Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’

Deranged Alarmist Predictions

March 26, 2015

Global warming…oops…make that Climate change alarmists pontificate, extrapolate, and exaggerate in extreme ways to push their views. Senior House Democrat Barbara Lee from California takes it to a level that is as ridiculous as it is apocalyptic.

According to Lee, climate change (though she really means global warming) will cause food and water scarcity that will hit women the hardest. Why? Because it could force many women to barter sexual favors for food. Furthermore, “[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health”.

Turning every issue into a women’s issue is getting as old as playing the race card – and of course, global warming has been predicted to disproportionately impact communities of color. Barbara Lee lumps women together with orange-spotted filefish, polar bears, Adelie penguins, North Atlantic cod, golden toads, and Asia – all of which have been predicted to be hit the hardest by global warming.

Things said to be caused, worsened, or damaged by global warming have become ridiculous. The Syrian civil war and the Ebola outbreak may sound crazy, but they seem reasonable compared to other items on an almost endless list. Global warming could produce huge harvests in places where crops have never grown or cause ice bergs to float onto shores where fresh water is desperately needed or provide new lands that are currently uninhabitable, but those predictions do not fit the agenda.

Barbara Lee has no particular background or training qualifying her to make such a prediction. All she has is a religious conviction in her belief of global warming, no doubt blessed by Al Gore, and a feminist axe to grind. Unfortunately, she is a member of the House of Representatives and that gives her a veneer of authority she does not deserve.

David J. Hentosh

Saving the World at Davos

January 28, 2015

The World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland has come up with a solution to stop “humanity’s suicidal effort to heat the Earth’s climate” – aka “climate change”, once called “global warming”. The solution is to spend $90 Trillion dollars to redesign all the cities on earth to accommodate more densely packed neighborhoods, thereby, eliminating the need for cars.

This fantastic proposal comes from Al Gore who made gazillions by alarming the world with dire global warming predictions. He joined with Felipe Calderon, former president of Mexico, and several other of the world’s elite ruling class to help save the world from his predicted demise. A side benefit contained in his proposal drops the level of deforestation to zero but maybe, with a little coaxing, he will include world peace.

There are as many as 1700 private jets bringing billionaires to this year’s Davos forum to discuss how to solve the world’s problems, particularly how to reduce carbon footprints. The irony of all those jets burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere is lost on attendees as was the irony of last year’s most-discussed theme, inequality.

These super rich are out-of-touch with anything approaching a normal human being’s existence. They are the cream of the 1% crop, obsessed with their own magnificence. This year, they acknowledged that Europe wasted $140 billion on green energy projects, the same fanciful projects they’ve pushed since Al Gore raised the global warming alarm.

Many of them are now preparing for the consequences of the inequality and growing civil unrest brought on by the economic chaos they helped create. Some are buying farms and airstrips in faraway places where they can escape to if things get out of hand. They will continue saving the world from those places the same as they do from Davos, convinced of their infallibility.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

David J. Hentosh

Pope Francis Becomes a Strange Bedfellow

January 27, 2015

Progressive liberals do not like religion, especially the Catholic religion, but they will embrace and exploit anything and anyone to advance their agenda. Pope Francis’ belief in man-made global warming and his chastising of mankind for spoiling the planet has now made him a strange bedfellow of Progressives.

Calling mankind “stewards of God’s creation”, Pope Francis stated: “When we destroy our forests, ravage our soil and pollute our seas, we betray that noble calling.” That certainly sounds very reasonable but, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Pope Francis did not elaborate and he did not provide evidence for global warming or for his belief that it is “mostly” man-made. One can say that being the Pope, he doesn’t have to, but this is not a religious matter and it is not covered in the Bible. It is a scientific matter and progressives should be upset with the Pope’s excursion into science.

After all, progressives are adamant that only science can determine when a fetus becomes a human being and they insist that the Pope’s beliefs are irrelevant on such a scientific issue. Therefore, they would have to include the science of global warming, but that may be too rational and not “nuanced” enough for progressives. In any event, the Pope has now tilted leftward far enough to cause many conservative Republicans consternation if not outright rebelliousness.

The Pope is considered by Catholics to be infallible on issues of the church, not on issues of science. His soon-to-be-issued encyclical on global warming will not be appreciated by conservative Republicans who make up a large segment of the Church’s base in the US. He has already alienated many and this will make him a “divider” rather than a “uniter” in their eyes.

Progressiveness excels at dividing and the Catholic Church is not immune. Sermonizing about global warming is sure to empty more pews and the Church can ill afford more empty pews. Pope Francis may be doing more harm than good by opening this progressive Pandora’s Box.

David J. Hentosh

Tired of All the Gore

May 14, 2014

Al Gore doesn’t know when to stop. Like an aging rock star, he needs constant public exposure and celebrity treatment so he keeps regurgitating the same old same old to stay in the spotlight. He’s back again with more political hyperbole and talk of doom – but with much less credibility.

Many global warming predictions have proved to be wrong including Gore’s famous one from 2008 stating: “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years”. His book, “An Inconvenient Truth”, was debunked by many but it put him on a progressive pedestal as a scientific expert and helped him accumulate millions of dollars. It also sparked panic in the entire world with dire predictions.

Billions of dollars have been spent in efforts to avoid catastrophes that global alarmists warned were coming. Over a billion people were predicted to die from global warming related causes by 2012. North America and Eurasia were expected to be desolated by horrific drought and food riots by 1996. In 2000, it was predicted that in a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”. (Tell that to Northeast children after this past winter.)

The problem now is that the entire issue has become so filled with political bunk that nothing makes sense and nothing can be believed. This is a case of the “boy crying wolf” too many times to be taken seriously so if a crisis really hits, we will find ourselves “Gored” senseless and ill-prepared.

Gore is now on the “blame the Koch brothers” bandwagon, claiming GOP fear of the Koch brothers keeps them from admitting the truth about global warming. Evil global warming teams up with the evil Koch brothers and the press is running to Al Gore for guidance. The spotlight is on, hyperbole is flying, and Gore is, once again, riding the tide.

How very tiring it all is.

David J. Hentosh

Cooling Down on Global Warming

February 1, 2013

Al Gore is taking one last stab at fear-mongering with his latest book, “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change”, but his credibility is dying as is the panic over global warming. New data continues to show that not only is the sky no longer falling, it may not have been falling at all.

A recent Norwegian climate research project shows that the earth’s mean temperature rise which occurred throughout the 1990’s has leveled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. In other words, there has been no global warming for well over a decade. Another report coming soon from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

Every change in climate patterns has been labeled ‘anthropomorphic global warming’ by progressives. Unfortunately, this has resulted in “climate change” becoming synonymous with “global warming” for those on both sides of the political aisle. The distinction is crucial for rational discourse, but that distinction has long been lost.

Since dire global warming predictions have failed dramatically, scientists are looking into reasons for changes in climate patterns and are finding many. The sun with its flares, not surprisingly, contributes much to changes in climate patterns. Rising heat from large cities also affects these patterns and, yes, the burning of fossil fuels contributes its share. However, the exact extent of each contributor is not yet scientifically discernible.

In an interview with Jeffrey Kluger, TIME magazine’s science editor, global warming was confused with climate change as Kluger likened disbelievers to flat-earthers, stating that the “scientific knowledge” was too overwhelming for disbelief. This alludes to a so-called “consensus” among scientists that simply does not exist. There are thousands of scientists who dispute this PC-created global warming “consensus”, and confusion with climate change further clouds the issue.

For ideological believers, there is no data persuasive enough to shatter idealistic notions. For Al Gore, being wrong doesn’t matter as long as his bank account continues to grow. Science, however, will take years to gain back some of the credibility it lost by allowing politics to taint research.

David J. Hentosh

Unrealistic Climate Summit

December 10, 2011

The World Climate Summit (better titled “Occupy the World”) being held in Durban, South Africa has not been getting much media coverage even though it is full of progressive ideology. Perhaps that is because many of the ideas being floated there are so ridiculous they embarrass serious progressives.

The science chairman of the UN’s climate panel admitted that no one has been talking about climate science at this climate conference. Attempts at understanding the science would just be a detriment to the UN’s real goal of establishing a world government run by….you guessed it….the UN.

There is no chance of any agreement between nations at this conference, especially since Third World countries are immune from proposed regulations that would devastate Western economies. Therefore, the behind-the-scenes draft of further goals is little more than a wish list, but it reveals how far from reality these climate jockeys are – and how dangerous they can be.

Christopher Monckton, a renowned climate skeptic, summarized the goals “clearly” spelled out in the draft. Some of the main points he found were: An international climate court (with power only over Western nations); Establishment of rights of Mother Earth and “some parties” threatened by climate change; War and defense forces to cease because they contribute to climate change; Reduction of “more than 100%” in emissions by 2050 (Western countries only); A CO2 concentration target that ends up dangerous to plant life; Demands of $100 billion a year from Western countries – starting now (not a penny from third-world countries).

Highlighting the asininity of these demands, Christopher Monckton informs us that reducing emissions “more than 100%” (which, of course, is impossible) in the next 8 years would mean no more gas-run cars, trains, or airplanes and no more coal or gas-fired power stations. It would also mean no carbon-emitting fires in the caves we would all eventually end up living in.  Only windmills, solar power, and other “renewable” sources would be acceptable.

Of course, the UN’s world government would remain as the ultimate power source, deciding which third-world country would receive the benefits and spoils from each Western country forced to fail under the onerous regulations. That would turn the UN into the evil 1%.

David J. Hentosh

Collision of Science and Politics

November 29, 2011

The latest round of leaked e-mails of climate scientists proves, once again, that science and politics don’t mix well. No matter how you “interpret” the e-mails or “take them out of context” as some have accused, reading them leaves little doubt that politics is a factor in the scientists’ evaluations. That is enough to taint the credibility of anything they report.

The “consensus” that the media continually tells us exists in the scientific community concerning climate is always challenged by members of that same community. Some have expressed the difficulty they have in doing so because it goes against the grain of the far-left agenda found in many of the places they work. Agenda-driven science is meaningless.

The release of the latest e-mails was carefully timed to coincide with this year’s UN climate summit. This, too, is politically motivated and suffers the consequence of appearing as nothing more than a political stunt. The entire climate issue has become a subject of public scorn, negating any facts that emerge from scientific studies.

The mixing of politics and science was the catalyst for the Solyndra scandal. The administration’s “green” agenda idealistically tried to force new, expensive technology onto a public unwilling to pay the price. Convinced of its own scientific savvy and bolstered by political opposition to it, the administration backed this failure to the tune of a half billion taxpayer dollars.

The Chevy Volt, another administration-backed technological solution, is now having problems with fires. The government agency due to investigate said it “…continues to believe that electric vehicles have incredible potential to save consumers money at the pump, help protect the environment, create jobs and strengthen national security by reducing our dependence on oil”. After expressing that much faith and belief in the Volt, can anyone really expect this agency to objectively investigate?

Government grants have historically been a boon to science, but politics has now become the fly in the ointment. Unless this stops, scientific research will become just another slice of American excellence found only in history books.

David J. Hentosh

Shocking News: The Sun Drives Earth’s Climate

August 30, 2011

According to CERN, one of the world’s most respected centers for scientific research, the sun is the primary driver of climate change on earth. This is sure to shock those who firmly believe man is the most powerful (and most evil) force in our solar system – that is, of course, if this scientific finding gets reported by the mainstream media.

In a project labeled “CLOUD”, scientists demonstrated that cosmic rays grow seed clouds inside earth’s atmosphere and since the sun’s magnetic field shields the earth from cosmic rays, fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field determines the amount of those cosmic rays and, therefore, heavily influences the temperature of the earth. Perhaps that explains why the earth has had many cooling and heating periods in bygone years long before evil man created the internal combustion engine.

Fearing PC repercussions, the director of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, said: “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” that would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.” It is, of course, a scientist’s job to interpret scientific data, but that would intrude upon Al Gore’s self-imposed duty to force data to conform to his economically advantageous agenda.

The most common retort against anyone refuting man-made climate change is to insult their intelligence and call them “deniers”. It will be interesting to see if the scientists at CERN are called ignorant dummies. Then, again, it is more probable that this scientific finding will be ignored and Al Gore will get more face time on TV to help convince non-believers. After all, who could possibly believe that an enormous hot ball, 109 times the size of the earth, could have any effect on the temperature of the earth?

David J. Hentosh

Dark Days for Solar Power

February 22, 2011

From the Washington Times:

Ever heard of the Solyndra solar-cell plant in Fremont, Calif.? Most people haven’t. That’s a shame, considering how much taxpayer money has been poured into it.

Solyndra is in serious financial trouble. Despite getting a $535 million bailout – part of the taxpayer-funded “stimulus” – the company subsequently announced it would lay off more than 17 percent of its work force. It also had to close one of its manufacturing plants about a year after it got the money. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is launching an investigation.

That’s understandable. After all, it wasn’t supposed to turn out this way for Solyndra and other solar-cell producers. President Obama and Sen. Barbara Boxer both campaigned at the plant, touting the “green jobs” that would flow from government investment in companies that produce renewable energy.

How that bit of economic magic was supposed to occur is a mystery. Solyndra’s production costs are more than six times those of other producers. Even with strong backing from Washington, the company had to cancel a $300 million initial public offering after a bad audit from PricewaterhouseCoopers. As the New York Times noted in an article on Solyndra, “the project spotlights the risks of government intervention in a dynamic market.”

Read the rest here.

An Inconvenient Truth About Climate Change

February 10, 2011

In late January, a group of eighteen scientists (including Penn State professor Michael Mann, who was part of the “Hockey Stick” team, which became Climategate) sent a letter to Congress urging them to take a “fresh look at climate change,” along the way taking the opportunity to disparage anyone who disagrees with them.

Well, those disparaged aren’t taking this sitting down, and wrote their own letter to Congress, taking exception to the claims made by the alarmists and referring to a point-by-point rebuttal to them. And if the climate alarmists ignore that, there’s a larger report from 2009 that makes the same case.

And should anyone suggest that the signers of this letter are nuts or not equipped to speak to the climate change issue, the list includes scientists from institutions such as Princeton, Penn, UVA, Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, U.S. Water Conservation Lab, MIT, and the American Association of State Climatologists.

It’s about time someone took a second look at “An Inconvenient Truth.”

See the letter here.

aln


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers