Study: Global Warming Has Saved Us from a New Ice Age

The new research, published in the journal Nature, examined the eight global ice ages over the past 800,000 years and used complex climate models to determine the critical factors that kickstarted the big freezes.

The result was surprisingly simple. A particular combination of lower sunlight at a latitude of 65 deg N, where snow surviving through the summer leads to ice sheets, and low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was the signal for a new ice age to dawn. The level of sunlight is very predictable as it varies with cyclical changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and in the tilt of the Earth’s axis, called Milankovitch cycles.

But the level of CO2 has been drastically altered by human activity, rising from 280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution to 400ppm today. The researchers showed that even if carbon emissions are limited to the amount consistent with a 2C rise in temperatures – the internationally agreed goal – there will be enough CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid future ice ages that could have started 50,000 or 90,000 years from now.

Since a new ice age would kill life on earth far more effectively than a few degrees C of global warming, this ought to be good news. Unfortunately the study needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt because it’s based on “complex climate models” and emanates from Germany’s fanatically warmist Potsdam Institute, which is ideologically committed to “proving” that CO2 is a significant driver of “climate change” even when most real-world evidence suggests it’s not.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Obama’s State of the Union Climate Nonsense, Debunked

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it.  You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it.

If you put enough swill in the trough, Mr. President, the piggies will come running.

Our military

The military are on board because the government pays them to be (see also Muslim outreach; women in the military; etc) and because the Commander in Chief orders them to be.

America’s business leaders

The corporations are in it to “greenwash” their image and because they welcome the extra regulatory costs which are effective at closing down smaller competitors. Also, if they’re called Solyndra or Bright Source, or they’re part of the subsidised wind industry, they’re in it because you’re bribing them with taxpayers’ money.

The majority of the American people

In a Pew Survey in November last year, 45 percent of Americans considered climate change a “serious problem”, 41 percent believed it was “harming people now” and 30 percent were “very concerned it will harm me personally.” Not a majority then.

Almost the entire scientific community

The scientific community — like the military — is largely dependent on public funding, which is currently heavily geared towards the “global warming” scam. Still, we know that since 1998 more than 31,000 scientists — 9,000 with PhDs — have signed a petition disputing man-made global warming theory. We also know that the ’97 percent consensus’ figure often cited by Obama (but not this time: his spin doctors are getting cannier) has been roundly debunked as a complete fabrication.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

No One Wants to Buy Electric Cars. Good.

And who can blame them?

Apart from being poky and tinny and smug and expensive and utterly useless for long distances, electric cars are also terrible for health and the environment, as even environmentalist Bill Gates has recognised:

People think, Oh, well, I’ll just get an electric car. There are places where if you buy an electric car, you’re actually increasing CO2 emissions, because the electricity infrastructure is emitting more CO2 than you would have if you’d had a gasoline-powered car.

Electric cars, in other words, are the motoring equivalent of a neon sign saying: “I am a total wanker.” Which is why everyone who is not a total wanker prefers gasoline-powered vehicles. With the oil price so low – and looking to stay low for some considerable time yet – it makes perfect sense.

Since gas prices have been declining for a year now, and the national price of a gallon of unleaded is about $1.97 at the moment, Americans just aren’t making fuel-efficiency a priority with their new car choices. The biggest winners in 2015’s record-breaking new car-a-palooza were Jeep, Ram and any brand with a lot of SUVs, trucks and crossovers.

In Britain, it’s just the same. Not only are consumers shunning electric cars but they are gravitating towards bigger, gas-guzzling cars which they might previously have considered impractical. I’m one of them. When the lease on my diesel-powered Skoda runs out, I’m almost certainly going to buy a big, chunky, 4 x 4  like, maybe, a second-hand LandRover Discovery. If, as I do, you live in the remote country and you need to drive very fast so as to ensure the milk doesn’t go sour on the epic journey back from the supermarket, then clearly it’s very important that if you smash into an obstacle – a muntjac deer, say; or a gang of Romanians who’ve just pinched the lead off your church roof; or a Prius driver on their way to save a sett of tubercular badgers – you do so with minimum damage to your own vehicle.

That’s what God is trying to tell us through the medium of low oil prices: that a) He absolutely loathes the Middle East and everyone in it (apart from the Israelis, obviously, who are His Chosen People) and b) that He is sick to death of bleeding heart mimsers who take weird pride in the tinny crapness of their eco-cars and that He wants them all to die.

Even if it isn’t what God wants, though, it’s definitely what the free market is telling us. This is the glory of the untrammelled economic system: it is the collective product of million upon million voluntary decisions by free individuals based on informed calculations. No economist, no government functionary could ever replicate this system through management or regulation because they could never hope to gain access to the complex and ever-changing data which informs all these consumer decisions.

But that’s never going to stop our political leaders trying, is it?

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Met Office Lies: December Was Not the ‘Wettest Month Evah’

This is at best dishonest and at worst a blatant lie. Its only excuse is that cunning little asterisk, which leads you to the weasel get-out clause “*Data from the Met Office’s UK digitised records dating back to 1910.”

So not “since records began” then. But, rather, “since the records that suit our political purpose began.” Because, of course, as Paul Homewood notes the Met Office has records going much further back than 1910 – to 1776, in fact – which totally demolish this claim.

We know, for example, that the wettest December in England and Wales was in 1876. And that the wettest calendar month was in October 1903.

But of course it suits the Met Office’s purposes to pretend otherwise because it enables on-message environment correspondents like the BBC’s Warmist-In-Chief Roger Harrabin to continue the spurious narrative that there is a link between “extreme weather events” and “climate change.”

Storms propelled by the jet stream were mainly to blame, it says, with contributions from the El Nino weather phenomenon and man-made climate change.

That “and man-made climate change” appears to be a flourish of Harrabin’s. I can’t find any mention of this alleged fact in the Met Office’s original press release. If the BBC had any integrity it would have sacked this activist long ago. Harrabin is entitled to his religious beliefs but it is not for the BBC to indulge his flagrant bias at licence-fee payers’ expense.

The Met Office too is in clear breach of public standards codes here.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over in 2016

Climate change is over. It’s a busted flush. The alarmists now have all the credibility of bewildered Harold Camping followers shivering on a mountaintop the morning after the night before, looking all shifty and embarrassed as they realise the Rapture their models so confidently promised just ain’t going to happen…

If you still doubt this, here are three recent pieces which should put your mind at rest.

The first – modestly titled The Most Comprehensive Assault On Global Warming Ever – was written by a US physics professor called Mike van Biezen. It lists ten of the reasons (though there are many more) why man-made global warming theory no longer has any credibility. They are:

1.Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980

5.Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2levels

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution

9.Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming

Then there are two pieces on what, for me, is the single most persuasive argument against man-made global warming theory: the (considerably more dramatic) fluctuations of climate long before mankind was in any position to influence it.

Here are the key points of an essay on the subject by Ed Hoskins:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming Is Not the Problem. Global Governance Is

I’m proud to say that I come in at number 6 (though obviously I would have preferred higher) with my statement that alarmist climate scientists are “a bunch of talentless low lives who cannot be trusted.”

In retrospect I wish to apologise for that sentence.

What I really should have said is that these are a bunch of lying, cheating, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, third-rate tosspots who don’t even deserve the name “scientists” because what they practise isn’t really science but data-fiddling, cherry-picking, grant-troughing, activism-driven propaganda. Posterity will grant them about as much respect as we now accord the 17th century quacks who bled their patients using leeches, or the early 20th century German scientists who helped Hitler compose his diatribe against the discredited Jewish science of Einstein, or the scientists who ganged up on Alfred Wegener for his novel – but correct – theories on continental drift. Really, if none of them ever published another paper in their lives and all their grant funding dried up at midnight tonight, the cause of climate science would not suffer one jot – and the world would become a much better (and richer) place.

Having read through all the other items on the Media Matters list, I can’t find much fault with any of them either.

Take Mark Steyn telling Fox News that “[ISIS leader] al-Baghdadi will be sawing Bernie Sanders’ head off, and he’ll be saying as his neck is being sliced, ‘If only we’d had an emissions trading scheme.’”

Apart from being very funny it also happens to be true. The attempts by Bernie Sanders – and many others including the Prince of Wales and US Secretary of State John Kerry – to link “climate change” to terrorism are both hysterical and wrong, as I demonstrate here, here and here.

Worse than that, though, these claims are fraudulent. They represent a deliberate conspiracy by our political class (and their amen corner in the media) to mislead us about the relative urgency and risks of the threats facing us in the coming years.

To anyone with even half an eye on world events, it’s perfectly obvious that there are many more desperate problems – fundamentalist Islam, say – than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. So why do our political class persist in pretending to us, in defiance of all the evidence, that “climate change” represents the only global issue serious enough to justify the convening of a conference like the recent one in Paris attended by 40,000 delegates and the leaders of over 150 nation states?

The answer to this is too complicated for one sentence – for the full story read this book – but the consequences can be summed up in two words: global governance.

This was always the masterplan of the sinister Marxist billionaire who invented the global warming scare – Maurice Strong. (You can read more about him here and here). Environmentalism, he understood early on, was the perfect excuse to override the democratic process: after all, when the future of the world is at stake, it only makes sense to ignore the little people and concentrate power in the hands of enlightened technocrats like Maurice Strong and his eco-fascistic control freak pals….

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Mud Huts v Western Civilization: Why #Rhodesmustfall Must Fail

Cecil Rhodes
ODGER BOSCH/AFP/Getty Image

The story so far: loony, entitled, race hustlers at Oxford University are campaigning for the removal of a statue from Oriel College of Cecil Rhodes, British imperial hero, founder of the Rhodes scholarship.

Instead of standing up to these hoity-toity grievance mongers – led by two black South African students on scholarships –  Oriel has caved.

Here is the letter that Oriel College should have written to the campaigners from Rhodes Must Fall.

Dear scrotty students,

Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and wellbeing of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.

This doesn’t necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeurs. If you don’t understand what this means – and it wouldn’t remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”

Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Adam Smith, Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.

And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the shortlived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.

Read the rest at Breitbart.