What do elven hotties, yellow dwarfs and iPuritans have to do with global warming? Enter the strange, strange world of the weekly round-up and all will be revealed. Probably.
Part One: Hippie of the Week
We go down under to find our Hippie Of The Week, and it’s none other than a real live person who once played an elf queen. Cate Blanchett, for it is she, knows what’s good for aussies - carbon taxes:
..
No one told Cate that it’s no longer 2008** and that global warming isn’t what the cool kids are doing any more. So the hapless hippie of the week is catching all sorts of warming heat over her appearance in support of the Gillard gouge. It’s possible Cate took her role as elf queen in Lord of the Rings seriously enough to think she knows what’s good for the elf of the Oz economy, or something.
She never would have done the ad if she’d known this sort of review awaited:
“$53 million Hollywood superstar tells Aussie families to pay up”, the Sydney Sunday Telegraph blared on its front page, referring to how much Blanchett is worth. “Cate Blanchett has proved she is just another morally vain Hollywood star trying to justify her great good fortune by preaching to the rest of us about climate change,” the paper said in a comment piece.
Ouch. Hopefully Ms. Blanchett will learn from this that being pretty isn’t the same as being smart. But she won’t. Whatever, pretty is pretty, so join me in congratulating Cate on her major award.
**It’s possible one fella did tell her it was 2008, but I can’t prove it.
Part Two: Warmists & Scaremongers
Joltin’ Joe Romm, the wobbliest-headed hippie of the all has a new home where he can rant about global warming and gay, lesbian, and whatever the ‘B’ and ‘T’ in LGBT stands for. Or something.
Before the move to a dark corner of the Think Progress site, he penned a look into the future of 2030:
It is a world not merely of endless regional resource wars around the globe. It is a world with dozens of Darfurs and Pakistani mega-floods, of countless environmental refugees “” hundreds of millions by the second half of this century “” all clamoring to occupy the parts of the developed world that aren’t flooded or desertified. In such a world, everyone will ultimately become a veteran, and Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day may fade into obscurity, as people forget about a time when wars were the exception, a time when soldiers were but a small minority of the population.
They don’t call him Cheery Joe for nothing. Oh, wait, they don’t call him Cheery Joe? Who knew?
Good news for rich people, which of course includes all skeptic bloggers on the payroll of Big Oil, global warming will save the rich.
Al Gore (remember him?) has sunk so low for positive reinforcement that he’s taking notes from a guy who thinks the Constitution is hard to understand because it’s old. And they suggest Sarah Palin is a few slates short of the full roof?
Where’s the List? Coral reefs are endangered again, but acidic oceans, not Greenpeace is to blame. This time.
The HuffPo blames bad weather on global warming, despite it being, well, cooler.
Climate scientists are decrying the fact that people are demanding to see their data. It must be upsetting to go to all the trouble of making up stuff and drawing scary charts only to have some bozo ask awkward questions. How dare they?
NYC Mayor Bloomberg says that the planet will be uninhabitable in 50 years. Mike knows about this stuff, New York City has been underwater for 11 years. Wait, what?
You know what sends a message that your government is serious about global warming? When the U.S. Transportation Secretary arrives in a monster SUV to announce new fuel economy stickers, that’s what.
Phelim McAleer, the director of Not Evil, Just Wrong, prods shock-doc Gasland director about the truthiness of his felim film:
..
Oxfam worries that food prices will double in 20 years. If the Obama administration keeps pushing fuel costs up and western nations continue to pump corn into cars, it won’t take that long.
Newsweek Magazine and The Guardian went head to head in a cage match to see who could be gloomier about global warming. In the red corner, Newsweek:
In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century. Worldwide, the litany of weather’s extremes has reached biblical proportions. The 2010 heat wave in Russia killed an estimated 15,000 people. Floods in Australia and Pakistan killed 2,000 and left large swaths of each country under water. A months-long drought in China has devastated millions of acres of farmland. And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began.
In the redder corner, The Guardian:
…a world still hurtling towards dangerous climate change – at a time when policymakers are out of solutions for slowing this process. “A nice utopia” is how Mr Birol describes the hope of keeping a rise in global temperatures below 2C. And if he thinks that, we should all be alarmed.
Part Three: Inconvenient Truths
Here’s a handy cut-out-and-keep list of all the reasons why a trace gas essential to life on Earth can’t cause Gaia to explode. A snippet:
- CO2 levels currently at 390 parts per million (ppm) lowest in 600 million years.
- Levels were as high as 9000 ppm over last 600 million years. Average levels for the last 300 million years is approximately 1200 ppm.
- In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Call me old fashioned, but that last point is sorta awkward for hippies, no?
New Jersey Guv’nor Christie pulled a Tony Soprano and whacked the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The anti-warming measure now sleeps with the fishes, and they didn’t hear a thing.
Uh oh, an Oz warmist admits that the settled science of global warming has changed. Good job we didn’t retool the global economy based the old and busted science then.
Why yes, it IS the Sun, stupid:
astronomers and climatologists have debated whether a prolonged 17th century cold spell, best documented in Europe, could have been caused by erratic behavior of the sun. Now, an American solar physicist says he has new evidence to suggest that the sun was indeed the culprit.
Pesky yellow dwarf, messing with the warming narrative.
A British Lord (is there any other kind?) stomps on the IPCC:
There is a structural flaw in the IPCC. Far from being the distillation of the work of 2,500 scientists to produce a consensus, there is a core of 40-50 at its centre who are closely related, as colleagues, pupils, teachers, reviewers of each other’s work. The IPCC has failed to operate a rigorous conflicts of interest policy under which such relationships would be disclosed.
Hippies vs. Hipsters. How green is your iPhone?
Joltin’ Joe Romm pushes the cell phones give you brain cancer meme, but the wikiwiz Connolley is a phone cancer denier. Remember, the constant barrage of negativity toward tech is pushed by iPuritans, the folks that live in fear that someone, somewhere is enjoying electronics.
Peak oil? Fuggedaboutit:
The doomsayers of the 1970s thought we would have run out of oil by now because they compared knowledge about the state of supply then with rates of consumption then, and concluded that those available supplies would soon be exhausted. But we have consumed 40 more years’ worth of oil since then and yet find ourselves with more reserves than we believed we had in 1970.
Peak population? Ain’t even close:
With the world population at around 6.8 billion last year, food and living space are hardly a concern. In 1990, it was estimated that the world could feed up to 35 billion people. Most sources estimate that the global population will level out at around 9.2 billion in 2050, and then start to decline
Hippies hate economic growth, blaming it for conditions that might worsen the lot of the world’s poor. Inconveniently, economic growth does more for the poor than aid, or debt relief or (gasp) even Bono’s tears.
Financiers recommend dumping green tech.
The Kyoto Protocol is sad, it’s been defriended by Canada, Japan and Russia. The USA never accepted Kyoto’s friend request, preferring to play Farmville with ethanol subsidies.
Hippies are like comedians and custard pies when it comes to unintended consequences. They know they’re out there, but can’t see them coming in time to duck. Three (!) examples:
- A clean energy research project in the UK is likely to close… because of increased costs caused by an eco-tax.
- Biodegradable products release methane, which is more damaging that CO2
- Germany’s nuclear power ban will create an additional 40 million tonnes of CO2 emissions
Maybe Gaia would prefer hippies not try so hard?
Don’t tell Paul McCartney, but cows are innocent.
How appropriate - warmists are feeling the heat. Pesky FOIA’s.
Part Four: AGW in the News
New Yorkers squirrel away incandescent light bulbs as the ban on them looms. A reminder for border dwellers, Canada delayed the ban, you’ll be able to smuggle 100-watt contraband and host lighteasy’s in your basement.
Grist is unhappy that another Texas Governor may run for President. You’d think they’d love having a new guy to blame for everything.
UK wind farms are the future according to the government. Too bad then that the nation is running out of wind.
Oh noes, 2010 saw the highest level of emissions ever:
Despite a high level push by governments to limit global warming, unprecedented levels of carbon were released into the air over the past 12 months, the unpublished figures have disclosed.The IEA found a record 30.6 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide gushed into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt from the previous year.
Keep your fingers crossed that a real global threat doesn’t come along. If we rely on governments to save us, we’re pretty well doomed.
Switzerland follows Germany into a no-nuke future. Or, no future, if you prefer.
Hey, let’s re-engineer the global economy:
…the link between economic growth and carbon dioxide must be broken. The world’s economy runs on energy, and while most of that power continues to comes from coal, oil and gas, global GDP and carbon emissions will be bound together in lockstep.
While we’re at it, let’s re-engineer global politics and do away with pesky freedoms and stuff:
Germany’s green government advisors admit frankly that decarbonization can only be achieved by the limitation of democracy - both nationally and internationally.
Wind power, ‘a huge scam’. Say it ain’t so.
Ontarians can look forward to paying an extra $310 a year for energy, thanks to subsidies needed to create ‘green jobs’. Each green job comes at the low, low price of only $179,000 per job, that’s math only a government could love. And the mafia.
Texas is about to get the delta smelt treatment. Can’t have that pesky but abundant shale gas exploited - hippies need to shut down anything that might make energy affordable.
The head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change declared that global warming must be limited to 1.5°C. It may be upsetting to Ms. Figueres to hear, but she may as well ask Jupiter to reverse its orbit or ask Tiger Woods to keep it in his pants. It is what it is. Pricing carbon emissions, frightening moppets and singing kumbaya on Earth Day may warm a hippies heart, but Gaia gonna do what Gaia gonna do, and that’s a fact. We’ve seen this delusion that man can boss nature around before, but back then ignorance and hubris were to blame… oh wait, nevermind.
Part Five: Global Hottie
We had an elf queen to start us off, and we’ll finish with another elf. Ms. Blanchett’s co-star from Lord of the Rings. Here we see the lovely Liv Tyler demonstrating the proper posture for Aussies facing a carbon tax.
Thanks for reading.
[...] Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jun 2nd 2011 [...]
Stark, you ask: “how can you explain the fact that at least one of your papers doesn’t mention Carbon Dioxide at all?”
Actually, it’s exactly one paper that does not directly mention CO2; the other two explicitly address the export of CO2 from the soil. The third paper is more technical and so it is understandable that a nonspecialist would fail to grasp its significance. The paper talks about the storage and export of two forms of carbon found in permafrost soils: organic and black. Here’s one of the key sentences in the abstract:
Permafrost is, hence, not only a crucial factor in the storage of OC but also of BC.
The point of this sentence is not made explicitly but is obvious to anybody with scientific training: if the permafrost melts, then the storage of these two forms of carbon will be compromised. And since many different kinds of carbon molecules readily oxidize when exposed to air, the exposure of large amounts of such carbon causes a big increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you have any other questions regarding these papers, I will happy to answer them.
Dear Chris,
Let’s face it. In light of your ability to create hyperlinks that allow our computers to point to superficially related papers based on a keyword search you did, how can you explain the fact that at least one of your papers doesn’t mention Carbon Dioxide at all? Did you actually read them in your scientifically educated way, or was this a non-specialist keyword search you ran for carbon, hoping no-one would check up on your nonsense links?
Tez, I believe you misunderstand my statement that “We are already seeing the beginnings of this vicious circle in a number of phenomena.” I was not referring to abnormal weather, as this is a very complex phenomenon. The literature is buzzing with a great deal of material on this, but the current state of knowledge on this is much too complicated to present in a nonspecialist forum such as this one. Instead, I was referring to a number of phenomena, the easiest of which to demonstrate is the increase in CO2 emissions from thawing permafrost. I provided links to three peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the truth of this phenomenon.
Chris
“We are already seeing the beginnings of this vicious circle in a number of phenomena. The conclusion that increasing concentrations of CO2 do not cause increasing temperatures is therefore not justified by the evidence.”
This statement of yours is a belief, not based in fact. The weather conditions around the world (if that is what you are referring to) are not unprecedented, and the severe weather (ie the worst ******** for 120 years or so)has been worse 120 years or so ago when the world was marginally cooler and CO2 levels were much lower.
You must first work out what caused the bad weather event in the past before you can rule out that cause in the present. Until then, all that we are currently encountering cannot be ruled as anything other than natural.
Robert, the fact that CO2 is both a cause and an effect of rising temperatures is not a “weasel hypothesis” — it is a demonstrated fact. There’s tons of evidence that the melting permafrost in Siberia is releasing large amounts of CO2. For example, here’s a really old one showing how long we’ve known about this phenomenon:
Northern Peatlands: Role in the Carbon Cycle and Probable Responses to Climatic Warming
source
a more recent measurement:
Effects of permafrost melting on CO2 and CH4 exchange of a poorly drained black spruce lowland
source
and here’s a third:
Storage and mobility of black carbon in permafrost soils of the forest tundra ecotone in Northern Siberia
source
As you can see, this is not a hypothesis, this is an empirically demonstrated phenomenon.
As to the response of the average global temperature to concentration of CO2, that has been empirically demonstrated by measurements of CO2 concentrations since the International Geophysical Year and temperatures during the same period. The empirical evidence is completely consistent with the models.
You state that “the actual global temperature response to CO2 doubling is unknown but likely benign.” If you consult IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 1, Section 2.3.1, you will find there a radiative forcing value of 3.7 W/m**2 for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. There are numerous other estimates of this value, all in the same range. I would certainly be interested in seeing the evidence you have to support your assertion that the RF value is “likely benign”.
Please note that I confine my commentary to documented scientific results.
Chris
June 4th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Yes, that is the warmist’s hypothesis to weasel their way out of the “warming leads CO2″ problem in the earth’s climatic record. But it still depends on CO2 concentration having a strong greenhouse effect. This strong effect has not been empirically demonstrated by observation, it is only a figment of the models. Beyond demonstrating radiative properties of CO2 in the laboratory, the actual global temperature response to CO2 doubling is unknown but likely benign.
You say, “We are already seeing the beginnings of this vicious circle in a number of phenomena”. I aver that when you have a preconceived idea that you desperately want to fit the facts to, human nature is to twist your observations to fit your idea. There is nothing unusual about our present weather or climate in that the present weather has been manifested in the past.
I’d like to address the statements of scientific fact made in this post:
CO2 levels currently at 390 parts per million (ppm) lowest in 600 million years.
Levels were as high as 9000 ppm over last 600 million years. Average levels for the last 300 million years is approximately 1200 ppm.
In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
The first point is approximately correct; however, do not forget that we are also in one of the coldest periods in the last 600 million years, with sea levels quite low relative to the average over the last 600 million years. Thus, if the earth were to revert to the average conditions of the last 600 million years, a great deal of our landmass would be covered by ocean and our climate would be much hotter than today.
The second point reflects some confusion about the causal relationships between CO2 and average global temperatures. Increases in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is BOTH a cause AND an effect of increasing temperatures. In other words, it’s a vicious circle: as the temperature rises, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, which causes the temperature to rise even further. This process continues until a new radiative equilibrium is imposed by other factors. We are already seeing the beginnings of this vicious circle in a number of phenomena. The conclusion that increasing concentrations of CO2 do not cause increasing temperatures is therefore not justified by the evidence.
Graeme, that’s a scary story…
Joltin’ Joe Romm’s prediction for 2030 assumes endless wars for ever diminishing resources - logical not. If you want to go big on a dystopic future, imagine a world throughly dominated by green gaian religion, where the “speakers for the goddess” form an overlord class that are completely unaccountable and venerated as living incarnations of the divine. Their Enforcers operate to weed out all non-conformity through a reign of absolute terror. Public torture and execution are common place. Poverty and the diseases of poverty stalk the land. The family unit is destroyed in the name of population control and a select group of males are “inseminators” for the whole society. Most males are sterilised before puberty, and half the female population are also sterilised for the “good of all”. Books are largely banned, and reading disappears as the society sinks into technical backwardness. People who manage to survive past their usefullness as drudge field workers on the organic farms are mulched and composted before they become a burden on the rest.
Poor Cate, she has been offered the ring of power, and instead of remaining Cate, she has become the Dark Queen - “All will love me and despair…” After all, it’s the precious…
[...] Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup [...]
Oh, & here you go. Don’t say I never did anything for you.
Great round up once again. I particularly enjoyed the Greenpeace destroying coral with their boat one, then discovering that AGW had had no effect on the coral. LOL Keep them coming please (whoever you are)
Greens
“World Oil Reserves Put at 31 Billion Barrels” by V.R. Garfias & R.V. Whetsel, Oil and Gas Journal Feb. 16, 1939 p. 32
It stands for “Gorgons.” Can’t Discriminate against ugly hags that can turn you to stone.
Then again, don’t the “L” and “T” cover most of that?
I get BLT (yum!), but what the H*** does the “G” stand for?