actually helped us solve the problem instead. Maybe than we wouldn’t be facing this terrifying prospect in the future.
During the 1930s, America’s High Plains were ravaged by an 8-year long drought, resulting in the dreaded Dust Bowl. Scientists now warn that, owing to global warming, this could happen again — and that by next century many parts of the world could experience “megadroughts” lasting for several decades.
The new study, which was conducted by Cornell University, the University of Arizona, and U.S. Geological Survey researchers, used climate model simulations and paleoclimate data to predict that the chances of the southwestern United States experiencing a decade-long drought is at least 50%. The analysis suggests that the risk is at least 80%, and possibly as high as 90%, in certain areas.
This is a scene from this weeks upcoming episode of Cosmos. Tyson debunks one of the most common claims made by climate change deniers. He explains why short term cooling doesn’t prove that the carbon dioxide we’re pumping into the atmosphere is not causing global warming. The episode will air on Fox This Sunday, and National Geographic the following Monday.
1. Karl Rove melted down on election night in November of 2012 and refused to accept even Fox News’ conclusion that Obama had won Ohio …
2. Rove denies that he lied the US public into his illegal Iraq War …
3. Rove was part of the Bush administration effort to out undercover CIA field officer Valerie Plame ,…
4. Rove supported the Bush administration’s trashing of the Constitution’s 4th Amendment and its vast warrantless surveillance of innocent Americans.
5. Rove pronounced in 2010 that “climate is gone” as a public policy consideration.
What do you do when a public figure with whom you don’t often agree, a person you might not hold in high regard if and when you even think of them at all, starts to make a habit of doing things you do agree with, or things that do impress you quite a bit? Well, if you’re like me you sit down and start to seriously revaluate your opinion of that person. That’s the situation in which I’ve found myself since last year with regards to the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin.
The truth is, before last year, I knew only a little about President Putin. I knew he was a former KGB man and that he had a penchant for… unconventional shall we say, photo-ops.
I had heard the criticisms, of course, that his policies showed a marked tendency towards autocracy. But since a) this was Russia and thus autocracy would hardly be out of the norm and b) President Putin’s most outspoken and public critics appeared to be a troop of anarchist female “musicians,” I put little stock in such criticisms. I thought of President Putin as a Russian strongman, nothing more and nothing less.
My attention, however, was grabbed last September when agents from the pseudo-environmentalist group Greenpeace attempted to force their way onto a Russian drilling platform in the Arctic Sea. In the process these zealots endangered their own lives, the lives of the workers on the platform, and even the local ecology they claimed to be there to “protect.” President Putin’s Russia impressed me greatly when it made a response that was immediate and forceful, but by no means unfair. The Russian Coast Guard was dispatched and the so-called “activists” were arrested and subjected to the full rigor of the Russian criminal justice system.
The resulting row was furious. The very idea that peace loving environmental “activists” might actually be held to account for their criminal antics like any other criminal was simply unheard of in the decadent West! President Putin apparently felt otherwise.
It was during this row that Greenpeace’s propaganda arm attempted to make use of statements President Putin had made praising the courage of activists who confront the plans of corporations. Greenpeace saw this as a “gotcha!” moment and seized on his words. But I saw something different. I saw in President Putin a man who was willing to enforce the laws of his nation not merely in line with his personal sympathies, but despite his personal sympathies. I saw in President Putin a man whose commitment to justice, be it ever so harsh, did not falter when confronted with the wailings of Western special-interest groups like Greenpeace. What we all miss is the fact that the Greenpeacers broke Russian law. We might disagree with their law but then if you don’t like it, don’t break Russian law. It’s as simple as that.
But that was just the beginning of my re-evaluation of President Putin. Then I took a look at Syria. In August 2012 US President Barack “girl bike” Obama drew a red line and issued a warning to Syrian officials. He stated unequivocally that President Assad would face consequences if the US started seeing “a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” So what did President Assad do? He started moving around and utilizing his chemical weapons - not once, but 14 times beginning in December 2012.
What was the US response? President Obama backed away from his declaration, saying, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” He then went to the world and asked it to join him in enforcing “their” red line. But the world would have none of it. The British Parliament voted a resounding “no” and NATO declined to step in. So President Obama decided to launch a strike to prove his point. But the US Congress would have none of it either.
So what happened then? When it became clear that President Obama did not have the votes President Putin swooped in to the rescue and saved President Obama from a humiliating defeat by offering a deal to have Syria disarm. Disaster had been averted.
It is a fact, like it or not, that the incessant flip-flopping of US national security policy has contributed to the destabilization of the Middle East beyond control. Just look at Egypt. Keeping a state weak is, no doubt, a strategy. But it is a dangerous strategy, and as long as you don’t have to live in a refugee camp in the harsh winter months (yes, in Syria they have serious snow in the desert - no sign of climate change there) you can sip your café latte in Starbucks and bitch about Kim Kardashian’s posterior and remain oblivious to real human tragedy. What is missing in this picture is that in the euphoria to topple the Syrian regime there was a failure to understand that the country is now a playground for known al-Qaida terrorists who blissfully hone their deadly craft.
I suppose I should give credit to President Obama for the one decisive and forceful operation he conducted: the takedown of Osama bin Laden. The US Navy SEAL operation that wiped the world’s most wanted man off the face of the planet was undoubtedly a shining moment for the United States. And as far as legacy goes, President Obama will surely go down in history for this one. But for some inexplicable reason President Obama let it go at just that - the takedown of one person and one person only. In the wake of his (and the US Navy SEALs’) stupendous victory what did President Obama do? A little more than seven hours after bin Laden’s demise President Obama, in an obviously pre-scripted speech, inexplicably told the world that bin Laden was dead. In doing so he shocked the worldwide intelligence community and in one fell swoop eliminated the element of surprise that would have allowed Special Forces to take down other al-Qaida leaders around the world. This begs the question: What would President Putin have done? My guess is he would have kept the victory to himself, at least for a time. The wicked demon was dead and that was the end of it. Life goes on. But instead of keeping secret operations what they really are, secret, we plastered the Navy SEALs all over book deals, movies, and Happy Meal toys.
Now we have the Crimea. Recently, when a coup d’etat ousted the Ukraine’s staunchly pro-Russian President, what did Vladimir Putin do? Did he abandon a long-time ally to a street mob? Did he bow to the “inevitable” expansion of the European Union? Did he allow military assets vital to his nation’s defense to fall into the hands of a hostile regime and their foreign patrons? No, no, and hell no! But neither did he push the world into a wider calamity. Once again President Putin’s actions were as intelligent as they were resolute. After moving quickly to secure his nation’s military assets as well as make it clear to the lesser leaders of the world that Russian interests WILL be put first in the Ukraine, President Putin began his characteristic efforts to defuse this crisis. President Putin’s actions were decisive, forceful, and focused on Russia’s interests. One should be not surprised at the Russian hegemony in the region since culture, history, traditions, and military assets of the Russian Federations are at stake.
Whereas the Western community is now up in arms trying to figure out how to deal with what is a policy disaster, the Crimean Parliament swooped in and called for a referendum to move back to Mother Russia. Everyone forgets that Crimea even being part of the Ukraine is only a recent phenomenon, dating from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. I guess the natives are bit tired of others playing with their customary rights of self-determination and of the demo-crazy-ness of the Western NATO approach to the Ukrainian experiment in democracy. No Action, Talk Only. We must expect an exciting month of March since the region was semi-autonomous even under Ukrainian rule and now it wants to set the record right. Does Russia have a hand in all of this? You betcha. But then that is the price of playing with the grownups.
President Obama’s immediate response to President Putin’s actions in Crimea was to telephone him and tell him the US would stop preparing for the upcoming G-8 Summit in Sochi. He didn’t say the US would not be going; just that it would stop preparing. I’ll bet that threat scared the heck out of President Putin! Then, Secretary of State John “swift boat” Kerry fumed on a Sunday morning news show that, “Russia is in violation of its obligations under the UN charter, under the Helsinki Final Act. It’s in violation of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest agreement.” President Obama then deployed Secretary Kerry to Kiev, where he characterized the Russian invasion as not the act of somebody who is strong; rather that it was the “act of somebody who is acting out of weakness.” Huh? Remember, this is the same John Kerry who has a string of diplomatic triumphs behind him, including alienating Egypt’s new military-backed government, negotiating the aforementioned failed Syrian chemical weapons accord, and agreeing to give Iran six more months to maybe, just maybe, think about possibly agreeing to maybe stop its nuclear weapons program.
Hard-core KGB operators, not to mention decisive leaders, like President Putin are not deterred by pieces of parchment. They are deterred when the United States projects strength and resolve. Therefore, is it just a coincidence that the Russians’ aggressive action in Crimea took place mere days after President Obama announced to the world that he would implement drastic cuts in the US defense budget and take the US Army back to pre-World War II levels and the US Navy to World War I levels?
Apparently the US doesn’t think the Russians are such a threat anymore. That’s just has-been, Cold War nonsense. No… The US has much bigger threats facing it, such as global warming. Secretary Kerry said so himself when he announced that global warming “is perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” So much for chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, bio-terrorism, and a newly emboldened Russian military that’s been given carte blanche to do what it pleases.
It is interesting that Secretary Kerry’s blockbuster pronouncement was made in Jakarta, Indonesia, where it was accompanied with promises of gold and silver. However, despite the green spin doctors and Avon ladies of the environmental movement clapping in unison over the money troves accessible to them, the reality is that the United States, India, China, and Russia are the worst violators of the so-called greenhouse gases, not the developing world. But that’s an entirely different topic. This begs the question of whether President Obama’s administration has its priorities straight in its waning second term. My opinion is no; instead, the US looks to the rest of the world like a drunken sailor staggering around on shore leave in Bermuda (my apologies to any drunken sailors). The US economy remains on the verge of a melt-down and the Senate has yet to agree on the debt ceiling. Yet the Obama administration dedicates a disproportionate amount of time wailing at the precipice of an obvious Fiscal Cliff about the horrors of climate change.
Having the image of being a great power carries no weight with China and definitely not with Russia. Strength is derived not merely from possessing a formidable force of arms; it lies in both continuity and coherency of policy and having the gumption to act in national interests. But continuity and coherency are, as we have seen, two things the current US President’s administration is notoriously lacking.
This brings us to today. I can’t say I made a “full 180” in my opinion of Vladimir Putin and the Russians because I was never anti-Putin or anti-Russian to begin with. To my shame, I never thought of them much at all. But I can say that now after almost a year of watching Vladimir Putin lead the Russian Federation in giving the self-professed “activists” from Greenpeace a lesson in the rule of law, defuse crisis after crisis provoked by shrill mobs and encouraged by the childish leaders of the decadent West, and steadfastly assert his nation’s interests even when ivory tower elites in Europe and America would rather that he didn’t, I am heartily, and proudly a Pro-Putin Russophile.
The message Russia and Vladimir Putin have for the rest of the world is clear to my eyes: the adults are back on the world stage, and this time they speak Russian. But so what? It’s a complex and beautiful language.
The former leader of Canada’s Reform Party, Preston Manning, reminded me of how Conservatives “continue to be seen as defensive and weak on the environment,” as he put it in a recent speech in Ottawa. …
It’s that time of year, the perennial “It’s snowing so it can’t be warming” season - or, as scientists call it, “winter”. Depends on where you’re standing, actually — I stood on a frozen lake with Dr. Jeff Masters to discuss the current planetary changes, but at the same time, in Alaska, historic warm temperatures were unfolding, and across the west, the deepest drought in decades…
I love it when a plan comes together. Well, not a plan actually because I could never in my wildest dreams have planned such a thing and actually have it work. But this month the truth finally came out.
On January 14, 2014 the Chief of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Christina Figueres, uttered the immortal words that “democracy is a poor political system” and “Communist China is the best model for fighting global warming.”
Ms. Figueres went on to say that the deep partisan divide in the US Congress is “very detrimental” to passing legislation to fight “global warming.” Yes, Christina, that’s the idea. Our country’s Constitution was written so that no single branch of government can snowball (pun intended) the others. Our legislative process is purposely cumbersome in order to prevent the precipitous passage of laws that are detrimental to the country. (Obamacare is one that slipped through the cracks, but I digress.)
In her job as Chief of the UNFCCC, Ms. Figueres is responsible for guiding more than 190 member-states in a UN-led initiative to draft an international treaty to fight “global warming.” The goal is to sign in 2015 a treaty that will take effect in 2020, replacing the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997. Kyoto limits greenhouse pollutants in industrialized nations only (read the West) and leaves poorer countries (read China, India) to make voluntary commitments. Realizing how detrimental to its sovereignty and economy this treaty was, Canada pulled out in 2011 and Russia and Japan rejected new targets after 2012. The US never ratified it. In the end, the Kyoto Protocol has applied to less than 15 percent of global emissions. After all that…
While recognizing that China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and suffers from tremendous levels of pollution, Figueres praised the Chinese Communist Party for its ability to push key policies and reforms on its own. She added that the Chinese national legislature largely enforces (read “rubber stamps”) decisions made by the Communist Party’s Central Committee. And this, in Figueres’ mind, is why the Communist system is the best way to fight “global warming.”
“Developing” countries are notoriously the worst offenders as far as pollution goes, yet all the enviro-do-gooders want to do is punish Western countries like the US and the European Union, whose technological superiority enables them to actually lessen their greenhouse gas emissions and pollution - not just talk about it. Furthermore, the Communist system in China actually encourages air and water pollution in the name of economic development. Is it any surprise, then, that China refuses to join any UN treaties on climate change?
Increasing pressure from its long-suffering citizenry has forced the Chinese government to recognize it has a big problem. Last year the Chinese government offered financial incentives to curb pollution in the country’s six worst regions to the tune of over $800 billion USD. I suppose this could be construed as constructive.
However, I wonder if Christina knows what else the Communist government has done to battle pollution: It has empowered its courts to mete out the death penalty in serious pollution cases. You read that right - the death penalty. If ever there was a punishment that did not fit the crime I challenge anyone to produce it.
The unbelievable irony of this whole drama would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious and real lives were at stake - not only the potential death row inmates, but also those dying from black lung and other pollution-related illnesses.
As is well known, the “climate change” crowd is largely made up of followers of the “progressive” persuasion. And one of the key components of this philosophy is a strict respect for human rights, as well it should be for anyone of any political persuasion.
So let me get this straight. The Chinese Communists are now executing people for polluting and Christina Figueres says the Chinese Communists have “got it right?” Is there any more serious violation of human rights than to execute someone for anything less than pre-meditated murder?
It’s strange… I’m sure Human Rights Watch would have something to say about the UNFCCC’s tacit support of the state-sanctioned murder of environmental transgressors.
In the end, I suppose China’s extreme methods of dealing with polluters are just another “inconvenient truth” that Christina, the UN, Greenpeace, and the rest of them are all too willing to ignore.
More bad news about Climate change from John Timmer at Ars Technica! We better get our act together. We know of only one planet that we can survive on without space suits and its this one. Any planet like this one, with our technology would probably take our spaceships centuries to reach, at a minimum. Humanity better get its act together, and fight climate change, now!
Although the basic outlines of climate change are well understood—the first science on the greenhouse effect was done back in the 1800s—there are a number of details where our understanding remains incomplete. One of the big ones is the effect of clouds. Depending on their altitude, clouds can either reflect sunlight (cooling the planet) or act as an insulator, warming it. Figuring out the exact balance between these effects has been a challenge.
A new paper, released by Nature, attempts to look at the details of cloud formation and find a specific aspect that’s not well handled in climate models. That aspect alone accounts for roughly half the differences in their estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide. Based on real-world data, the authors conclude that the models with higher climate sensitivities—meaning those that predict greater warming—are handling clouds better.