National Hockey League Checks Climate Change: NHL ‘to offset its carbon footprint in all 30 of its markets’
http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/18/national-hockey-league-climate-change/…
The Branch Carbonian Cult’s Actual ‘Deniers’ and ‘Skeptics’
Many factors in climate change other than CO2:
‘the science of solar cycles – sunspots, flares & otherwise,
the science of decadal and centuries-long ocean cycles,
the science of variable jet streams and wind currents,
the science of Earth’s orbits around sun & tilts on its axis,
the science of outer-space cosmic/galactic winds,
the science of cloud formation and sunlight feed-back,
the science of heat retention by water vapor & humidity,
the science of both surface and sub-sea volcanic eruptions,
the science of sub-sea methane formations and releases,
the science of oceanic “sink” for and release of CO2,
the science of CO2 fertilization vs. alleged “pollution,”
the science of econometric cost-to-benefit considerations…
AP REPORTS ON NEW STUDY: YOUR ALL-ELECTRIC CAR MAY NOT BE SO GREEN
The key is where the source of the electricity all-electric cars. If it comes from coal, the electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than gas, because of the pollution made in generating the electricity, according to the study that is published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
…
The study examines environmental costs for cars’ entire life cycle, including where power comes from and the environmental effects of building batteries.
“Unfortunately, when a wire is connected to an electric vehicle at one end and a coal-fired power plant at the other end, the environmental consequences are worse than driving a normal gasoline-powered car,” said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who wasn’t part of the study but praised it.
The states with the highest percentage of electricity coming from coal, according to the Department of Energy, are West Virginia, Wyoming, Ohio, North Dakota, and Illinois.…
Denver Post editorial boad: ‘Greenpeace’s vile, destructive act in Peru’ – ‘The defacement of a major heritage site goes way beyond looking bad. It’s a cultural catastrophe’
…Study: ‘Earthquakes suggest magma still churns beneath a previously unknown subglacial volcano in West Antarctica’s Executive Committee Range’
…West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting From Geothermal Heat, Not Global Warming
…‘Global-warming true believers are in denial’ – Warmists believe the ‘science has spoken’
December 17, 2014 Updated: December 18, 2014 9:08am
Their language is downright evangelical. Recently, science guy Bill Nye joined other experts who objected to the media’s use of the term “climate skeptic.” They released a statement that concluded, “Please stop using the word ‘skeptic’ to describe deniers.” Deniers? Like Judas?
Why, they even hear voices from science. “Science has spoken,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently proclaimed. Some men think God talks to them; others hear Science.
…
On Monday, state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said he plans on introducing a measure to require that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System sell off any coal-related investments. In recent years, demands for disinvestment have visited universities. In May, Stanford voted to forgo investments in coal mining. Student groups have been pushing for Harvard and the University of California to dump fossil-fuel assets as well. It’s a good sign that those efforts have not prevailed at either institution. It’s a bad sign that de León has found a new soft target — CalPERS.
The problem, Harvard Professor Robert N. Stavins wrote for the Wall Street Journal, is: “Symbolic actions often substitute for truly effective actions by allowing us to fool ourselves into thinking we are doing something meaningful about a problem when we are not.” Disinvestment also does nothing to reduce energy use.
Then there are the conferences — Kyoto, Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro. The venues for Earth summits would make for a great episode of “Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?” The scions of science ought to get acquainted with Skype. If the future of the planet is at stake, shouldn’t the champions of science at least look as if they’re trying to curb their emissions?
Debra J. Saunders is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. E-mail:[email protected] Twitter: @DebraJSaunders
Full article here:
Warmist Naomi Klein runs amok, calls skeptics white supremacists
Naomi Klein runs amok, calls skeptics white supremacists
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/naomi-klein-runs-amok-calls-skeptics-white-supremacists/
Naomi Klein is still throwing rocks, and these rocks are hairier than ever. Try this: if you disagree about climate sensitivity you are not just an unconvinced mind, but a white supremacist. It’s racism, racism all the way down, I tell you! Lucky Naomi is here to unpack the sinister World Order of evil white men who control the climate. Who knew? In her world, man-made climate change will kill more non-whites than whites, but the white guys who run everything just don’t care. So there! (Is she saying that white men can control the weather but black men can’t?) The namecalling reaches a new level of absurdity in “Why #BlackLivesMatter Should Transform the Climate Debate“. Forget money, power and sex, the world is run on racism: “What would governments do if black and brown lives counted as much as white lives?” Taken together, the picture is clear. Thinly veiled notions of racial superiority have informed every aspect of the non-response to climate change so far. Racism is what has made it possible to systematically look away from the climate threat for more than two decades. It is also what has allowed the worst health impacts of digging up, processing […]Rating: 9.9/10 (11 votes cast)
— gReader Pro…
The Great Cooling Of Arctic Sea Ice Projections: Having Been Burned, Scientists Far More Cautious With Projections
The Great Cooling Of Arctic Sea Ice Projections: Having Been Burned, Scientists Far More Cautious With Projections
Dirk Notz of the Hamburg-based Max-Planck-Institute: Arctic sea ice could again expand in the coming decade By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated/edited by P Gosselin) Over the past 30 years Arctic sea ice has shrunk considerably. Although both in 2007 and 2012 negative records were reached, the ice recovered in the years that followed. Former US Vice President and climate activist Al Gore was clearly impressed by the 2007 melt record and so in 2008 he declared the Arctic could be completely ice free by 2013. The year 2013 came and went, but the ice stayed. Using the same alarmist bullhorn, US Senator John Kerry also announced that the Arctic sea ice was set to melt away, read here: The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.“ The idea of an ice-free Arctic from both politicians obviously had been whispered to them by IPCC scientists such as Wieslaw Maslowski. The BBC reported here on December 12, 2007: Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.” Looking back at these completely failed prognoses, one would at least expect a return to reason. But this has not been the case for some. There are still climate alarmist scientists who continue insisting that the Arctic sea ice only has a few years left. They’re dead sure. The same is true with the end-of-the-world. And when the predicted end of the world fails to happen, the goalposts get pushed back, or the focus switches to some other end-of-world scenario. One of the more outspoken believers of the Arctic death spiral is Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge. In 2012 he announced to the world the prognosis that Arctic sea ice would disappear within four years. Today, two years later, the trend is …
Recent S. Beaufort polar bear count was a cherry-picked result – new evidence
Recent S. Beaufort polar bear count was a cherry-picked result – new evidence
New evidence has come to light that mark-recapture field work used to calculate a new population estimate for Southern Beaufort polar bears did not conclude in 2010 as implied in a widely-publicized paper last month but continued until 2013. Steve Amstrup in S. Beaufort, 2005 (USGS photo), co-author of Rode et al. paper. As I discussed previously, last month’s widely-hyped paper (Bromaghin et al. in press) – which reported a decline of ~40% between 2004 and 2010 (based on spring mark-recapture work) – was contradicted by fall survey counts that suggested strongly a population rebound would have been apparent if the mark-recapture work had continued another two years. A new paper by Karyn Rode and colleagues (which includes Bromaghin and others (e.g. Amstrup) from the previous paper), summarized in a USGS press release issued on Monday and published online Tuesday, utilized comprehensive data collected during mark-recapture work carried out in spring from 1982 to 2013 in the Southern Beaufort Sea. This new paper used the same kind of comprehensive data as Bromaghin and colleagues – from the same season, in the same region – to assess potentially negative effects of the mark-recapture research method itself, up to 2012 and beyond. More on the Rode et al. conclusions later1 – for the moment, what is important is that the work described in the paper confirms that spring mark-recapture work on polar bears in the Southern Beaufort continued beyond 2010. Bromaghin and colleagues didn’t end their mark-recapture work prematurely — they actually left data collected in 2011 and 2012 out of their population estimate analysis when they had to have known the population had not finished rebounding from the 2004-2006 decline. Figure from newly-released paper by Rode and colleagues (2014, in press). As to why they might have done such a thing, I’ve discussed previously that IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) biologists have until June 2015 to come up with projected population trends that meet the new strict standards set by the IUCN for its Red List status of ‘vulnerable.’ The model used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to list polar bears as ‘threatened’ in 2008, developed primarily by Steven Amstrup, has been heavily criticized by IUCN model experts. The PBSG has been told, in no uncertain terms, that stringent scientific methods are now required …