Twenty-one children are using the courts in reliably left-wing Oregon to claim that the Trump administration’s policy on climate change is violating their constitutional rights.
As the Washington Postreported Wednesday:
The federal government’s request to halt the lawsuit “is entirely premature,” wrote Judge Sidney Thomas, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“We’re looking forward to putting the federal government on trial on climate science and its dangerous fossil fuel policies,” said Julia Olson, the lead attorney for the young plaintiffs and chief counsel of Our Children’s Trust.
Kids, eh? Is there anything they don’t know about climate change, what with all that expert brainwashing they get at school from true believer teachers and from woke animated TV series like Captain Planet and Magic School Bus?
Climate alarmists are expressing great concern about the departure of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn from the White House. They believe it is a sign that their influence over President Trump is waning – and with it their chances of persuading him to reverse his decision to quit the Paris climate accord.
According to E & E news:
George David Banks left last month after failing to get a permanent security clearance. He handled international energy issues and was viewed as a top voice pushing for re-engagement in the Paris climate accord. That, combined with Cohn’s exit, weakens the prospects that the United States will remain in the global agreement. Trump has said he’ll pull out of the Paris pact, but he can’t formally do that until November 2020.
“One thing is for certain, the pro-Paris crowd has certainly been dealt a setback these past few weeks,” said Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research.
Good. With the possible exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Javanka, Cohn was surely the most powerful and dangerous advocate for green lunacy in the Trump administration.
Which of these characters, you wonder, is the most absurd choice to symbolize the global war on climate change?
At first glance, perhaps, it ought to be ‘Red’. ‘Red’, after all, is nothing but a cartoon character from a popular video game and has never, either in his gaming or his spin-off movie career, shown the slightest interest in anthropogenic global warming theory, carbon emissions or sustainability. That’s because his only real interest is in saving eggs from pigs.
Then again, being a fictional character who doesn’t exist in real life, you could argue that Red is the perfect metaphor for climate change – which shares every one of these characteristics.
Scientists had known of an Adélie penguin colony (Pygoscelis adeliae) in these Danger Islands, but satellite images revealed more guano on the rocky islands than could be explained by the colony’s expected numbers.
Even though the tiny island chain is only about 10 kilometers across, researchers hadn’t realized the extent of the penguin population, says study coauthor Heather Lynch, an ecologist at Stony Brook University in New York. “In the Antarctic, distances are so vast, something major could be just around the corner and you wouldn’t know.”
Obviously this is great news for Adélie penguin fans. But terrible news for environmentalists. The penguin is what you might call their ‘polar bear of the south’ – that is, the cute, lovable, telegenic species most frequently cited in their propaganda stories about polar critters threatened by “climate change.”
Susan Crockford, arguably the world’s greatest polar bear expert, has some really bad news for environmentalists.
Their favorite ursine poster child of climate doom is doing great. Polar bear populations are stable, if not growing. That stuff you read in the liberal media about bears starving to death because thin summer sea ice is pure nonsense. The only evidence we have that polar bears are in any kind of trouble is the fake evidence of activists’ computer models.
Crockford’s full State of the Polar Bear Report 2017, produced for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, can be read here.
Here is a summary of its conclusions:
• Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur.
• Abundant prey and adequate sea ice in spring and early summer since 2007 appear to explain why global polar bear numbers have not declined, as might have been expected as a result of low summer sea ice levels.
• The greatest change in sea ice habitat since 1979 was experienced by Barents Sea polar bears and the least by those in Southern Hudson Bay, the most southerly region inhabited by bears.
• As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear health or survival.
• Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed an increase in the number of individuals starving to death or too thin to reproduce.
• A just-released report of Southern Beaufort Sea bears having difficulty finding prey in 2014– 2016 suggests that the thick ice events that have impacted the region every ten years or so since the 1960s have continued despite reduced summer sea ice.
• Claims of widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies were disproven by DNA studies.
• Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the status of this failed global warming icon.
Or – short version – pretty much everything that Greenpeace, the WWF, the IPCC, the IUCN, the Guardian, CNN and the New York Times have ever told you about polar bears is a lie.
What particularly interests me about Crockford’s report are the extraordinary similarities it shows between global warming alarmism and polar bear alarmism.
In theory, there ought to be no connection whatsoever. Global warming studies, after all, involve scientific specialities like meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, palaeoclimatology. Polar bear studies, on the other hand, tend much more to lie in the realm of zoology.
Yes. How could we ever have doubted it? All this freezing weather we’ve been having is, of course, yet another sign that global warming is real. And anyway, we shouldn’t take any notice of all this white stuff that is shutting down schools, making journeys impossible, and generally freezing our asses off. Rather, we should be focusing our attention on what’s happening way to the north where no one actually lives. Apparently.
Why do so many apparently informed, intelligent, educated people still believe in ManBearPig?
For the same reason that the U.S. underestimated the Japanese threat before Pearl Harbor; that General MacArthur stupidly advanced north of the 38th parallel in Korea; that JFK got embroiled in the Bay of Pigs disaster; that LBJ dragged the U.S. deeper and deeper into the Vietnam War.
A phenomenon known as ‘groupthink’.
Though the name dates back to a 1952 article in Fortune magazine by William H Whyte, it wasn’t popularized for another twenty years when a Yale research psychologist called Irving Janis used it in the title of his influential 1972 Victims of Groupthink.
Little did he know it – Janis was looking to past events like the ones mentioned above, not the future – but his book would anatomize with unerring accuracy the perverse mindset which would lead to the creation of the biggest, most expensive junk science scam the world has ever witnessed: the great global warming scare.
Though it’s quite a long read, I do recommend you have at least a dip because it contains so many pertinent answers to that question you so often hear from global warming true believers: “What kind of crazy conspiracy theorist would you have to be to think that so many experts from science, politics, business, the
media, even the oil industry would lie to us about the scale of the problem?”
The Arctic is melting catastrophically! Sea ice levels are experiencing their most precipitous decline in 1500 years! Something must be done – and fast!
Well, so claims the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and we know by now what that means, don’t we?
Yep: the Arctic sea ice is doing just fine. Yep: yet again, the NOAA is telling porkies.
First, here’s what the NOAA is claiming, as relayed in a scaremongering piece at Vox:
The Arctic Ocean once froze reliably every year. Those days are over.
Arctic sea ice extent has been measured by satellites since the 1970s. And scientists can sample ice cores, permafrost records, and tree rings to make some assumptions about the sea ice extent going back 1,500 years. And when you put that all on a chart, well, it looks a little scary.
In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card, which analyzes the state of the frozen ocean at the top of our world. Overall, it’s not good.
“The Arctic is going through the most unprecedented transition in human history,” Jeremy Mathis, director of NOAA’s Arctic research program, said at a press conference. “This year’s observations confirm that the Arctic shows no signs of returning to the reliably frozen state it was in just a decade ago.”
In the last quarter of 2017, Soros Fund Management reported investments in eleven new fossil fuel corporations totalling nearly $160 million, according to his company’s December 31, 2017, filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission reviewed by TheDCNF.
His investments in fossil fuels undermines his public pledge to use his money to eliminate the oil, gas and coal industries, claiming they threaten the planet by accelerating climate change.
The billionaire’s most recent political efforts to warn about climate change was his underwriting of the organizations behind the April 29, 2017, “People’s Climate March” that marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s administration. Soros donated $36 million to 18 of the march’s 55 steering committee organizations between 2000 to 2014, according to the Media Research Center.
As with his pal Tom “Rhymes with Liar” Steyer – another billionaire environmental campaigner who has made a chunk of his fortune from fossil fuels – it appears to be a case of “do as I say, not do as I do.”
Here is NOAA’s January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. – an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD.
You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you?
That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.