Global warming isn’t happening, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) argued over the weekend, pointing to the fact that it was snowing in Alaska in May.
“Global warming my gluteus maximus,” she wrote in a post on her Facebook page, adding a small dose of politics to a picture of her youngest daughter Piper in the snow after graduation. “This is what ‘Grad Blast’ means in Alaska! We’ll move our graduation b-b-q indoors and watch the mini-blizzard from ‘round the fireplace.”
Palin has been a reliable denier of climate science in the past. She’s referred to studies supporting climate change models as “snake oil,” and as a vice presidential candidate in 2008, she argued that humans haven’t influenced changes in climate.
In her Facebook argument, Palin confuses weather with climate, a mistake frequently made by climate change deniers. Palin has made this blunder in the past, suggesting that local atmospheric conditions over short periods of time and small areas have bearing on larger trends averaged over long time periods and greater areas.
Researchers are desperately trying to keep up with new threats to the plant caused by global warming
Millions around the world wake up and brew a cup of coffee before they start their day. But for many involved in the industry, a caffeine buzz isn’t keeping them up at night—instead, what’s causing insomnia is the increasing difficulty that climate change causes coffee farmers.
Coffee is one of the world’s most traded commodities. Each year, more than $15 billion worth of coffee is exported from 52 countries—many of which are still developing and rely on the crop to buoy their economies. The industry employs some 26 million people worldwide.
But in recent years, keeping the world’s coffee drinkers supplied has become increasingly difficult: The spread of a deadly fungus that has been linked to global warming and rising global temperatures in the tropical countries where coffee grows has researchers scrambling to create new varieties of coffee plants that can keep pace with these new threats without reducing quality.
While coffee researchers can do little to prevent climate change, they’re hard at work to keep up as Earth braces for temperature increases of several degrees over the next several decades.
Batten down the hatches, East Coasters: A new study argues that for every one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees F) of global warming, the U.S. Atlantic seaboard could see up to seven times as many Katrina-sized hurricanes.
That’s the conclusion of Aslak Grinsted, a climatologist at Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, who led an effort to match East Coast storm surge records from the last 90 years with global temperatures. His results, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest that the strongest hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace with only half the level of warming currently projected by scientists.
“There is a sensitivity to warming, and it is surprisingly large,” Grinsted said.
The study compiled storm surge measurements from tide gauges at six locations on the East and Gulf Coasts, filtering out the effects of seasonal cycles, daily tides, and overall sea level rise to isolate the impact of storms. Next, these records were stacked against both global temperatures and a series of other climatic factors, like natural water temperature cycles and regional rainfall. The result? Global temperatures turned out to be one of the best predictors for hurricane activity. Using computer models, Grinsted found that a one-degree (C) rise in global temperatures could multiply extreme hurricane frequency by two to seven times.
0:00 Clips from my previous climate change videos
0:38 “The Great Global Warming Swindle”written and directed by Martin Durkin
0:50 “Proof that Global warming is a hoax” on YouTube
0:54 “Global Warming” on YouTube
1:03 Jay Lehr interviewed on “The Ice Age cometh” — Lou Dobbs, CNN
1:07 Tim Ball, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
1:10 John Coleman — Global warming, the other side
1:14 Christopher Monckton, speech for Free Market Institute at St Paul Oct 2009
2:03 “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground” — S Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896 (First calculation of energy absorbed and re-radiated by CO2)
2:04 “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature” — G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938 (Shows wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs radiation)
2:17 “The Great Global Warming Swindle”written and directed by Martin Durkin
4:03 Christopher Monckton testimony at Congressional hearings on climate change
4:51 “Proof that Global warming is a hoax” on YouTube
6:10 Arrhenius and Callendar papers from 2:03
6:30 John Shimkus at Congressional hearings on climate change
7:22 Sen. James Inhofe
8:06 Dennis Kucinich
8:30 Chad Myers on Lou Dobbs, CNN
8:34 Jay Lehr interviewed on “The Ice Age cometh” — Lou Dobbs, CNN
9:24 “Charlton Heston on Global Climate Change” — on YouTube
9:56 Phanerozoic CO2 levels after Berner and Royer
10:15 Map is from “Cretaceous climate-ocean dynamics: future directions for IODP” — Colorado, July 2002 Source for sea level 50m-70m higher than today: “The Phanerozoic Record of Global Sea-Level Change”, Miller et al 2005.
11:16 “Debating whether global warming is a threat or just media hype” by Mark Putnam helium.com
11:41 “Creationist Seminar — Beginnings #1” — Eric Hovind
11:50 “Where did God come from?” — Ken Ham
11:58 “The O’Reilly Factor” — Bill O’Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins
12:55 “Michael Coren and Tim Ball - Straight Talk On Climate Change”
15:14 Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit!”
Two other comments I anticipate I’ll get:
1) “You didn’t understand what [insert name here] meant.”
Yes, that’s entirely possible. In the absence of facts and figures, a feelie argument is usually vague and ambiguous, often hinting at some elusive point that’s never explained. When I read a scientific paper, on the other hand, I understand exactly what it’s saying. The hypothesis is laid out, the methodology explained, the observations and calculations clearly shown, and the conclusion spelled out. That’s the difference.
2) “The idea that CO2 is a trace gas is not a ‘feeling’. It can be shown that it has no effect on climate.” My response: Yes, but the ‘feeling’ is that because CO2 is a trace gas then it follows that it has no effect on climate. If this is correct, please cite a study that has some facts and figures to support it, otherwise it remains just a ‘feeling.’ If you have a source with some other evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate, then I have probably covered it in a previous video.
Anti-Science Bill Dies in Arizona
Arizona’s Senate Bill 1213 died on February 22, 2013, when the deadline for Senate bills to be heard in their Senate committees passed. A typical instance of the “academic freedom” strategy for undermining the integrity of science education, SB 1213 specifically targeted “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming[,] and human cloning” as supposedly controversial. Unusually, however, a sponsor of the bill, Judy Burges (R-District 22), told the Arizona Star (February 5, 2013) that climate science was her primary concern, complaining of imbalance in the presentation of climate change in the public schools.
Anti-Science Bill Dies in Oklahoma
Senate Bill 758 (document), the so-called Oklahoma Science Education Act, which would have undermined the integrity of science education in the Sooner State, is dead. February 25, 2013, was the deadline for Senate bills to pass their committees, but the Senate Education Committee adjourned its February 25, 2013, meeting without considering it. Still active in the Oklahoma legislature is House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, which differs from SB 758 primarily in mentioning “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” as supposedly controversial topics. HB 1674 passed the House Education Committee on a 9-8 vote on February 19, 2013.
Anti-Science Bill Dies in Indiana
Indiana’s House Bill 1283 died on February 25, 2013, when the deadline for House bills to have their third reading in the House passed. The fate of the bill was not unexpected: its sponsor Jeff Thompson (R-District 28) told the Lafayette Journal and Courier (February 3, 2013) that he thought that it would not receive a hearing in the House Education Committee, and a spokesperson for the committee’s chair said that it would not receive a hearing due to the volume of bills and the limited time to address them.
Claiming that “some subjects, including, but not limited to, science, history, and health, have produced differing conclusions and theories on some topics,” HB 1283 would have allowed teachers “to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher” and prohibited state and local education authorities from prohibiting them from doing so.
After Initial Problems, SpaceX Dragon Now Looking Good On Orbit
A dramatic series of events unfolded this morning shortly after the private commercial company SpaceX launched their Dragon capsule into space. This launch was part of the second of 12 planned missions to bring supplies and equipment to the International Space Station (ISS).
To be clear, things are looking good now, and it looks like the mission will proceed. Just not quite as planned.
In biology class, public school students can’t generally argue that dinosaurs and people ran around Earth at the same time, at least not without risking a big fat F. But that could soon change for kids in Oklahoma: On Tuesday, the Oklahoma Common Education committee is expected to consider a House bill that would forbid teachers from penalizing students who turn in papers attempting to debunk almost universally accepted scientific theories such as biological evolution and anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change.
Gus Blackwell, the Republican state representative who introduced the bill, insists that his legislation has nothing to do with religion; it simply encourages scientific exploration. “I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks,” says Blackwell, who previously spent 20 years working for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. “A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”
These bills are “a kind of code for people who are opposed to teaching climate change and evolution.”
Stated another way, students could make untestable, faith-based claims in science classes without fear of receiving a poor mark.
HB1674 is the latest in an ongoing series of “academic freedom” bills aimed at watering down the teaching of science on highly charged topics. Instead of requiring that teachers and textbooks include creationism—see the bill proposed by Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin—HB1674’s crafters say it merely encourages teachers and students to question, as the bill puts it, the “scientific strengths and weaknesses” of topics that “cause controversy,” including “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
What the hell can anyone say about this???
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology said today that the committee would hold hearings next week “to settle the question, once and for all, of whether meteors exist.”
“The media has been in something of a frenzy recently on this whole topic of meteors,” said chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). “I think it’s irresponsible of them to frighten the public about something that, at the end of the day, may be about as real as unicorns.”
Rep. Smith said that he had seen recent reports of the “so-called Russian meteor” of last week, but added, “Maybe it’s the scientific skeptic in me, but this ‘meteor’ may just have been a bunch of fireworks that some Siberian fellow set off after drinking a little too much Stoli. It is winter, after all, and that’s how those folks keep warm.”
Remember, Lamar Smith is a “man made global warming skeptic,” who once decried ABC, NBC, and CBS as having coverage on climate change that was “slanted in favor of global warming alarmists.”
And now he’s going to settle the question of whether meteors do, in fact, exist.
Read more here.
UPDATED to change category to “Humor,” since this is from a parody site…
…which I missed when I first read it. :P