Michael Mann is writing a children’s book about climate change.
Don’t all rush to donate at once – you might break the internet – but he wants you to pay for it through crowdfunding.
The book is called The Tantrum That Saved The World.
Michael Mann knows all about tantrums. Probably his biggest was the one that led him to sue Mark Steyn for having had the temerity to suggest that his now-infamous Hockey Stick was fraudulent. The case has been grinding on for six years now: as Steyn says “the process is the punishment”. Also, the alarmists funding it really can’t afford for it ever to be resolved because the disclosure requirements may open a can of worms so huge that the $1.5 trillion a year climate industry may never recover.
Climate change is a religion whose followers behave like members of the Inquisition; it’s a condition where the cure is causing far more damage than the alleged disease; it’s a recipe for killing jobs, lowering standards of living and hurting the poor.
Abbott is one of only a handful of world leaders to have spoken out against the global warming “consensus.” (The only other ones, recently, are former Czech president Václav Klaus and, of course, President Donald Trump).
This gives you an idea of just how badly infected are the nations of the free world by the green virus. Even those politicians who might nurture doubts in private almost never express them in public. Abbott himself lost his job as Australia’s prime minister at least in part because he was found guilty of wrongthink on climate change, which he once famously described as “crap”. The man who replaced him as prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull – unfondly known as the “Honourable Member for Goldman Sachs” – is himself a leading tentacle of the Green Blob.
From the world of science – as opposed to grant-troughing junk science – two more studies confirming that the man-made global warming scare is a myth.
One, a study by Scafetta et al, published in International Journal of Heat and Technology, confirms that the “Pause” in global warming is real – and that “climate change” is much more likely the result of natural, cyclical fluctuations than man-made CO2 emissions.
The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
Note also that it says the computer-modelled predictions of climate doom relied on by all global warming alarmists to support their thesis are wrong.
President Trump is to take his first step towards scrapping President Obama’s “stupid” and “job killing” Clean Power Plan, an aghast New York Times reports.
The Trump administration will repeal the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s effort to fight climate change, and will ask the public to recommend ways it could be replaced, according to an internal Environmental Protection Agency document.
The draft proposal represents the administration’s first substantive step toward rolling back the plan, which was designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, after months of presidential tweets and condemnations of Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce climate-warming pollution.
But it also lays the groundwork for new, presumably weaker, regulations by asking for the public and industry to offer ideas for a replacement.
In 2016, when it launched the plan at Obama’s behest, the EPA declared that the Clean Power Plan was a vital, cost-effective way of combating climate change which would ultimately benefit the U.S. consumer.
There’s a scene in the movie Straight Outta Compton – (it’s OK: you don’t need to like rap to get this analogy) – where Eazy-E goes to confront his manager Jerry Heller.
Given that their band N.W.A have made so much money, Eazy-E wants to know, how come he is still living in penury?
Heller explains that “business is business.”
Eazy-E protests, as well he might, that this just isn’t good enough. Heller is his manager. It’s supposed to be his job to represent Eazy-E’s financial interests. N.W.A are one of the biggest rap bands ever. So where has all the ****ing money gone?
Heller repeats the only defense he has. “Business is business,” he explains.
In this scenario, for Eazy-E read: you and me. (Unfortunate because it means, shortly afterwards, we all tragically die of AIDs)
And for Jerry Heller, the incompetent, embezzling, total fail of a manager, read: the science community responsible for the great global warming scare.
From the School of Really Dumb Climate Change Solutions, a novel proposal from Lisa Feldman Barrett – a professor of psychology at Northeastern University:
The next time a city like Las Vegas has a record heat wave, as it did in June of this year (117 degrees F), we could petition President Trump to travel there. Perhaps a three-day stay at Trump International Hotel — with the air conditioning turned off — would be swelteringly educational. Or shall we ask Vice President Pence to visit Nuatambu, one of the Solomon Islands northeast of Australia, where rising ocean levels have washed away half the habitable land and forced families to flee? Let him live there for a month or two. Or maybe Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, should survive on minimal drinking water for a few days, so he can understand viscerally what a drought feels like.
Apparently, the scientific rationale behind this is that the human imagination is not nearly as good at empathising with future pain as it is with future pleasure.
Leonardo DiCaprio delivered a career-best performance on Tuesday in the role of Whiny, Entitled, Millionaire Movie Star Who Can’t Accept That The President Won’t Take His Views On Climate Change Seriously.
DiCaprio was speaking at the Yale Climate Conference, where he took the podium to rehearse the usual litany of junk-science claims made by alarmists to justify their $1.5 trillion a year Enron-style scam.
“We have watched as storms, wildfires, and droughts have worsened, and as extinctions have become increasingly frequent. And some of us have also listened as the scientific community sounded alarm bells about climate change as far back as the early 1990s.”
Not a single word of that first sentence is true by the way – and that includes the “we” and the “ands.”
The world’s sixth mass extinction apocalypse is due to begin around 2100, claims a professor at MIT.
According to Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT’s Lorenz Center, we are fast approaching “thresholds of catastrophe” in the carbon cycle which make doom almost inevitable.
In a paper published today in Science Advances, he proposes that mass extinction occurs if one of two thresholds are crossed: For changes in the carbon cycle that occur over long timescales, extinctions will follow if those changes occur at rates faster than global ecosystems can adapt. For carbon perturbations that take place over shorter timescales, the pace of carbon-cycle changes will not matter; instead, the size or magnitude of the change will determine the likelihood of an extinction event.
Taking this reasoning forward in time, Rothman predicts that, given the recent rise in carbon dioxide emissions over a relatively short timescale, a sixth extinction will depend on whether a critical amount of carbon is added to the oceans. That amount, he calculates, is about 310 gigatons, which he estimates to be roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon that human activities will have added to the world’s oceans by the year 2100.
If we get a repeat of the Great Dying, 275 million years ago, what this means basically is that we are all going to die. Even you.
Did you hear the scary rumor at the weekend that President Trump was about to renege on his promise to quit the UN Paris Climate Agreement?
The good news is that it was #fakenews. (Shame on you, WSJ!)
The bad news is that it wasn’t so implausible as to make anyone go “Donald Trump? Cave to the Greenies?? That would never happen in a million years!!!”
Because the fact is, he still could very easily.
After all, on green issues it’s not just a case of Donald Trump vs. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, National Geographic, the Weather Channel, the Democrats, the Washington Post, the National Academy of Sciences, the UN, the European Union, the Nature Conservancy, the WWF, most university professors, and your kids’ schoolteachers, etc.
It’s also a case of Donald Trump vs. large chunks of Congress and most of his administration, from all the Obama holdovers at the EPA to the majority of his inner circle including Javanka, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Chief Economics Advisor Gary Cohn.