CDC Claim Earthquake is a Type of Weather.

You know you’re reading an article about global warming when even an institution as serious and normally sober as the Centre for Disease Control (CDC)  starts spewing rubbish like this.

The CDC has a webpage warning of deaths caused by climate change in the USA, which it claims amount to several hundred a year. Now, here’s me thinking that “Weather is not climate change” but apparently for these purposes, weather is climate change. The CDC compare deaths from climate change heat to other “Weather-related deaths” -

Extreme heat events, or heat waves, are the most common cause of weather-related deaths in the United States. They cause more deaths each year than hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined.

CDC: Climate Change Extreme Heat

Wait, what? Earthquakes are “weather-related”?

But notice the way that one supposition is smoothly slid past the reader of this page whilst they’re taking this all in. For those heretics that claim that cold winters disprove global warming, the standard response is always an exasperated “weather is not climate”. Geez. Don’t you guys get that? But at the same time as we’re being brow-beaten with that claim, we’re also being fed the line that weather IS climate: when it strengthens the claim of calamitous global warming.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the poster from the CDC web page -

 

CDC: When weather is climate change.

 

So remember, when weather doesn’t fit the pattern of global warming, it’s just weather. When it bolsters the message of eternal hell-fire and damnation for not paying your carbon sin tax then weather is most definitely climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

hauntingthelibrary:

Reblogged from NoFrakkingConsensus.

Originally posted on NoFrakkingConsensus:

The Sierra Club takes fossil fuel money. So does the Nature Conservancy and Rajendra Pachauri’s sustainability conference. So why is the Heartland Institute being torn to pieces for the same behaviour?

A certain accusation is repeated time and again in the climate debate. It’s said that skeptics are lavishly funded by fossil fuel interests that are orchestrating a deliberate disinformation campaign. The implication is that wealthy energy companies are analogous to Goliath – and that green groups are underfunded, pathetic little Davids.

These accusations appeared 14 years ago in Ross Gelbspan’s book, The Heat is On. The Amazon.com description, dating back to September 1998, says the book

examines the campaign of deception by big coal and big oil that is keeping [climate change] off the public agenda…

Chris Mooney’s 2005 The Republican War on Science made similar allegations. In 2007, Newsweek magazine devoted a cover story to this same…

View original 1,530 more words

Wait, What? Save Arctic Wildlife: By Shooting it?

I’ll say this for so-called “climate scientists” and activists: just when you think they couldn’t possibly come up with a whackier idea (“earthworms cause global warming!”) they prove that, yes, they have even crazier ideas running around in their heads. Here’s the latest: A group of a dozen climate and environmental “scientists” have written to the journal Conservation Letters to urge that we save the polar bear from global warming – by shooting it if necessary. I know, crazy as a loon. But the other options that Desrochers and his chums suggest are if anything even more off-the-wall, special-jacket-with-wraparound-sleeves insane. For example, how about saving polar bears and the planet by shooting seals and then flying them vast distances before dropping them out of helicopters to encourage the bears not to congregate?

Derocher said in an email that the goal would be to distribute food, such as seals, in sufficient quantities over large distances so that hungry bears, forced ashore by lack of ice, would not come into conflict by vying for the same food. The goal would be to keep bear populations widely scattered, as attracting too many bears to central locations could increase the risk of disease transmission. Helicopters could be used to deliver the seals, but the logistics and expense of such a plan would be daunting. Thousands of seals would have to be killed by wildlife officials every summer to meet the needs of hungry bears, who each consume up to five seals a week. Yale Environment 360: Will Bold Steps Be Needed to Save Beleaguered Polar Bears?

Climate scientists plan to save the Arctic wildlife by shooting it.

Wait, WHAT? Your idea to save the polar bears and the planet from global warming you say is caused by burning fossil fuel is to butcher thousands of seals  every year and fly them vast distances by chopper? Words fail me. It’s so wonderfully insane it’s beyond description. But wait, it gets even loopier. Apparently there’s also the option to have polar bear foster families. Here, the idea is that you take polar cubs from their natural parents (hey, no problem there right?) and fly them thousands of miles away where another polar bear will look after them for you:

Another possible measure would be to relocate bears from more southerly regions, such as Hudson Bay, to more northerly regions, such as M’Clintock Channel in Nunavut in the high Canadian Arctic . . . Cubs from one population could also be flown to more northerly regions and placed with females that would rear them as “foster” cubs, Derocher said.

But if these brilliant schemes don’t work (duh . . . you think?) then there’s always the option to save the polar bears from global warming by killing them. That’s right. We could always put a bullet in the head of those polar bears befre the global warming gets to them. At least that way when sceptics argue that polar bear populations are increasing not declining you could make SURE that you could prove them wrong by killing more bears. Simple:

the paper mentions “intentional population reduction’” — the killing of starving bears. “Controlled reduction of population size through harvest might be necessary to ensure both human safety and a viable but smaller polar bear population as a result of declining habitat,” the paper said

Just like destroying the village to save it, these guys want to save the Arctic wildlife by shooting it. Seals, polar bears, and who knows what else. They have a plan to fight the global warming that isn’t happening.

Luckily for this bear, climate scientists saved it before it was killed by global warming.

Will Obama get BTU’d by Gore’s Carbon Tax?

More detail on Gore’s previous attempt to get a carbon tax levied on Americans. His hated “British Thermal Unit Tax” or BTU Tax became so loathed it entered the political vocabulary as a euphemism for giving a lot and getting nothing in return (in other words, getting royally screwed over).

As I pointed out in a previous post, Gore’s current success in pushing Obama towards a carbon tax is not his first attempt. Previously, as VP in the Clinton administration he had pushed strenuously for a “British Thermal Units Tax” or “Energy Tax”. Though Clinton slammed the suggestion when it first proposed, others in the administration saw it as a way to give Gore “enough rope” and persuaded Clinton to let Gore try to shepherd the bill through congress. Not in the hope that it would pass – very few people expected it to – but in the hope that it would irrevocably weaken Gore’s standing in the White House. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen thought that Gore’s proposed carbon tax would be “a political and administrative nightmare” if it were ever introduced.

Sure enough, the proposed bill was introduced first to the House, where hapless Representatives were pressurized into signing it, and then to the Senate where it was shot down in flames, as senior staff members in the Clinton administration always knew it would be. The Carbon Tax BTU Bill now a flaming wreckage, Gore’s position in the White House was considerably weakened, and everyone (except Gore) went home a bit happier.

Reporter Bob Woodward – famous for his “Watergate” expose of Nixon gives us some of the background to Gore’s first attempt at a carbon tax. His account is interesting for the way it reveals that whilst most senior Democrats thought the idea was “loopy” they realised that Gore was behind the idea and were happy to let him run himself into the ground over it.

In his book The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House Woodward cites the reaction of the powerful Democrat Senator Patrick Moynihan, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to Gore’s proposal:

Over the last several months Moynihan had grown increasingly disturbed about the all-fuels BTU tax . . . With all the tinkering to satisfy special interests, the tax had grown so complicated that it would be an invitation to evasion. By one staff estimate, the BTU tax would add volumes to the U.S. tax code.

Bob Woodward, The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House

As the implications of Gore’s carbon tax begin to be realised by senior Democrats, more and more of them began privately voicing their horror at the idea to Clinton. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee promised defiance to Gore’s BTU tax declaring “I won’t cut the throats of my people“. John Breaux, the Democrat Senator from Louisiana trashed the idea as “downright goofy“.

Gore’s first crack at a carbon tax, based on the British Thermal Unit, came to be known in the White House as the hated British Thermal Unit Tax, or BTU Tax. Indeed, so despised and so politically disastrous was the fallout from Gore’s BTU Carbon tax that it even entered the political vernacular. To “get BTU’d” was to get nothing for something. Keith Hennessey explains:

In 1993 then-Vice President Gore led the Clinton Administration to propose increasing the taxation of energy. Called the “BTU tax,” the Administration proposed to tax the energy content of a fuel source, measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs).

The three vote margin of victory suggests that House Democratic leaders had to twist the arms of reluctant Democrat Members to vote aye. In this scenario, if you are a House Democrat who does not have a strong view on the substance but is nervous about the politics of voting for higher energy taxes, you would like the bill to pass (so that your leaders get what they want and stop pressuring you) without your vote (so that you don’t give your opponent back home an effective line of attack).

Those nervous House Democrats who had voted for the bill with the BTU tax had the worst of all worlds. They had cast a costly political vote for no policy benefit.

A phrase soon entered the legislative vernacular. Senate Democrats had “BTUd” House Democrats.

Keith Hennessey: Will House Democrats Get BTU’d on Climate Change?

Given the history of Gore’s carbon tax, a tax so hated that it gave rise to a slang expression “to get BTU’d”, to get screwed over, the question now surely is “Will Obama also allow himself to get BTU’d by Gore’s carbon tax?”

Dumb as a Potato: Cold Winters Caused by Global Warming.

I’d say that “You can’t make this stuff up” except that obviously you can make this stuff up.

The Grauniad offers a laughable new argument that lack of Arctic sea ice is responsible for cold winters. Here it is:

“The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80% less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic,” said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science.

According to Francis and a growing body of other researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.

“This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes,” she said. “It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south.

Guardian: Scientists Link Frozen Spring to Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Loss.

Got that? Sure? Read it carefully, because we’re now dealing with such an incredible level of stupid that I’ll need to break it down to deal with it. So commit this argument to memory.

Okay. The Stupid. Part I: “The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80% less than it was just 30 years ago”  -

The Guardian is quoting a researcher here who is directly contradicting the UK Met Office’s own Chief Scientist, as quoted in their own article. In effect, you can take your pick of which fact to believe in at any given point:

She [Julia Sligo, Met Office Chief Scientist] also said that suggestions the volume of sea ice had already declined by 75% already were not credible. “We know there is something [happening on the thinning of sea ice] but it’s not as dramatic as those numbers suggest.”

The problem, she explained, was that researchers did not know the thickness of Arctic sea ice with any confidence.

The Guardian. Met Office: Arctic Sea Ice Loss Linked to Drier, Colder UK Winters.

What conclusions should we draw when the Guardian quotes one “Scientist” who is making a claim that another, senior scientist, has previously slammed as “not credible”?

Even this potato was embarrassed to be associated with the Guardian's climate coverage.

Even this potato was embarrassed to be associated with the Guardian’s climate coverage.

 

Now The Stupid, part II – not only is the Guardian retailing a claim that has been directly contradicted in its own pages, but it’s making a claim that is patently wrong on the basis of historical fact. It quotes this “scientist” as blaming cold winters on a lack of sea ice compared to “30 years ago”

The problem here is that 30 years ago we were still having climate scientists warning us that pollution was leading the earth into an ice age, as record low temperatures blanketed America, Europe and the northern hemisphere. As the Examiner reports:


1983
A dome of upper level low pressure from the northern Plains into southern Canada combined with a deep trough pushed a cold front down to Tampico, Mexico bringing many record low temperatures for a large part of the country.
The mercury plunged to -51° at Wisdom, MT.  Wind chill readings were as low as -100° over a large part of North Dakota.  The high temperature at Minneapolis, MN struggled to reach -12°, a record for the date.
Many locations from the West Coast to the Ohio Valley reported record low temperatures for the date including: West Yellowstone, MT: -43°, Williston, ND: -38°, Valentine, NE: -37°, Virginia City, MT: -35°, North Platte, NE: -34°, Casper, WY: -33°, Lander, WY: -31°, Bismarck, ND: -30°, Sheridan, WY: -29°, Helena, MT: -28°, Missoula, MT: -27°, Lincoln, NE: -27° (broke previous record by 14 degrees), Sioux Falls, SD: -26°, Rapid City, SD: -25°, Pocatello, ID: -25°, Kalispell, MT: -25°, St. Cloud, MN: -24°, Omaha, NE: -24°, Shelby, MT: -24°, La Crosse, WI: -23°, Waterloo, IA: -23°, Duluth, MN: -22°, Grand Island, NE: -22°, Norfolk, NE: -22°, Cheyenne, WY: -21°, Kansas City, MO: -21°, Billings, MT: -20°, Minneapolis, MN: -20°, Dubuque, IA: -19°, Sioux City, IA: -18°, Rockford, IL: -18°, Springfield, IL: -18°, Madison, WI: -17°, Colorado Springs, CO: -17°, Des Moines, IA: -17°, Goodland, KS: -17°, Topeka, KS: -17°, Green Bay, WI: -16°, Concordia, KS: -16°, Spokane, WA: -15°, Pendleton, OR: -15°, Boise, ID: -15°, Burns, OR: -13°, Lewiston, ID: -13° (broke previous record by 10 degrees), South Bend, IN: -13°, Marquette, MI: -12°, Columbia, MO: -12°, Clayton, NM: -12°, Yakima, WA: -10°, Wichita, KS: -9°, Springfield, MO: -8°, Amarillo, TX: -7°, Toledo, OH: -6°, Fort Wayne, IN: -6°-Tied, St. Louis, MO: -5°, Detroit, MI: -4°, Olympia, WA: -3°, Oklahoma City, OK: -3°, Tulsa, OK: -2°, Wichita Falls, TX: 1°, Lubbock, TX: 1°, Abilene, TX: 2°, Fort Smith, AR: 2°, San Angelo, TX: 5°, Dallas (DFW), TX: 5°, Dallas (Love Field), TX: 5°, Midland-Odessa, TX: 8°, Roswell, NM: 9°, Quillayute, WA: 11°, Austin, TX: 12°, Salem, OR: 12°, Little Rock, AR: 12°, Seattle, WA: 14°, Portland, OR: 14°, Astoria, OR: 15°, Shreveport, LA: 15°, Austin (Bergstrom), TX: 16°, San Antonio, TX: 17°, Del Rio, TX: 19°, Victoria, TX: 20°, Houston, TX: 20° and Galveston, TX: 24°.

Examiner: Weather History: December 22: Record Cold of 1983, 1989 & 1990, Snowstorms, Wind and Ice

So, let’s sum up the Guardian’s argument here: record low Arctic sea ice coverage is happening right now and is also “simply not credible”. It’s causing the bitterly cold winters we’re suffering from, but then the supposedly higher Arctic sea ice coverage of 30 years ago ALSO caused cold winters.

Only one thing you can conclude from coverage like that: dumb as a potato.

Watch Now: Ukraine Declares State of Emergency as Spring Starts With “record snowfalls”.

RT is reporting that Ukraine has declared a state of emergency in its capital city, Kiev, and surrounding districts as Spring begins with  “record snowfalls”.

It reports that

The situation in the city is so dire that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has signed a special decree urging all government agencies to provide maximum assistance to victims of the snowstorm.

The military is also involved in rescuing the city from its snowbound condition as 550 servicemen are deployed to the capital to aid the community services.

RT: APCs Deployed on Kiev Streets, Emergency as Record Snowfalls Turn Ukraine Into Chaos.

A month’s worth of snow fell in less than 24 hours as record cold and snow hit Ukraine and Russia. Military and civilian forces are being deployed in a desperate effort to keep entrances to shops and metro stations clear of snowdrifts, let alone the roads.

A Kiev resident struggles to cope with global warming. (Photo credit RT).

A Kiev resident struggles to cope with global warming. (Photo credit RT).

Weather forecasters are saying this Spring is likely to be the coldest in decades, with the freezing wintery weather expected to grip until the end of the month with temperatures well below freezing:

The snow front is moving eastward and is expected to hit Moscow on Saturday evening or Sunday, lasting until almost the end of March. A gale warning is announced in Russia’s capital and the Moscow Region.

The synoptic service say that the current March may become the coldest in Moscow in the last 33 years as they forecast temperatures of around minus 9 or 10 degrees Celsius, which is around nine degrees below average.

Meanwhile, our source was unable to confirm rumours that Al Gore and Michael Mann had been planning to address Kiev University this weekend on the subject of global warming.

Bill Clinton Slams Carbon Tax: “Helps the Bond Markets and Hurts the People”.

Albert Gore II and the British Thermal Unit: the Untold Story of Gore’s Previous Carbon Tax Attempt. 

Albert Gore II (or plain ol’ “Al” Gore as he likes to be known) has thrown his weight behind the idea of taxing fossil fuels, linking to an article on the idea from his personal blog. Indeed, in an interview with Reuters last year, Gore boasted that “For 30 years, I’ve advocated a tax on carbon dioxide”. A remark that went seemingly unquestioned by the Reuter’s correspondent.

But for once Gore was telling the truth – just not the whole truth. He has indeed been a long time fan of the idea of a carbon tax, his keenly tuned political senses perhaps sniffing an opportunity for money-making and funding behind it. If this seems a little curmudgeonly consider that David Brower, the grand old man of American environmentalism himself bitterly concluded that the Clinton / Gore adminstration “has done more to harm the environment and to weaken environmental regulations in three years than Presidents Bush and Reagan did in 12 years”.

Gore had indeed previously tried to get the idea of a carbon tax seriously considered when he was Vice-President in the Clinton administration. The background to this was Gore’s infamously incompetent “downsizing” of the federal government (a GAO investigation later concluded that the vast majority of the “savings” made by the downsizing were mythical). Faced with scathing criticism from within his own party, Gore came up with a way to raise revenue and placate his buddies on Wall Street: a carbon tax.

Albert Gore II’s first attempt at a carbon tax has been largely erased from history, as it was killed in its early stages by Clinton, who was perceptive enough to realise that it would be seen for what it was: a transference on an unprecedented scale of money from the middle classes to the wealthy bond traders and stock market speculators. Here’s muckraking journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair on Gore’s first carbon tax proposal and Clinton’s infuriated condemnation of it:

Gore suprised everyone [at the White House meeting] by saying he favored an energy tax, based on the British Thermal Unit, or BTU. He explained that this tax would help fulfill pledges to the environmental movement, since it would fall most heavily on fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil. In the longer term, he argued, it would also encourage conservation and a shift to alternative fuels, meaning natural gas and nuclear power. Gore claimed that the Europeans and the  Japanese were waiting for the United States to show leadership and would soon follow suit. Deficit reduction, combined with the energy tax, would be painful medicine, Gore continued, but it would be a bold stroke, comparable to the heady initiatives of FDR’s New Deal. This prompted another sarcastic outburst from Clinton: “FDR was trying to help people. Here, we help the bond market and hurt the people who voted us in“.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair, Al Gore: A User’s Manual.

Note as well that for all his populist posturing on the dangers and costs of nuclear power, in private Gore was touting a carbon tax on the grounds that it would inevitably lead to a turn towards nuclear power. The fact that, in another example of Gore’s bewilderingly complex political opportunism, he had previously shut down a promising research program that might have eliminated nuclear waste at the same time as generating electricity – a win/win situation if ever there was one – is simply par for the course for Albert Gore II.

Unsurprisingly then, Gore’s first attempt to push through a carbon tax was shut down by Clinton who saw through Gore’s protestations of saving the earth. Recognising that it would mean a truly epic transfer of wealth from the working population to the investment banks and Wall Street, Clinton told Gore to stick his British Thermal Unit and sent him packing. But, ever alert to changing political fortunes, Gore now thinks he senses another President is ripe to be persuaded of the benefits of a carbon tax. Expect to hear more from Albert Gore II and his chums on Wall Street.