Category Archives: climate

Some Climate Thoughts

Posted on by
2

Here are the comments of a number of those pushing climate change/global warming/global cooling without regard to whether humans play any sort of significant role in…whatever it is.

Stephen Schneider:

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.  On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well.  …  So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Ottmar Edenhofer:

One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole….  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy[.]

Christiana Figueres:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution[.]

Timothy Wirth:

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue.  Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…

In sum: lie, it’s for a good cause.

Maybe It’s the AGs

Posted on by
Reply

…and the activists who should be subject to RICO investigations.

Emails obtained and released by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute show a number of state attorneys general and their staff received advice and guidance from environmental activists at a March 29 meeting in New York, on the same day as a major press conference.

And

Another email chain shows Srolovic and Scott Kline, a Vermont assistant attorney general, even drawing up a Common Interest Agreement, in order to protect as privileged the discussions at the meeting.

Because transparency and honesty are for the little people.

And

[A] January meeting in Manhattan…brought together several veteran environmental activists to discuss how to “establish in [the] public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.”

Because it’s necessary to prejudice the discussion and the jury pool.  Necessary because these climatistas know they cannot make a scientific, much less even coherent, argument based on actual facts.

Hmm….

Climatista Madness

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) is at it again, it seems.

Whitehouse has apparently decided that if he can’t persuade the general public to adopt his climate absolutism, at least he can use the controversy to motivate his deep-pocketed partisans.

This week a recipient shared with us an email sent out on Tuesday by the Senator’s re-election campaign. The subject line: “Standing up to the WSJ.”

And

His email consists of a description of what he portrays as his brave and lonely stand against the terrible abuse he is taking from fearsome foes, including “the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as well as various less-well-known blogs, fronts and just plain cranks.”

Am I one of those less-well-known blogs, now in the same class as The Wall Street Journal?

Nah.  Prolly not.  Prolly just one of those plain cranks.

Climatistas, Again

Posted on by
Reply

From Watts Up With That we get the latest internal inconsistency of the climate panic-mongers.

Including gas, oil and coal, they [the UN’s IPCC] estimate a total fossil fuel reserve of nine hundred to two thousand gigatonnes of carbon (GtC).  I decided to apply those numbers to both the Bern Model and the simple exponential decay model.

Willis Eschenbach, the author of the linked-to article, asked:

My interest was in finding out what would happen, according to the two CO2 models, if we burned all of the fossil fuels by 2100.

That is, if we completely exhausted all of our coal, oil, and natural gas in an orgy of consumption over the next 85 years, what would we get?

Using the two models cited, the Bern model and the simple single-time-constant exponential model, two of the IPCC’s favorite models, Eschenbach got the answer [emphasis his]:

According to the IPCC, there is not enough fossil fuel carbon (oil, gas, and coal) on the planet to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration from its current value.

Doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 is one of the big bugaboos of the climatistas, never minding that at 800 parts per million by volume of CO2 in the air (the result of that doubling) is just about the level when life on earth was especially lush during earlier geologic eras.

Hmm….

Global Warming, Again

Posted on by
Reply

A guest essayist at Watts Up With That has an interesting article. Here’s the closing paragraph (as usual, RTWT):

In summary, approximately 81% of the warming in the last century may have resulted from all anthropogenic influences, as suggested by figure 4 [see the article]. This includes water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and land use changes to the albedo and thermal mass. CO2 may account for as much as 52% to 56% of the contribution from anthropogenic drivers (See Figs. 1 & 2). Fossil fuel-CO2 represents less than 75% of anthropogenic CO2. If we were successful in completely phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, we would have a reduction of 50% in average CO2 emissions. If the Earth is warming at a nominal rate of 1°C per 100 years from all influences, then we can hope, at best, for a reduction in temperature increase of 20% (0.54×0.75×0.50) or 0.20°C. That is to say, if the world were to phase out fossil fuels in the next 100 years the warming would be 0.80 degrees instead of 1.00°C! Unfortunately, eliminating fossil fuel use will probably not be successful in significantly reducing future temperature increases, even if it can be accomplished.

A whole two tenths of a Centigrade degree, out of a climatista-expected entire one Centigrade degree. Imagine that.