So how can Global Warming cause both a decline in snow fall and an increase of snow fall? Well that’s easy. The Warmists will say anything to sell their apocalyptic vision on the future.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past (2000)

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

I don’t really need to post anything from 2011 do I? Okay I will

Yes, global warming could mean more snow (2011)

In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.

So when in doubt always blame global warming.

 

Epic moments of AGW nuttiness: LSU Professor and Nukes

Got to love it when a college professor tries to use scare tactics and fear-mongering to push their partisan agenda on their students.

It ties in nicely to a previous post, that the real threat comes from teachers like these, that use their academic clout for indoctrination rather than teaching.

How stupid are AGW fanatics? This stupid….

Methinks they are 5 cans short of a six-pack

Really? I mean really? Check out the website for Act-Respsonsible.org. I wonder how long that will be up? As of 12:33 pm EST it’s there….any bets on when it will be mysteriously erased?

What a great day to start of October!

Not only did Rick Sanchez finally get fired.

But the Global Warming fanatics are showing their true colors.

Make sure you watch the whole thing. Now you know how the loony lefty Greenies think about everyone that doesn’t join in on their groupthink circle jerk.

The moral of this story. Greenies would rather kill kids than give up on Global Warming hysteria.

Global Climate Disruption? WTF?!?

This from the Telegraph.

President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren is worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn’t actually been any global warming since 1998, he feels it ought to be called “global climate disruption” instead. That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to “global climate disruption.”

I call this chicken fuckery to the fullest extent. This is typical behavior for many on the Left. They are in danger of losing a debate, so they try to change the terms.

They did it once already, changing “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. Now they are trying to do it again?

And that will be good, because it will give Holdren the excuse to introduce all the draconian measures he has long believed necessary if “global climate disruption” is to be averted: viz, state-enforced population control; a rewriting of the legal code so that trees are able to sue people; and the wholesale destruction of  the US economy (“de-development” as he put it in the 1973 eco-fascist textbook he co-wrote Paul and Anne Ehrlich Human Ecology: Global Problems And Solutions).

Holdren is not the only person having problems with the “world not warming and everyone growing increasingly sceptical” issue. So too is Dave “Grocer” Cameron’s excuse for a government. Its solution? Work out ways of brainwashing the populace with state-funded propaganda

Neo-Malthusian and an Enviro-Terrorist: Global Warming Hysteria Will Breed Violence

Eco-Terrorism has been around for a while now. There will always be people who put more value in a tree or a whale than in human life.

The recent events at the Discovery Channel building should put a lot more focus on the more extreme, and violent wing of Environmentalism.

Here was  man James J. Lee, who after watching ALGORES movie, had some sort of epiphany. He saw humans as the problem. His solution, kill people.

Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what’s left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture.

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease!

It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices. Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too!

There is no question that most reasonable people would think this guy is nuts. What scares me are the people who agree with him. Lee’s rant is basically the same shill rants we have been hearing from Environmentalists for years now. Paul Ehrlich wants to depopulated the earth. James Hanson wants to depopulated the earth. White House science czar John Holdren’s Ecoscience textbook, calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures. Creator of the Gaia hypothesis James Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet.

Reading Lee’s diatribe, and you should find remarkable parallels between that and Dr. Eric R. Pianka’s diatribe in 2006.

Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.

Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.

After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”

Whats the difference? James Lee went through with his threats. Dr. Pianka just talked about his on the lecture circuit. Now compare Lee’s rant with Sea Sheppard’s Paul Watson.

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels.

Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.

All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.

Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted. We need to eliminate herds of ungulates like cows and sheep and replace them with wild ungulates like bison and caribou and allow those species to fulfill the proper roles in nature. We need to restore the prey predator relationship and bring back the wolf and the bear. We need the large predators and ungulates, not as food, but as custodians of the land that absorbs the carbon dioxide and produces the oxygen. We need to live with them in mutual respect.

We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land. We need to lower populations of domestic housecats and dogs. Already the world’s housecats consume more fish than all the world’s seals and we have made the cow into the largest aquatic predator on the planet because more than one half of all fish taken from the sea is converted into meal for animal feed.

We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.

Of course note how much of a hypocrite Watson is, last time I checked his boats weren’t running by sail only.

The fact of the matter is, to environmentalists, these are the kinds of “solutions” they are talking about. They want billions of people to die, so they can live in their GAIA paradise. I expect to see more and more of these eco-attacks by people like Lee. They listen to wackos like Watson, Gore, Ehrlich, and Pianka. Frankly I’m more terrified by these people than any Muslim-terrorist.

Clean Air Causes Global Warming?

I thought people couldn’t get any stupider. I was wrong.

Could Cleaner Air Actually Intensify Global Warming?

Some scientists, he says, are confident that this is connected to global warming, but they don’t know how large the effect is. “That’s the frightening thing, because if it’s a big cooling effect, it means that we’ve been actually warming the planet more than we know,” Kintisch says. “As we take away that unexpectedly helpful cooling mask, we’re going to be facing more global warming than we expected.

“If, however, the aerosol cooling is less than we fear, then it won’t be such a big deal as we clean our air, though it will still be an effect.”

The solution, of course, isn’t to stop cutting air pollution. “We have to continue doing that, because these pollutants contribute to asthma, they contribute to respiratory diseases, they cause all sorts of health problems, and they make our environment dirty,” he says. “But there’s a variety of answers that are more sophisticated than simply continuing to pollute.”

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I understand the science behind it. Aerosols do have a cooling effect, that’s a given. The stupidity arises from the fact that these chicken littles are the same ones that think it’s okay to blacken the sky to prevent the Global Warming Catastrophe. I say shit or get off the pot. Make up your damn mind already!

O Brave New World

Ecocide.

Probably a word you never heard before in your life, but no doubt you understand what it means.

Ecocide is the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.

According to the Guardian;

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins

The idea is simple enough. Prosecute any crime against the Earth. The question arises what constitutes a crime? Obviously they want to prosecute oil, mining and extraction companies. What about a cow farting that is contributing to Global Warming? Would the farmer be liable for crimes against the Earth or will they just put down the cow? I could see PETA getting their panties in a real tussle over that.

Of course they also want to prosecute “climate deniers.”

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

Of course they are under the assumption that they are right and everyone else that doesn’t believe them are wrong. Those crazy climate skeptics are making it too difficult to pass all these laws, why not just throw them in jail!. What a great idea! /sarc

Whether or not you believe in AGW is beyond the point, this ecocide law is about silencing dissent. It’s about criminalizing free speech. Everyone should oppose these kinds of legislation.

Some highlights from the website:

• ecocide will stop damaging and destructive activity. Where voluntary corporate governance, market trading and offset mechanisms have have failed, ecocide will create specific legally binding responsibilities.

What about the failure of Government mandated governance as in the EU and California. Google “California Cap and Trade Failure” and “EU Cap and Trade Failure” to get a sampling of how those measures have actually increased carbon output. Is the ICC going to prosecute other Governments? Of course not, only small private citizens that don’t enjoy blanket immunity. This law is about keeping people in line, nothing more.

• ecocide is not a crime of intent. The intention is rarely to render damage on a given territory, more often it is an outcome of another primary (economic or war) activity.

Go ask any lawyer how much easier it would be to prosecute anyone for anything if they didn’t have to prove intent.

• ecocide is a crime of consequence e.g where an energy company procures its energy by extracting fossil fuel, as opposed to creation from renewable energy, that would result in ecocide.

So any company or person that chooses to go with the more affordable fossil fuel, natural gas route is guilty of ecocide. You and I are guilty right now, since the electricity running out computers, most likely is coming from non-renewable sources. Go flog yourself if you feel bad…leave me out of it.

File this under enviro-nutters and craziness.

Oh and Polly Higgins, the brainchild behind this piece of crap, is on the board for Desertec. They want to build huge solar panel arrays the Sahara, for transmission to the EU. No doubt making your competition illegal will do wonders for your profits. (Read Bootlegger/Baptists)

AGW takes a big hit

It’s not secret that I’m not a Alarmist. I do think the Earth is warming, but mainly due to natural forces. Man is contributing, but we don’t know with any real certainty how much compared to natural forces.

The AGW took a big big hit this last week. You wouldn’t know about it watching the US Media. They have instituted their own version Earth Hour on any type of coverage that might damage the AGW cult.

Over in Germany, which has to deal with the effects of Climate legislation already, they aren’t taking the US approach, they are actually reporting and it doesn’t look good for the AGW warmists.

Der Spiegel’s peice first talks about Phil Jones, if you don’t know who he is by know you probably won’t ever care anyway.

Life has become “awful” for Phil Jones. Just a few months ago, he was a man with an enviable reputation: the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, an expert in his field and the father of an alarming global temperature curve that apparently showed how the Earth was heating up as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

Those days are now gone.

His days are now shaped by investigative commissions at the university and in the British Parliament. He sits on his chair at the hearings, looking miserable, sometimes even trembling. The Internet is full of derisive remarks about him, as well as insults and death threats. “We know where you live,” his detractors taunt.

Jones is finished: emotionally, physically and professionally. He has contemplated suicide several times recently, and he says that one of the only things that have kept him from doing it is the desire to watch his five-year-old granddaughter grow up.

Don’t cry for him Argentina, he did it all to himself. It was all completely voluntary, and he has to face the consequences for his actions. Although, any death threats are just plain dumb. We don’t need any martyrs for the AGW cause, it’s too religious already.

“I am 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed,” Jones says imploringly. “I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.”

His problem is that the public doesn’t trust him anymore. Since unknown hackers secretly copied 1,073 private emails between members of his research team and published them on the Internet, his credibility has been destroyed — and so has that of an entire profession that had based much of its work on his research until now.

I’m “confident that the climate has warmed” as well. But that isn’t the AGW debate. The Debate has and always has been centered on Man’s involvement. Also at stake is how much of the research was based on the East Anglia data set. I cannot stress enough, that garbage in equal garbage out, especially in science. When your basing your research off of a faulty base, everything built on that base (East Anglia’s and NASA’s data sets) are going to be off as well. They are all using a faulty assumption. I don’t know how to stress that enough.

The Climategate affair is grist for the mills of skeptics, who have gained growing support for their cause, particularly in English-speaking countries. What began with hacked emails in the United Kingdom has mushroomed into a crisis affecting an entire scientific discipline. At its center is an elite and highly influential scientific group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Since then (Nobel), the IPCC has experienced a dramatic fall from grace. Less than three years after this triumph, more and more mistakes, evidence of sloppy work and exaggerations in the current IPCC report are appearing. They include Jones’ disputed temperature curve, the prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — which was the result of a simple transposition of numbers — and the supposed increase in natural disasters, for which no source was given.

Very sloppy work, based on unscientific reports and new articles. Remember that glacier assurtion was based on a noted environmentalist’s very biased article for an environmental group. While I don’t think that automatically presumes they are fudging anything or that their conclusions are false (That’s something only Warmists do.), it does mean that it should have been subject to more scrutiny. Especially to get in the IPCC report, that every Government uses to justify complex and imense legislation controling energy, which effect everyone on the planet.

No other branch of science is as politically charged. A religious war is raging between alarmists and skeptics, and it threatens to consume levelheaded climatologists. But it is a critical conflict, because it revolves around something as massive as the total restructuring of industrial society, a venture that will cost trillions of euros. Powerful economic interests and unshakeable fundamental beliefs come into play.

Meanwhile, there are growing concerns in Berlin that German citizens could become less willing to pay for costly efforts to protect the climate. A poll conducted on behalf of SPIEGEL already signals a dramatic shift in public opinion and suggests that Germans are losing their fear of climate change. The strong majority of 58 percent who said they feared global warming about three years ago has declined to a minority of 42 percent.

The Germans are quite right, that the debate is political and fought with religious zeal. Those two things should be enough for anyone to think twice before passing any sort of legislation. The Germans are also, thinking twice about their own efforts to battle Climate Change. Remember Germany is the Leader in the battle of Climate Change. They have a huge stake in it. If they are starting to doubt the validity of AGW, the world needs to notice.

So no wonder the media, here in the US, isn’t reporting on the Germans about face on AGW.There is just too much money at stake, too many careers on the line, and too much ego.

There are also growing concerns at Germany’s Ministry of Education and Research, which is spending €250 million ($338 million) to support climate science this year. Research Minister Annette Schavan has already summoned German IPCC scientists to attend a “meeting to clarify the situation and improve quality assurance.” Officials at the ministry are horrified over how unprofessionally the IPCC is organized. “The IPCC’s results must be above suspicion, because their impact can cost trillions and have serious political consequences,” says Wilfried Kraus, a senior ministry official.

Reinhard Hüttl, head of the German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam near Berlin and the president of the German Academy of Science and Engineering, believes that basic values are now under threat. “Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in the light of new findings,” he says.

It is a great article, everyone with an interest in AGW needs to read it. I’m still convinced that 2010, will be the year that AGW is put to rest.

One of the biggest threats to liberty and freedom today is Enviro-Fascism, of the kind that James Lovelock thinks is necessary.

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

The Left Hates a Debate

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.

I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.

My experience is that people who call themselves “The Intellectuals” understand theories, but they do not understand things. I have long been convinced that, if these men could have gone into the South and taken up and become interested in some practical work which would have brought them in touch with people and things, the whole world would have looked very different to them. Bad as conditions might have seemed at first, when they saw that actual progress was being made, they would have taken a more hopeful view of the situation.

Booker T. Washington, from My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911)

Booker T. Washington has long been one of my favorite early twentieth century writers. I think that both the Left and Right can do well to read his works and learn from them. The Left might realize that many in their ranks are the “certain class of race-problem solvers,” that Washington talks about. The Right will have to come to grips with a lot of unpleasant facts about black life in the early 20th. One thing I want to focus on right now is Frank Rich’s column; The Rage is Not about Health Care.

Writing for the NYTimes, an organization of “problem-solvers” who have probably never stepped foot in a slum or ghetto in their lives, basically coffee shoppe liberals, Rich knows exactly the thoughts that are going through every single Tea Party or small Government protester, it’s all about racism. He doesn’t even have the gumption to come out and say it directly either. He cowardly eludes to it with statements like; The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.” That’s right, if your against the Health Care Bill, it because your afriad of diversity, and we all know what times of people are against diversity right?

Now if that isn’t bad enough, Rich links to MSNBC –Isn’t this the same MSNBC that has been accusing HCR protesters of being racist, bringing their guns to rallies, only to selectively edit out a black man at a rally with a gun?– to show all those examples of racism at Tea Party protests. Most of Rich’s link have been debunked, or have no evidence except by reporters who have an incentive to stir things up. Oh yeah Rich even links to the false story mentioned above!

I’m sure there is racism left in this country. Maybe racism is the motivation for some of the protesters, but not ever single one of them, like the Left is trying to portray. But let’s not forget that there are racists on the Left as well; race hustlers like Sharpton that yell racism at everything, do you think he sees no difference between black and white. What about the certain group that can use the “N” word, while everyone else can’t…kinda smells like racism to me. Can a poor white kid qualify for a scholarship from the United Negro College Fund? What would the reaction be to a United White College Fund? But this is all beside the point.

Why do the Left, like Rich, have to play the race card all the time? As John Smart (one of the few on the Left, that is open to debate) said in a recent post, “To these people the Tea Party has to be about race. If it’s not they lose control of both the narrative and the outcome.” It’s true, they have to make it about race, they don’t want the debate to be about the proper role of Government. It’s a debate they know they will lose.

So the question still remains, why do people like Rich use the race card so profligately?

The AGW debate gives me the answer. It’s because ad homimen works, or at least is used to. Logical fallacies work for the most part. The Left knows that most people don’t take any formal classes on logic; they should know, they are usually in charge of the school system. They know that the average Joe, doesn’t know what a red herring, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority are all fallacies, the use of them doesn’t prove anything. Really it’s both the Left and the Right that use them, but when it comes to using the race card, that’s all Left baby.

The Left knows that no one likes to be called a racist. Racism, as it should be, is a taboo. By using the term racist, a person can easily neuter anyone’s argument. The accused now has to spend time and effort defending themselves against a warrant-less charge in stead of the topic of the debate. In the Tea Parties’ case, instead of actually having a discussion on the role of Government and should it be allowed to Mandate anything. Now the Tea Party has to spend valuable energy and more importantly time, remember the elections are in November, defending against baseless charges instead of rallying the people around the message of smaller Government.

People, that otherwise support the message of smaller Government, are now put off from the Tea Party because they don’t want to be seen as a possible “racist” or “segregationist.” This might now stop those people from voting against the Left this election, since, thank the GODS, voting is still done in private. But it might stop a movement from turning into a rebellion.

The Left doesn’t not and can’t afford a rebellion against Big Government. That kind of rebellion will destroy the welfare state. The Left doesn’t want that to happen. If the Tea Party movement keeps growing, it will only naturally want to repeal, not only, the Mandate, but all forms of Government Welfare Statism. A movement like the one the Left fears, can amend the Constitution with wording to the effect of; The Congress shall pass no law that will un-uniformly distribute wealth from one citizen to another. (Mind you, I’m no lawyer so I don’t know what the proper legalesse would be.)

The effect would be that Congress can’t give goodies to certain people at the expense of others. I think of it as a true representation and ultimate form of “Equal before the Law.” So if Congress gives Eagle Lake Farm Partnership a $43,158 Soy subsidy in 2005, they have to give everyone  the exact same subsidy. Imagine how quickly Farm welfare will dry up? Politicians will not be able to claim any extra benefits, or bring any money home to certain political pressure groups. Imagine the incentives against corruption those will be?

But that isn’t a debate that the Left wants. They want bigger, more “benevolent” Government. We all know that benevolence and Government do not mix. The Left, still thinks it can. That’s should be debated as well. In today political climate it won’t be. To the Left, to be against Government is to want old people to die on the streets, to want children to starve, or to want the poor go bankrupt for having diabetes. Those are all fallacies and all appeals to emotion. The Left believe those to be valid arguments and as a result, we will never be able to have an open and honest debate.

I think if Booker T. Washington were still alive, he probably rewrite his quote above to read, Some of these people do not want Anyone to lose their grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.