The Left: “2014 THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD!!!!”……… YAWN

The leftist spin continues with them claiming that 2014 is the warmest year on record. “Seeeeeee!……” I’ll let science and climatologists (who are most likely not taking government money to prove man-made climate change) speak for themselves. Remember, pro-global warming is a boondoggle for scientists who are desperate for grant money. Follow the money: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/07/on-global-warming-follow-the-money.php

If big oil is greedy, then what does that make big environment? http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

And as usual, the drones on the left focus on the link of Climate Depot and not the content.  When this tactic is used against their links, they predictably go batshit crazy and throw tantrums as to how theirs is different (and no less they take great stock in OPINION pieces) and only they can use that excuse.  To bad they ignored these quotes from SCIENTISTS AND CLIMATOLOGISTS and their associated links.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: ‘Claiming 2014 is the ‘hottest year’ on record based on hundredths of a degree temperature difference is a fancy way of saying the global warming ‘pause’ is continuing.’

Astrophysicist Dr. Dr David Whitehouse: ‘The NASA press release is highly misleading…talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘Why 2014 Won’t Be the Warmest Year on Record’ (based on surface data)– ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ 

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels debunks 2014 ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Is 58.46° then distinguishable from 58.45°? In a word, ‘NO.’

No Record Temperatures According To Satellites

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Please laugh out loud when someone will be telling you that it was the warmest year’

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: ‘We have found a significant warm bias. Thus, the reported global average surface temperature anomaly is also too warm.’

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.’

Details…. details…… but as we know, the left will ignore details and lie about anything to their advantage.

Now, since the mindless drones on the left cannot dispute climatologists and scientists pointing out the spin and cheery-picking of temperature data commonly used by those who want to scare the population into doing what they want, the left resorts to their tried and true tactic: demonization. They claim the above scientists and climatologists are “in the pockets of big oil”. Proof? They don’t need any! Since their intentions are “pure and noble”, why would they lie?

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “The Left: “2014 THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD!!!!”……… YAWN

  1. dbschmidt January 16, 2015 / 9:48 pm

    If big oil is greedy, then what does that make big environment?

    Whores.

    Add politicians to that as well.

  2. Retired Spook January 17, 2015 / 11:21 am

    The situation is pretty well summed up by this paragraph:

    Climate Depot’s Marc Morano issued this statement: “There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill and the satellite was set up to be “more accurate” than the surface records. See: Flashback: 1990 NASA Report: ‘Satellite analysis of upper atmosphere is more accurate, & should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temp change.’

    Over all I agree with your “yawn”. Who cares? The Left doesn’t care if my descendants live in a less free, less prosperous world. Why should I care if their descendants live in a slightly warmer world. Besides, in the over all scheme of things, warmer is better than colder. You want to watch a Liberal’s head explode? Ask them how much colder they’d like it to be, and what scientific principles they propose using to get to that temperature. Better yet, ask them what significant changes they’ve made in their personal lives and how much of their income the’ve voluntarily donated to help address the problem.

    • M. Noonan January 17, 2015 / 2:03 pm

      That is just it, for me – suppose it is warming. Suppose further that it is warming because of us. OK. Would even the elimination of human-caused CO2 stop it at this point? If it would, how long would it take? Once it has been stopped, how long to get back to the “right” temperature? And just what is the “right” temperature?

      Liberals can’t answer such questions because they don’t think – they just do as they’re told.

      • tiredoflibbs January 17, 2015 / 2:39 pm

        Mark,

        Whatever the proggies propose to fight it, the countries that are the largest polluters are exempt from their actions. All that has been proposed is massive wealth redistribution and does nothing to “cure” the planet.

      • M. Noonan January 17, 2015 / 2:47 pm

        You got that right.

      • Retired Spook January 17, 2015 / 4:51 pm

        Would even the elimination of human-caused CO2 stop it at this point?

        They can’t even agree on what the effect of rising CO2 is, and the CO2 chart and the temperature chart, which were rising in unison, diverged about 18 years ago. The IPCC’s most recent projection for a doubling of CO2 is around 4.5 degrees C, but the observed rate over the last 25 years is a fraction of that, so who knows? And, as I said before — who cares? And, with a rising earth population, requiring more and more food, why would anyone want to limit the most important plant food?

      • M. Noonan January 17, 2015 / 6:52 pm

        We do, indeed, live in the Age of Stupid.

      • dbschmidt January 17, 2015 / 9:39 pm

        IIRC from high school (long, long time ago) is that trees do turn CO2 into oxygen during the day but also take in oxygen and produce CO2 like us at night; nevertheless, my main point is the “non-thought” or the rule of unintended consequences harbored by the majority of Progressives.

        If the environmentalists do figure out this new and proper temperature which will be at least several degrees cooler–how much energy is it going to take to warm up their cars, houses and places of work because we all know they have to be comfortable? How much are they willing to see the prices of food increase as land, due to the temperature, to grow things disappears? On and on; nevertheless, as I believe TiredofLibs points out–just follow the money–it is a money grab by those like AlGore and a transfer of wealth by those like Soros.

      • Amazona January 18, 2015 / 9:49 pm

        The first warning alarm I got, regarding AGW hysteria, was the total lack of balance. There was never a word about the benefits of some warming—less energy from any source needed to survive, more food produced, longer life spans, etc. When only one side is presented, and that not only presented but stridently trumpeted alongside hysterical warnings and over the top predictions of impending disaster, any thinking person would stop and wonder why there is supposedly only one side to the story.

        And, again, what IS “normal”? Does the minor warming indicate a return to normal?

        And what about the new warnings of dramatic cooling over the next couple of decades? Something to do with moving farther away from that huge furnace in the sky, the one that supposedly has absolutely nothing to do with rising temperatures when we get closer to it.

      • tiredoflibbs January 18, 2015 / 10:06 pm

        When i posed that exact question, “What is ‘normal’? Are we warming to it, or away from it?”, to the lefty mindless drones, all i got from them was “that is a stupid question”. All they are interested in is that we are ‘warming’. Anything else does not matter.

  3. Retired Spook January 18, 2015 / 10:05 am

    Oops!

    What went wrong?

    A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.

    The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 C°. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 C° warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.

  4. Cluster January 18, 2015 / 4:49 pm

    On this issue liberals remind me of the person standing on the corner with a “World will end soon” sign. There are some liberals who actually consider Climate Change to be a more pressing issue than Islamic jihadism. Think about that for a minute.

    • Amazona January 18, 2015 / 9:44 pm

      Well, you have to admit that butchering 80% of the world’s population, leaving only primitive societies that would fit into the Stone Age, would soothe the frantic feelings of the AGW hysterics, pretty dramatically eliminating those eeeevil carbon footprints. Getting greenhouse gas emissions down to camel flatulence and wood smoke would thrill those Lefties to their very cores.

  5. tiredoflibbs January 18, 2015 / 7:34 pm

    Something else that will make the proggy drones’ heads explode:

    Solar energy is not as green as they think. Depending on where the end user lives, the cost in energy to produce, the carbon footprint of production and the toxic affects and pollution from chemicals used in their manufacture far outweigh the benefits of using solar panels.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

    So when cappy brags about his and/or his friends solar panels, he needs to reflect on the damage to the environment that his/their product causes – but he will never admit to these negative affects because his heart is in the right place. The same can be said for hybrid and electric cars.

    • Amazona January 18, 2015 / 9:41 pm

      We’ve been seeing data like this for years, to no avail. From the chemicals used to produce solar panels to the fact that most are made in China where there are no restraints on pollution to the obvious fact that once you have your solar-powered electricity you still have to have transmission lines to get it to urban areas, it all falls on deaf ears.

      There is a form of solar energy that is benign, but it is limited—–that is passive solar, where the sun heats material or water through direct exposure. There are solar hot water heaters and trombe walls that really diminish the need for other energy sources to heat rooms, or water. You can go to any thrift store that sells used building supplies and buy used sliding glass doors to make a simple trombe wall against a south facing wall, and the resulting envelope will get up to over 100 degrees. This natural heat can be moved into an adjacent room by natural convection, moved through duct work with low-powered fans, and water pipes run through the area can heat water to be used for domestic hot water and/or heating.

      This kind of usage is never trumpeted by Lefties because it is simple. More to the point, it depends on individual initiative and is not easily taken over by Big Brother. It doesn’t demand vast amounts of tax dollars. It is plain. It is not sexy. It does not demand government subsidies. In other words, it doesn’t play into Leftist agendas.

  6. Amazona January 18, 2015 / 10:03 pm

    Here are a couple of excerpts from an article I found interesting.

    “Rice grown at 600 ppm CO2 increased its grain yield by 28% with low applications of nitrogen fertilizer, Chinese scientists calculated. U.S. researchers discovered that sugarcane grown in sunlit greenhouses at 720 ppm CO2 and 11 degrees F (6 degrees C) higher than outside ambient air produced stem juice an amazing 124% higher in volume than sugarcane grown at ambient temperature and 360 ppm carbon dioxide. Non-food crops like cotton also fare much better when carbon dioxide levels are higher.”

    ……..and

    “One of the worst things that could happen to our planet and its people, animals and plants would be for carbon dioxide levels to plunge back to levels last seen before the Industrial Revolution. Decreasing CO2 levels would be especially problematical if Earth cools, in response to the sun entering another “quiet phase,” as happened during the Little Ice Age. If Earth cools again, growing seasons would shorten and arable cropland would decrease in the northern temperate zones. We would then need every possible molecule of carbon dioxide – just to keep agricultural production high enough to stave off mass human starvation … and save wildlife habitats from being plowed under to replace that lost cropland.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57255

    • Retired Spook January 19, 2015 / 12:11 am

      just to keep agricultural production high enough to stave off mass human starvation …

      That would actually play right into the Green Agenda.

      “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
      at the present North American material standard of living
      would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
      of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
      – United Nations,
      Global Biodiversity Assessment

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “A total population of 250-300 million people,
      a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
      – Ted Turner,
      founder of CNN and major UN donor

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
      more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
      – Club of Rome,
      Goals for Mankind

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “One America burdens the earth much more than
      twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
      In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
      350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
      but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
      – Jacques Cousteau,
      UNESCO Courier

      • M. Noonan January 19, 2015 / 2:32 am

        The way they figure it, a few million of them living rich, a couple hundred million helots to keep them living swank…perfect world…and no more middle class riff raff clogging up the highways…

      • Retired Spook January 19, 2015 / 8:20 am

        The way they figure it, a few million of them living rich, a couple hundred million helots to keep them living swank…perfect world

        All under the guise of saving the planet — can’t get much more “perfect” than that. I would just caution anyone who believes that — be careful what you wish for.

  7. tiredoflibbs January 18, 2015 / 10:13 pm

    Liberals were not concerned when they mandated that every car be equipped with a catalytic converter and turned every car into a CO2 pump. So, they really brought this ‘catastrophe’ on us.

Comments are closed.