Global Warming - Is there anything it can't do?

It can affect women more than men!

From an article on an all-female research team going to the Antarctic.

"Yet greater female leadership is needed to fight climate change, which disproportionately affects women, according to Fabian Dattner, co-founder of the Antarctica initiative, Homeward Bound."

I know that the idiot writer is required to stir political correctness into any politically correct mix, but to assert that a global heat increase hurts women more than men is stupid.

Also, is the implication that Global Warming wouldn't be as bad if it affected men and women equally?

PC-think is incomprehensible.

This story is instructive on so many levels.

Obama Admin Harassed, Fired Top Scientist For Countering Climate Change Theory: Congress

//President Obama’s administration harassed, intimidated and ultimately fired a top scientists at the Department of Energy who dared to counter the far left’s vision of climate change theory with fact, according to a new report from members of Congress.

President Obama’s administration injected itself into the Department of Energy to skew science that impacts climate change goals, ultimately harassing and intimidating staff and firing a key scientist.

The Washington Free Beacon reported House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith released a report that reveals the interference of senior Team Obama officials into the department’s scientific studies and findings. And according to the report, the intrusions at the Department of Energy were so intense they resulted in the intimidation of staff and retaliations against a scientist who were simply trying to bring facts of the impact of radiation to light.//

Here is a link to the Congressional Report.


First, it explains why DOE scientists were so frightened about giving their name to the Trump administration, i.e., they've been persecuting people and project what they've done to Trump.

Second, Democrat War on Science, anyone?

Third, 98% consensus backed by intimidation?

Fourth, this story has been cooking for months.  The hearing was in September of 2016, but did you ever hear about it? Media bias is not only about how news gets slanted, but what news gets reported.

Global Cooling.

First the "hiatus."

Then the "cooling."

Cooling will actually be bad news; far, far worse than warming.

//Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past).  It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.  The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age.  Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage.  The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen.  The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010.  Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer.  He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010.  He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.//

Liberal Fascism was once an oxymoron.

Now it is "conventional wisdom" and "You got a problem with it?"

//Hillary Clinton has vowed to prosecute climate change deniers if she is elected President of the United States.

The Democratic Platform Drafting Committee issued a statement on Friday urging the Justice Department to investigate “alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change“.

This announcement represents the beginning of a much larger move to criminalize anybody who speaks out against orthodox climate change dogma//

Out - Global Warming.

In - Global Cooling.

The science is settled?

Tell that to Norwegian wheat farmers.

The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now steepened up since then based on the latest data collated by Professor Humlum of the University of Oslo. From that data set, this graph shows the heat loss since 2004 for the top 700 metres of the water column:

Figure 1: Monthly heat content anomaly in the uppermost 700 metres of the North Atlantic

As Figure 1 show, North Atlantic heat content peaked in 2004. The decline since the peak has been steeper than the rise. What would be the reason for 2004 being the peak year? Part of the answer may be that 2004 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 with a big increase in the proton flux. Another part of the answer may be that there was a big fall in the Ap Index in 2005 down to solar minimum-like levels followed, a couple of years later, by a discontinuity as the level fell through the floor of the established minimum level of activity. That is shown in this graph:

Figure 2: Ap Index 1932 – 2016

We might not care too much about the animals that live in the North Atlantic water column but the temperature of the surface is the main control on the climate of Europe. So what has that been doing?

Minimizing Carbon Footprints - like the law - is for the little people.

Hillary flies jet 20 miles for fundraiser.

When Leftists start acting like there really is a the crisis they preach, then I will be interested.

Global Warming - the decaying consensus.

Greenland glacier melt not due to "global warming."

Thomas Kuhn call your office.

Science follows politics.

During the Reagan administration, the American left was beating the drum against Reagan's "dangerous" foreign policy, and the scientific world was full of discoveries about how the dinosaurs were killed in a "nuclear winter" scenario.

Today, the big political issue is global warming, and, by golly, the sea reptiles are discovered to have died off because of a runaway greenhouse effect.

Amazing how these discoveries time out with politics.

//Evidence suggests their extinction about 100 million years ago was driven by intense climate change and their inability to adapt to the changing world.

"Our results support a growing body of evidence revealing that rising sea levels and sea temperatures profoundly reorganised marine ecosystems about 100 million years ago," said lead researcher Dr Valentin Fischer of the University of Liège, Belgium, and the University of Oxford, UK.

"The ichthyosaurs were unable to adapt. They were evolving very slowly during the last 50 million years of their reign.

"When the environment changed very rapidly they couldn't keep up with this change."//

Reality must be corrupted by Big Oil....

....or something.

//A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

“Reality has deviated from our expectations – it is perfectly normal to try and understand this difference,” Ed Hawkins, co-author of the study and United Kingdom climate scientist, echoed in a blog post.

This is a huge admission by climate scientists and a big victory for skeptics of man-made global warming who have for years been pointing to a mismatch between climate model predictions and actual temperature observations.//