RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_climate_change_crisis_racket.html

Do Democrats really believe in the climate crisis they have dubbed an “emergency,” or is it really just a way to make a quick buck?

Beto O’Rourke has suggested spending $5 trillion over the next ten years investing in climate change initiatives primarily for “vulnerable communities.”  Not to be outdone, Kamala Harris was one of the co-sponsors for the “Green New Deal,” which proposes $700 billion a year in spending on a utopian garden future.  Bernie Sanders, also a loud supporter of the GND, proposes going even farther and banning any new developments that would require fossil fuels.  Cory Booker uses climate change to drum up fear, claiming with an re-introduced bill that the environment is racist (yeah, seriously), and although he hasn’t laid out any specific plans, he has insinuated possibly legislating veganism.

All in all, looking at just the remaining 2020 Democratic candidates’ proposals, the total amounts to $180,000,000,000,000 over a period of ten years, with climate change and health care–for-all mandates taking up the majority of this desired spending.  One hundred and eighty trillion dollars.  Just for perspective, that number is:

More than half the combined wealth of all current wealth in the entire world ($241 trillion by this estimate).
All of the stars in our galaxy multiplied by a giga, or ten to the ninth power.
Astrophysicist Greg Laughlin came up with a formula that the Earth itself is worth around 4.25 quadrillion USD, and Democrats want to spend almost 5% of that just on a handful of their policies.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/calling_out_the_climate_hypocrites.html

We all need to “do our part” for the planet…except for the people telling us to sacrifice our way of life, who ceaselessly jet around the globe telling us we’re doomed

Obvious and repulsive hypocrisy on the part of wealthy and connected people telling us we must sacrifice our standard of living — indeed, our very way of life — finally is being called out.  They want us to bear the entire burden, while their jet-setting lifestyles remain untouched.

The alarmists are getting more and more shrill about their predictions of doom due to the increase in an atmospheric trace gas, CO2, purportedly able to act as the control mechanism for world climate.  (Meanwhile, their climate models, the sole basis for their doomsterism, don’t know how to reckon with the influence of clouds, which have an obvious impact on temperature.)

Even as previous deadlines for doom have come and gone, they issue new and shorter deadlines for us to obey by paying more for electricity, junking our cars, and closing down our factories and transportation systems — ultimately roasting in the summer heat and freezing in the winter cold.

Climate hypocrisy is the only conclusion that can be drawn after just this last weekend, when there were two instances of ultra-prominent doom-sayers generating massive CO2 emissions while warning the rest of us to embrace impoverishment in the name of saving the planet.  The world’s media finally are taking

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-17-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxv

I posted Part XXIV of this series just three days ago, on Wednesday August 14. The subject of that post was the “homogenization” of official historical temperature data, by which the keepers of our official temperature records from ground-based thermometers use the excuses of station moves and instrumentation changes to adjust earlier temperatures downward in order to create an artificial warming trend and make recent temperatures appear to be the warmest ever.

But why would anyone engage in such a stupid game? After all, it’s been a good 50 years since the network of ground-based thermometers was recognized as completely inadequate to the task of keeping track of the earth’s changing climate. This network just had too many unfixable issues that meant that its measurement accuracy was not nearly sufficient for the task at hand. The issues include things like poor coverage of most of the earth’s surface (e.g., the whole southern hemisphere), essentially no coverage of the poles or the oceans, urban heat island issues affecting many of the most important stations, poorly tracked station moves and instrumentation changes, and so forth. These many issues are reasons why the decision was made back in the 1970s to spend some serious money to create a far superior methodology to track not just temperature readings at randomly sited ground stations, but instead to track the bulk heat content of the entire lower troposphere. Since 1979 the U.S. government has spent several billion dollars to build, launch and operate a group of satellites with instrumentation called “microwave sounding units,” designed to measure true average worldwide temperatures of the lower troposphere. Thus, since 1979, the network of ground-based thermometers has been made obsolete. We now have the far more accurate satellite temperature record to guide us.

The satellite-based temperature record is calculated and reported each month by a group at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) headed by Drs. John Christy and Roy Spencer. On August 1, UAH reported what they call the temperature “anomaly” for the lower troposphere for July: +0.38 deg C (measured as a departure from the average temperature from 1981 to 2010). That made July a relatively warm month, but it was down substantially from the anomaly of +0.47 deg C in June, let alone from the record anomaly of +0.88 deg C that occurred three and a half years ago in January 2016. The drop from the January 2016 record anomaly was a full 0.5 deg C, which is a very large drop considering that the record upward departure from the 1981-2010 mean is only +0.88 deg C.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/16/global-temperature-how-can-we-trust-a-statistic-that-might-not-even-exist/

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quite certain Earth will be in trouble if the global temperature exceeds pre-industrial levels by 1.5 degrees Celsius or more. But how can anyone know? According to university research, “global temperature” is a meaningless concept.

“Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,” says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the “validity of a ‘global temperature.’”

Science Daily explains how the “global temperature” is determined.

“The temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.”

But a “temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system,” says Andresen. The climate is not regulated by a single temperature. Instead, “differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

While it’s “possible to treat temperature statistically locally,” says Science Daily, “it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-14-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxiv

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the fraud committed by the keepers of official world temperature records, by which they intentionally adjust early year temperature records downward in order to support assertions that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring and that the most recent year or month is the “hottest ever.” The assertions of dangerous human-caused global warming then form the necessary predicate for tens of billions of dollars of annual spending going to academic institutions; to the “climate science” industry; to wind, solar and other alternative energy projects; to electric cars; and on and on. In terms of real resources diverted from productive to unproductive activities based on falsehoods, this fraud dwarfs any other scientific fraud ever conceived in human history.

This is Part XXIV of my series on this topic. To read Parts I through XXIII, go to this link.

The previous posts in this series have mostly focused on particular weather stations, comparing the currently-reported temperature history for each station with previously-reported data. For example, the very first post in this series, from July 2013, looked at one of my favorite stations, the one located in Central Park in New York City. Somehow, the early-year temperatures reported for the month of July for that very prominent station had been substantially adjusted downward, thus notably enhancing a previously-slight warming trend:

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/12/gore

When asked Sunday about his 2006 prediction that we would reach the point of no return in 10 years if we didn’t cut human greenhouse gas emissions, climate alarmist in chief Al Gore implied that his forecast was exactly right.

“Some changes unfortunately have already been locked in place,” he told ABC’s Jonathan Karl.

“Sea level increases are going to continue no matter what we do now. But, we can prevent much larger sea level increases. Much more rapid increases in temperature. The heat wave was in Europe. Now it’s in Arctic. We’re seeing huge melting of the ice there. So, the warnings of the scientists 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, unfortunately were accurate.”

Despite all this gloom, he’s found “good news” in the Democratic presidential field, in which “virtually all of the candidates are agreed that this is either the top issue or one of the top two issues.”

So what has Gore been predicting for the planet? In his horror movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” he claimed:

Sea levels could rise as much as 20 feet. He didn’t provide a timeline, which was shrewd on his part. But even if he had said 20 inches, over 20 years, he’d still have been wrong. Sea level has been growing for about 10,000 years, and, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, continues to rise about one-eighth of an inch per year.

Storms are going to grow stronger. There’s no evidence they are stronger nor more frequent.

Mt. Kilimanjaro was losing its snow cap due to global warming. By April 2018, the mountain glaciers were taking their greatest snowfall in years. Two months later, Kilimanjaro was “covered by snow” for “an unusually long stint. But it’s possible that all the snow and ice will be gone soon. Kilimanjaro is a stratovolcano, with a dormant cone that could erupt.

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/06/a-cold-dark-

The Democrats’ Green New Deal legislation was hailed as a smart, forward-looking effort to rid the world of this meddlesome carbon dioxide that is overheating the planet. But it is simply a costly and overburdening fantasy, as Sweden is learning with its own attempt to “curb global warming.”

The Sierra Club called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s GND “a big, bold transformation of the economy to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change.” (Give the gang credit for obliquely admitting the “fight” against global warming is driven by a desire to take over the economy.)

Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat and ancient gladiator, has compared the GND to defeating the Nazis and putting men on the moon.

Both Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar found it to be “aspirational.”

Al Gore, famous for being a vice president and climate Paul Revere, who should be infamous for lying about global warming, has said he is “strongly in favor of” the GND.

More reasonable thinkers less concerned about appearing hip than getting to the truth have determined the GND would cost up to $93 trillion over its first decade. That’s quite a bit of money for a problem that might not exist.

And, as Sweden is learning, there are not only excessive costs incurred by “going green,” there are practical problems, as well, in particular energy shortages.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/opinion-post/climate-

“There is a notable disparity between the sea-rise data sets favoured by catastropharian climateers and actual observations. What those numbers highlight most of all is the distorting green lens through which one-eyed advocates choose to see that which exists only in their doom-laden imaginations.”

The splendiferous east coast of Tasmania never ceases to please with all its myriad landscapes. So it was a little discombobulating to recently pass a sign planted hard against the flow of traffic following the serpentine track that threads the coastal communities, proclaiming ‘Climate Change Is Killing the Planet’. As it was only about eight degrees at the time, I was reasonably confident I would make my destination before something akin to the fate of the death star transpired and, thankfully, I was right.

It did however get me to thinking how corrupt the science of the carbon cycle has truly become in the hyperbolic atmosphere of climate politics. You would likely need a temperature increase in excess of 100 degrees in order to extinguish all life, including prokaryotes, from the biosphere — and even then creatures at depth, both aquatic and terrestrial, would probably find safe harbour. Not to disappoint my sign-erecting fellow Taswegian, but his or her prophecy can’t possibly be achieved through carbon emissions alone. Furthermore, the complete death of the planet, depending on how you might define that, may require extinguishing all its iron and siliceous substrate into stardust, a mighty feat even for that arch villain, CO2.

Wishing to stay open minded about what 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide had inflicted on the planet, I was intrigued when it was announced recently that what has been a great example of citizen science orchestrated under the banner of the Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACECRC) was to be more or less abandoned, possibly due to being unhelpful to the narrative that accompanies climate change dogma. Known as TASMARC (Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring & Archiving Project), this admirable public access project,
with dedicated volunteers at the dune face of data collection, commenced tracking the gradient of 16 beaches around the Apple Isle in 2005, the object being to measure ‘the shoreline and the way it is responding to storm events and sea-level rise.