Huh! Imagine that.... Globullshit Warming isn't real.
Climate CHANGE is real, but it ain't global warming.
Climate change is caused by.... THE SUN. Morons.
Printable View
Huh! Imagine that.... Globullshit Warming isn't real.
Climate CHANGE is real, but it ain't global warming.
Climate change is caused by.... THE SUN. Morons.
There's so much global warming it's 46 outside right now and I just had to turn on the furnace. :spy:
There's a frost advisory and forecast low is going to be 29!
It's almost May... :be2: Oh well, guess this will help kill off some insects!
Interestingly I haven't seen any planting going on in the fields around my place. Don't know if it's because the soil is too wet or the ground temperature is too cold, or a combination of both.
Freeze warning for us tonight. :freak2:
June 1st and it is currently 58 degrees outside in the middle of the afternoon. A low of 49 predicted tonight.
So how's that global warming stuff work again?
A Taste of Winter on Memorial Day Weekend
May 23, 2015
The start to the Memorial Day weekend, which is the traditional start to summer, was greeted with a reminder of winter in some areas of northern New England.
Snow came down heavy at times Saturday morning in northern New England. Visibility dropped to a quarter mile at times due to the heavy snow.
The snow was due to a cold upper-level low that moved through the region. Light rain changed to snow in spots early Saturday morning as temperatures continued to plummet. High temperatures on Friday afternoon reached the 50s and 60s but dropped to the 30s and 40s by sunrise on Saturday.
Below is a picture from Portage Lake, in northern Maine, from Saturday morning.
Portage Lake, ME right now. Even for Maine this is kinda messed up. #MemorialDayWeekend (HT @TomMooreTWC) pic.twitter.com/F4ljI6fjoT
— Keith Carson (@KeithCarson) May 23, 2015
One inch of snow accumulated in Presque Isle, Maine and 5.2 inches was reported near Portage, Maine.
The snow this morning is the second latest measurable snow on record in Caribou, Maine. The latest measurable snowfall in Caribou is 0.2 inches on May 25, 1974.
The snow is getting heavier! Hard to believe it is the start of Memorial Day Weekend. #mewx #snow pic.twitter.com/YpX3FNYFaf
— NWS Caribou (@NWSCaribou) May 23, 2015
Chilly Start to the Holiday Weekend
Temperatures dropped into the 30s for parts of northern New England and Upstate New York on Saturday morning as high pressure moved into the region from Canada. Frost and freeze warnings were issued for Friday night and Saturday morning across portions of the Northeast.
A record low was even set in Glens Falls, New York when the temperature fell to 31 degrees.
It was even colder on Mount Washington in New Hampshire where temperatures bottomed out at 10 degrees with a wind chill of 18 degrees below zero when a wind gust of 68 mph was reported. Snow was also reported here overnight.
It will remain cool during the afternoon, with high temperatures up to 10 degrees below where they should be for this time of year. Winds will be gusty at times which will make if feel even cooler.
The good news is that this will not last long as a significant warming trend is on the way. Northern New England will go from winter on Saturday morning to summer by Monday.
Skiing for Memorial Day
If you are not quite ready for summer activities yet and have not put your skis away then you may be in luck. Parts of the Rockies and Sierra Mountains have also seen snow recently, which is allowing a few resorts to stay open for skiing this holiday weekend.
Arapahoe Basin in Colorado is open this Memorial Day weekend and has more base to ski on than they did in March. They also reported some fresh snow on Saturday morning.
Mammoth Mountain in California will also be open this Memorial Day weekend due to snow that fell last week. They are offering a ski, bike and golf package.
NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’
June 4, 2015
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”
NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.
“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”
Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.
NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.
But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”
“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.
“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”
NOAA’s updated data was also criticized by climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute. Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”
Cato scientists also argued that NOAA’s new data is an outlier compared to other global temperature records, which overwhelmingly show a hiatus in warming.
It “would seem more logical to seriously question the [NOAA] result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in these other global records,” the three scientists wrote.
“Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data,” wrote Michaels, Knappenberger and Lindzen, who is a top climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.
“It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much,” they wrote. “And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.”
Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”
“Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”
When they outright have to just change the numbers, the game is over. Inertia will drive this forward for some time but their cause is not science but pure science fiction.
Weak Sun Could Offset Some Global Warming In Europe And US – Study
Regional impact of a weaker solar cycle likely to be larger than global effect, with only minimal impact on worldwide temperature rises caused by climate change
June 23, 2015
Global warming in northern Europe and the eastern US could be partially offset in future winters because of the sun entering a weaker cycle similar to the one which enabled frost fairs to take place on the river Thames in the 17th and 18th century, according to new research.
However, the study said any potential weakening in solar activity would have only a small effect on temperature rises at a worldwide level, delaying the warming caused by emissions from cars, factories and power plants by around two years.
The sun has been in a period of high activity for the past few decades. But scientists believe there is now as much as a 20% chance of a weaker period of activity, known as a grand solar minimum, occurring in the next 40 years.
“Even if you do go into Maunder minimum conditions it’s not going to combat global warming, the sun’s not going to save us,” said lead author Sarah Ineson at the Met Office. The Maunder minimum is the name for the sun’s weak period during 1645-1715, when the Thames froze solidly enough for eyewitnesses to report horse-driven carriages crossing it.
Climate change means such sights in the second half of the century would not occur, since the sun’s cooling effect would only reduce manmade temperature rises in northern Europe and the eastern US by 0.4-0.8C. Such offsetting was not a “large signal”, Ineson said, although the study found there would be more frosty days in those regions than there would be without the weaker solar activity.
Solar Minimum Effect
What a grand solar minimum means for climate change in Europe
Temperature change relative to 1971 – 2000, °C
Warming under a business-as-usual scenario without big carbon cuts
Warming with the lowest level of cooling if weaker solar activity occurs and
no big carbon cuts
Warming with the highest level of cooling if weaker solar activity occurs and
no big carbon cuts
http://interactive.guim.co.uk/upload...imum-2-0-0.png
Northern Europe and the eastern US would experience a much stronger cooling effect from a weaker period of the sun’s activity than other areas because less ultraviolet solar energy at the top of the stratosphere would cause a chain reaction which would affect the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The NAO is a climate phenomenon which plays a key role in influencing winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic.
Another consequence of a changing NAO would be to make storms more southerly, bringing more rainfall to southern Europe and slightly lessening the drying trend the region is set to experience because of climate change. However, the effect is expected to be relatively small.
Globally, a grand solar minimum would reduce temperatures by just 0.1C between 2050 and 2099. Manmade climate change, by contrast, is expected to bring temperature rises of up to 6.6C in the same period if drastic action is not taken to cut carbon emissions.
Such a high level of warming would bring grave consequences as seas rise, drought threatens water supplies and food production suffers, scientists have warned previously.
“This research shows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect, but it’s still nowhere near big enough to override the expected global warming trend due to man-made change,” said Ineson.
Asked if the findings of her study gave European and US political leaders an excuse for weaker action on cutting emissions, Ineson said the reaction should be exactly the opposite, as it did not change the bigger picture on climate change.
The paper, Regional Climate Impacts of a Possible Future Grand Solar Minimum, is by a UK and US team based at Cambridge, Oxford and Reading universities, as well as the Met Office and the University of Colorado in Boulder, and published in the journal Nature Communications.
Britain Faces Freezing Winters As Slump In Solar Activity Threatens 'Little Ice Age'
Britain could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.
June 23, 2015
Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".
They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.
The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.
A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.
"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."
Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.
Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."
The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.
A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.
Amanda Maycock, of the University of Cambridge and National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: "It's important that we consider the potential impact of changes in UV output when looking at future climate."
Met Office scientist and lead author Sarah Ineson, said: "This research shows that the regional impacts of a grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect.
"This study shows that the sun isn't going to save us from global warming, but it could have impacts at a regional level that should be factored in to decisions about adapting to climate change for the decades to come."
Met Office long-range expert professor Adam Scaife said solar activity has already started to decline over the past few years.
He said: "Although the effect on global temperatures is very small, the local effect is big enough to make a difference and we need to include that in our future climate projections."
He said if "factors come together", severe winters like the 2009/10 chiller which crippled Britain could become more frequent.
He warned early signals point towards a period of minimum solar activity by the middle of this century.
"There is a high chance that solar activity of the sun will decrease over the next few years," he said.
"There is a chance of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum period where sun spots completely vanish, there are already some signs of this.
"This can change the amount of ozone in the atmosphere over the tropics and a weakening and southwards shift of the jet stream, in winter this leads to colder conditions.
"There were many factors which triggered the winter of 2009/10 and this could have been one of them.
"We might get another year when all these factors come together again, in any case there is an increased risk of colder winters."
James Madden, forecaster for Exacta Weather, said the effects may be felt as soon as this winter.
He said: "Solar activity levels, or solar flux, are currently estimated to be at their lowest for the last 100 years.
"We will head into another rapid decline throughout the remainder of the upcoming year.
"On the basis of past solar activity levels it is an inevitability that solar and sunspot activity will continue to fall off the charts in the coming years and decades, including the upcoming winter period of 2015/16."
The coldest winter ever recorded in 1684 occurred during the last Maunder Minimum period and saw the River Thames in London freeze over.
Maunder Minimum is named after the English astronomer Edward Walter Maunder who noticed fewer sunspots were observed between 1645 and 1715.
Sunspot activity peaks and troughs with roughly an 11-year cycle, activity has been dipping over the past decade.
Professor Scaife said: "During the Mander Minimum period there were runs of cold winters including 1684 which was the coldest winter recorded.
"There are signs that solar activity has been dropping over the past decade with a one in five chance of it reaching a similar low by around 2050."
Is A Mini Ice Age On The Way? Scientists Warn The Sun Will 'Go To Sleep' In 2030 And Could Cause Temperatures To Plummet
July 10, 2015
The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.
The new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat.
It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.
Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.
The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.
During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.
'In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,' said Zharkova.
'Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.
'We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum''.
'Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity.
'When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums.
'When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.'
Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun.
Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.
'We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior,' she said.
'They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time.
'Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,' said Zharkova.
Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called 'principal component analysis' of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California.
They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008.
In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity.
All the predictions and observations were closely matched.
NASA Finds Mass Gains Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater Than Losses
October 31, 2015
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica," said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology.
"Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica - there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas." Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas."
Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years - I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.
Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.
"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.
The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice - enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.
Zwally's team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
"The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica," said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally's study.
"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what's happening in these places," Smith said.
To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. "ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil," said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. "It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica's mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes."
August 29, 2016
Obama to 'ratify' climate change treaty without getting Senate approval
By Rick Moran
A Chinese news source is reporting that President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping will announce as early as this week that both nations have "ratified" the climate change treaty inked in Paris last year.
The most asked question during the Obama years: "How can he do that without congressional approval"?
Washington Times:The South China Morning Post reported that Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are “set to jointly announce their ratification” of the ambitious international climate-change pact on Friday, two days before the start of the 11th G-20 Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang.
“There are still some uncertainties from the U.S. side due to the complicated U.S. system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept. 2,” an unnamed source told the English-language newspaper.
In addition, “[s]enior climate officials from both countries worked late into the night in Beijing on Tuesday to finalise [sic] details,” said the article, citing “sources familiar with the issue.”
The Thursday report touched off alarm among foes of the Paris Agreement, which calls for nations to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions with the aim of holding global temperatures to an increase of “well below” 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.
Myron Ebell, director of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, described the report as “curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of theSenate.”
In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, ‘So be it,’ ” said Mr. Ebell, who flagged the article, adding, “Lo and behold, the president of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader. He merely has to say the magic words, ‘So be it.’ “
Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has warned other nations that without Senate approval, the agreement will “soon become another stack of empty promises on global warming.”
“I want to make sure international participants are warned now that the president’s commitment lacks the support of his own government and will fail,” Mr. Inhofe said in an April 12 statement.
He delivered his broadside shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry participated in a United Nations ceremony on Earth Day to sign what he described as the “historic” Paris agreement. Participating nations are required to sign and ratify the agreement.
The report may be erroneous. President Obama may have gotten away with approving the Iran nuclear agreement by holding a majority vote in Congress, rather than seeking approval of 2/3 of the Senate. But it's hard to see how he could magically transform what is clearly an international treaty into something that would only require his signature.
But then, this is a president who has played fast and loose with the Constitution for 7 years, making this report - even if it is bogus - entirely believable.
If Obama can make an end run around congress on the Paris treaty, there's no limit to what he could do in the remaining months of his presidency. He could sign off on the TPP, on a nuclear weapons reduction treaty, on several other trade agreements - all without going through the messy process of adhering to the Constitution and getting Senate approval.
Our transformation continues.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._approval.html
Obama will bypass Senate, ratify Paris climate accord himself during trip to China: report
http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/medi...44b502c30b0b1d
In this file photo taken Nov. 30, 2015, President Barack Obama meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Le Bourget, France. A trade deal that is a centerpiece of Obama’s efforts to counter Chinese influence in Asia
By Valerie Richardson -
The Washington Times - Monday, August 29, 2016
President Obama is prepared to enter into the Paris climate accord as early as this week even though Republicans have insisted that the pact must be ratified by the Senate, according to a report out of China.
The South China Morning Post reported that Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are “set to jointly announce their ratification” of the ambitious international climate-change pact on Friday, two days before the start of the 11th G-20 Summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang.
“There are still some uncertainties from the U.S. side due to the complicated U.S. system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept. 2,” an unnamed source told the English-language newspaper.
In addition, “[s]enior climate officials from both countries worked late into the night in Beijing on Tuesday to finalise [sic] details,” said the article, citing “sources familiar with the issue.”
The Thursday report touched off alarm among foes of the Paris Agreement, which calls for nations to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions with the aim of holding global temperatures to an increase of “well below” 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.
Myron Ebell, director of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, described the report as “curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.”
“In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, ‘So be it,’ ” said Mr. Ebell, who flagged the article, adding, “Lo and behold, the president of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader. He merely has to say the magic words, ‘So be it.’ “
Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has warned other nations that without Senate approval, the agreement will “soon become another stack of empty promises on global warming.”
“I want to make sure international participants are warned now that the president’s commitment lacks the support of his own government and will fail,” Mr. Inhofe said in an April 12 statement.
He delivered his broadside shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry participated in a United Nations ceremony on Earth Day to sign what he described as the “historic” Paris agreement. Participating nations are required to sign and ratify the agreement.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called last month on international leaders to “accelerate” the ratification process after countries were slow to jump aboard.
The accord takes effect after ratification by 55 nations responsible for at least 55 percent of global emissions, but so far only 23 nations covering 1.1 percent of emissions have signed and ratified the pact, according to the “ratification tracker” maintained by Climate Analytics.
The group’s analysts expressed concern last month that the “window of opportunity” for ratification is “closing fast,” but that there have recently been “positive developments.”
“Many countries, led by the two biggest emitters, China and the United States, have signaled their intent to ratify by the end of 2016, leaving just four countries and 1.72% of global emissions needed for it to become official,” the Climate Analytics analysis said.
The Obama administration has maintained that the Paris Agreement is not a legally binding treaty and therefore does not require Senate ratification, while Republicans have insisted that it does.
“One can only speculate how the administration plans to ratify the agreement without approval of the Senate,” the Science and Environmental Policy Project said in a Sunday statement. “But given the disregard the administration has demonstrated toward Congress and the Constitution, such speculation is fitting.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-acco/
And now for something completely different....
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/
CLIMATE CHANGE CURRICULUM
Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change
KATE HARDIMAN - UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME •AUGUST 31, 2016
3688 4053 Share245 138
http://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-cont...an-370x242.jpg‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.
Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.
“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.
“… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”
The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-cont...CS-560x262.jpg
Professors Laroche, Skahill, and Haggren did not respond to email inquiries from The College Fix seeking further comment on their email or their stance on debate in their online class.
The University Communications Director Tom Hutton told The College Fix via email that “Humanities 3990 is a special topics course with multiple choices for students to take when fulfilling requirements.”
“By clearly stating the class focus,” he continued, “the faculty are allowing students to choose if they wish to enroll in the course or seek an alternative. Additionally, the faculty who are leading the course have offered to discuss it with students who have concerns or differing opinions.”
In addition to teaching man-made climate change, the course also delves into the “health effects of fracking,” according to its syllabus.
The reading assignments in the fracking section focus on only its negative impacts and fail to present the other side of the issue, namely the possible benefits of fracking.
Assigned readings includes: “4 States Struggling to Maintain Radioactive Fracking Waste,” “EPA Study on Fracking Ignored Contamination Studies,” and “Frack Free Colorado: ‘Colorado’s Affected People.’”
An activity assigned within that section instructs students to take a test to measure their own carbon footprint. The purpose, reads the syllabus, “is not to create guilt or shame, though those emotions are entirely common.”
MORE: Ore. school board prohibits climate change skepticism
MORE: Campus flyers ‘Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’ ripped up
MORE: Profs argue capitalism abuses minorities through pollution
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
IMAGE: Brett Tatman / Flickr
The above is absolutely BULLSHIT.
Any college professor that squelches legitimate debate on a subject deserves to have their diploma removed and burned in front of them.
NO ONE has the right to dictate how students learn, and how a subject is handled. While it is true SOME science is "fixed", there are "laws" and "proofs", Globullshit Warming and "man made climate change" is a THEORY and a THEORY ONLY. It is NOT a proven theory, and therein lies the problem. A successful scientific inquiry may culminate in a well-tested, well-documented explanation (theory) that is supported overwhelmingly by valid data, and often has the power to predict the outcome of certain scenarios, which may be tested by future experiments. There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.
Alleged “Consensus on Climate Change” Actually Only 75 Hand-Picked US Scientists (Video)
Saturday, December 3, 2016 5:47
(Before It's News)
https://thelastgreatstand.com/wp-con...16/12/Hoax.jpg
Considering that we’re living in a time when news outlets on both sides of the political spectrum are screaming “fake news” about anything and everything written or said by anyone other than themselves, this article and the video before it will come as fantastic news for anyone looking to retire their status as a “climate denier” for good.
If the whole “climate change” debate wasn’t so dishonest, so corrupt, and so fraudulent, once you finally find out where the numbers liberals have been throwing at you for years actually come from, you’d probably die of laughter. Unfortunately, when you consider how many hard working Americans Al Gore must have stolen from to become a billionaire based on a perpetual lie, it becomes less funny.
According to liberal blowhards like Al Gore and Barack Obama, we always hear how Climate Change is “settled science,” right? They tell us that 97% of scientists all agree that climate change is man-made, and 97% is 97% right? Sure it is, just like 100 million unemployed Americans in a country of 320 million Americans is an unemployment rate of 4.7%.
In the article below, you’re about to learn exactly where that 97% figure that gets liberals throw out as “settled science” actually comes from… meaning… the actual arithmetic that leads to 97%. It turns out, “97 of all scientists,” is actually only a few dozen Californian scientists speaking for the world without permission. Shock right?
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dave DuByne from YouTube ChannelAdapt 2030. Since Dave studies “Climate Change” intimately, he took the debunking of “climate change” to a new level during the interview, but we hardly stopped there…
We also dove into theories about who is most likely responsible for continuing to perpetuate the false “Climate Change” narrative, why, how the “Climate Change” agenda relates to the coming global economic collapse, and how all of it ultimately is responsible for ushering in the global police state…
PLEASE BE SURE TO CHECK OUT DAVE’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL TOO!
PLEASE BE SURE TO CHECK OUT DAVE’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL TOO!
https://thelastgreatstand.com/wp-con...016/11/2-1.jpg
SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK IN THE NEWSLETTER HERE
WWW.THELASTGREATSTAND.COM
FOR MORE NEWS BY VOICE OF REASON CLICK HERE!
Humans are Free Reports:
In the current ridiculous battle over “real news” vs. “fake news,” the establishment media liars all claim that climate change is the perfect example of how “fake news” keeps interfering with their truthful facts.
They repeatedly claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously shoveling “fake” news.
But wait a second. Where does that “97%” claim really come from? They sure repeat it a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of the science?
Author Mark Steyn dug into that question in the search for a more authoritative answer.
What he uncovered was so much fraud and deception by climate change propagandists that he compiled an entire book on the matter entitled A Disgrace to the Profession.
Here’s an excerpt that explains the shocking intellectual fraud behind the “97% of scientists” claim:
An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.
Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of “settled science”: 97 per cent of the world’s scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention.
That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.
The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom [only] 3,146 responded.
Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.
Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
BE SURE TO CHECK THELASTGREATSTAND.COM FOR SURVIVAL GEAR!
https://thelastgreatstand.com/wp-con...ival-2-2-1.jpg
FREE DETAILED GUIDE TO SURVIVING ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OR MARTIAL LAW HERE
Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.
So this is a very Michael Mann “reconstruction”: just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices.
In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments – one blandly positive, the other two not so much.
Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?
Yep. Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to “count” for the climate change survey that every mainstream media news organization quotes as FACT.
Not quite the “settled science” you’ve been told, is it? In fact, it all looks rather shoddy.
Yet this is the sort of propaganda that passes as “real news” while anyone who questions obviously faulty science claims is said to be trafficking in “fake news.”
So if “real news” is based on the cherry-picked answers from a wildly distorted, misrepresentative group of scientists whose responses were compiled by a pro-climate change “scientist” who obviously altered the responses to fit her own subjective beliefs, just how solid is the claimed authority of “real” news authenticity in the first place?
Furthermore, the very idea that science is “settled” is anti-scientific.
Science is never really settled, since the heart of legitimate science is an openness to exploration, discovery and revolutions in new ideas that render old ideas obsolete.
Yet today, we are told by the Ministry of Truth fact checkers and monopolistic purveyors of self-proclaimed “real news” that only their views are legitimate and no one else is allowed to even question a “settled” set of beliefs.
“Consensus science” is unscientific by definition… reality isn’t decided by a consensus of faulty human beliefs
Thus, the very approach of proclaiming science to be “settled” is, itself, anti-scientific. Any set of supposed facts that cannot withstand questioning, criticism or debate is no science at all.
Yet stifling debate is precisely what the new “news truth” brigade is attempting to accomplish: the elimination of scientific dissent and alternative views.
By Mike Adams (excerpt) / Mark Steyn’s book, A Disgrace to the Profession, is available on Amazon.
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...o-2864516.html
Well... Word this morning was that Trump was going to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
Then later in the day it changed to "considering withdrawing and would announce it soon".
Hmm...
Ivanka Putting “Intense” Pressure On Dad To Not Withdraw From Climate Deal
May 31, 2017
President Donald Trump is reportedly planning to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming, and his daughter is apparently very unhappy about it.
Ivanka Trump, who is an unpaid employee in the White House, has put “intense” pressure on her father to not step away from the climate deal, according to Axios reporter Jonathan Swan.
I am told the pressure on @POTUS from Ivanka to stay in Paris has been intense.
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) May 31, 2017
Prior to Trump’s inaguration it was reported Ivanka wanted to make climate change “one of her signature issues,” and this isn’t the first time it’s been reported the first daughter spoke out on climate change.
Ivanka Trump and her husband, White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, reportedly pressured the president to leave out language against the Paris climate accord from an executive order he signed during his first 100 days that rolled back Obama-era climate change policies.
Months later, in March 2017, it was reported Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned the president of the “damaging diplomatic ramifications” of stepping away from the Paris climate change treaty.
If President Trump does end up pulling out of the Paris climate accord, it seems Ivanka has failed to have a strong influence on his stance on climate change.
The White House said an announcement will be made once Trump has made a final decision.
I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017
Environmental groups are criticizing Trump for even considering stepping away from the climate deal, but it wouldn’t come as much of a surprise if he did.
In the past, Trump described climate change as a “hoax,” and he promised to remove the U.S. from the climate change treaty, or at least “renegotiate” it, during his 2016 campaign.
Trump has argued the climate deal would have a detrimental impact on the U.S. economy.
The U.S. would be one of only three countries to not support the climate deal if Trump withdraws from it.
The United Nations climate treaty was agreed to by 195 nations in Paris in 2015, signed in April 2016 and went into effect in November 2016.
Former President Barack Obama was a major supporter of the deal, which calls for the U.S. to reduce carbon by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Today, the US joined some 170 nations to sign the Paris Agreement - an historic step this Earth Day to protect the one planet we've got.
— President Obama (@POTUS44) April 22, 2016
If Trump pulls the U.S. out, it would join Nicaragua and Syria as the world’s only countries not participating in the climate change deal.
The U.S. withdrawing from the deal would not break it apart, but America is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter and such a move would set a very bad precedent for other countries.
Not to mention, it would have an extremely negative impact on the environment, which is bad for everyone.
Ugh, maybe if they lock up Kushner we can get rid of this lefty influence from Ivanka.
We should be so lucky. I'm still waiting for all of the pro-2A influence Don Jr. was supposed to bring to the table.
I guess we're going to get an announcement on it shortly. I'm betting neither withdraw nor stay all in. I think it's more likely we'll see some middle of the road BS.