Evidence-Based Science: Study Determines Changes In Global Precipitation Minimal Over Last 150 Years

Evidence-Based Science: Study Determines Changes In Global Precipitation Minimal Over Last 150 Years

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/05/evidence-based-science-study-determines-changes-in-global-precipitation-minimal-over-last-150-years.html

(source of image) The unsubstantiated claim has been that human CO2-induced climate change was (and is) producing dramatic changes in precipitation levels across the world. But is it true? A research effort was undertaken to determine if indeed the evidence…

— gReader Pro…

Study shows bad economic times means there are more climate skeptics

Study shows bad economic times means there are more climate skeptics

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/study-shows-bad-economic-times-means-there-are-more-climate-skeptics/

I’ve said before that the man-made climate-faith is a luxury of the stupidly wealthy. Only people with time to stress about the carbon footprint of their oranges can wallow in the indulgence of owning the idea that windmills in Alabama could reduce tidal surges in Peru. It follows then that if (or as) the economy falls apart so will the Green religion. A new research paper backs this up, but possibly shows more about researcher’s confirmation bias than it does about the public. (I suspect the most useful part of this research was that a couple of hundred people got to see a video with Richard Lindzen in.) That the global-eco-faith needs lots of wealth is a horrible conundrum for the Greens. The best thing they can do to encourage “climate belief” is to get out of the way and let the economy prosper, which of course is the last thing the Greens can do since “Growth” = “Pollution” in the GreenWorldView. So the more the Greens do to slow or wreck the economy, the more skeptical the population will get. It’s a “positive” feedback loop that may protect Western Civilization a little bit. Joy. Is that motivated recall or […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

— gReader Pro…

Donald Trump´s views on global warming are to be welcomed

Donald Trump´s views on global warming and climate change are to be welcomed

http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2016/05/donald-trumps-views-on-global-warming.html

Steve Milloy points out that Donald Trump has been a consistent critic of the global warming hysteria and green extremism in general. Here are some of the points Trump has made: Global warming is a “hoax,” echoing the words of leading Senate climate skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe.Trump has mocked Obama for saying that climate change is the top global priority, especially as compared to Islamic terrorism and rogue nuclear states like Iran and North Korea.Other countries, especially China, push global warming hysteria to cripple the U.S. economy and gain competitive advantage.Trump has ridiculed Obama’s climate “deal” with China in which the U.S. cuts its CO2 emissions now while China gets away with a commitment to only possibly peak its emissions by 2030.When global temperatures failed to rise as predicted by climate models, “global warming” became “climate change.”Global warming hysteria is being pushed by “Jonathan Gruber-types,” the infamous architect of Obamacare who called Americans “stupid.”Trump has observed that the polar ice caps are not melting as predicted by global warming hysterics.PSAt least with regard to global warming, Donald Trump would be hugely better as President than the present one.

— gReader Pro…

Retired Professor On Germany’s CO2 Reduction Effort: “Totally Idiotic What We Are Doing”

Retired Professor On Germany’s CO2 Reduction Effort: “Totally Idiotic What We Are Doing”

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/08/retired-professor-on-germanys-co2-reduction-effort-totally-idiotic-what-we-are-doing/

Two days ago I wrote of an interview with physicist Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, published at the website of the German Employers Association (DAV) here, on the minimal role of CO2 on the world’s climate. German professor calls climate protection a “dangerous, undemocratic ideology”. Due to the length of the interview I focused only on a part of it. Today I will write on the other important comments made by Prof. Lüdecke relating to climate models, Germany’s energy policy and the climate protection ideology. Decarbonization “gross nonsense” On the endeavor to “protect the climate” through cutting CO2 emissions, something often called decarbonization, Lüdecke calls it “gross nonsense” and tells us that a changing climate is “a law of nature“. He adds that there is no evidence that CO2 is “harmful to the climate” and that it strongly warms it”. Lüdecke tells the DAV that strong warming is found only in models that use dubious assumptions and effects: Whether or not these effects are based on reliable data is of no interest to the modelers. This is how one gets the temperature rise that one desires. The only problem is that these models have not been able to reproduce the past. The climate models simply don’t work. They are wrong. Amazingly that does not bother the climate alarmists.” The retired German professor also slams the media for uncritically blaring out every alarmists claim, no matter how foolish it may be, and shutting out reasonable voices. Whenever an alarmist prediction fails to appear, “a new one such as ocean acidification gets paraded out in the public“. On Germany’s trillion-euro attempt to curb CO2 emissions, Lüdecke calls the effort “absurd”, claiming that the country’s share of global CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the total emitted globally, and that the government’s target would result in a temperature difference of “only a few thousandths of a degree over the next 20 years“. He calls it a “purely political agenda“, summarizing: Factually it is therefore totally idiotic what we are doing.” On sea level rise and ice melt, Lüdecke reminds us that sea level rise is happening at a perfectly normal range of 1 to 3 mm per year, depending on the data source, and that there is no evidence of anything alarming happening. To put things into there proper …

Misuse of The Law; Another Battle in the Climate Wars

Misuse of The Law; Another Battle in the Climate Wars

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/08/misuse-of-the-law-another-battle-in-the-climate-wars

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Aeschylus (525 BC – 456 BC) Maybe my first payment from Exxon for my climate views will arrive with the subpoena from the Attorney General (AG) of the Virgin Islands charging me under the Criminally Influenced and Corruptions Organizations Act (CICO) for trying […]

— gReader Pro…

Arctic ice area: safely higher in 2016 than in 2007

Arctic ice area: safely higher in 2016 than in 2007

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LuboMotlsReferenceFrame/~3/yLV77nWpbFM/arctic-ice-area-safely-higher-in-2016.html

The ongoing El Niño is rapidly weakening and may be replaced by a La Niña in the second half of the year. However, it’s been the strongest El Niño on the record – slightly beating the 1997-1998 El Niño that used to be known as the “El Niño of the century”. This fact has some correlation with the temperatures that were elevated. Although it’s always about hundredths of a Celsius degree, January, February, and March were the warmest months with those names on the RSS AMSU satellite record. However, April 2016 was already cooler than April 1998 again.What about the Arctic ice? Left-wing “science” media such as The Guardian and The Pig were impressing us with the claim that the Arctic ice has been at record lows for several months.However, this isn’t the case at all. Take The Pig’s favorite Arctic graph page. You will see several graphs where 2016 looks like the “lowest sea ice” year. However, it’s only the lowest one in comparison with several recent years.If you look at any of the graphs that goes back at least to 2007, you will see that 2007 – the year when Al Gore’s global warming influence could be peaking – saw a significantly lower Arctic sea ice area than 2016 so far. The difference is not “significant” to the extent that a sane person would care about it – the differences are tiny in any “absolute” sense. But these 2007-2016 differences are larger than the differences between 2016 and many recent years.On the page, you may e.g. look at the second picture (and first mostly-white graph) in the right column, something that says “Ice Extent, NORSEX SSM/I” and click at this graph. You will get to this page with at least 2×2=4 graphs. The upper two only go back to 2008 but the lower ones show 2007 instead of 2008. Click e.g. at this one. You will see very clearly that the light violet 2007 ice extent was lower than the red 2016 ice extent on a vast majority of the days in 2016 so far.Just to be sure, the violent wiggles in all the ice date since early April 2016 are due to a defective gadget.Up to the early April, you may simply see very clearly that 2007 saw less ice than 2016. There is at least …

Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/09/facts-clear-astrophysicist-soon-of-wrongdoing-while-indicting-journalists-covering-climate-debate/

Guest opinion by Ron Arnold Willie Soon, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Soon’s career has proven to be a textbook example of speaking truth to power and bravely facing the consequences. Beginning in 1994, Soon produced an important series […]

— gReader Pro…