posted August 12, 2016 02:21 PM            

Just ask Professor Valentina Zharkova of Britain's Northumbria University. She and a team of researchers conducted a study on sunspots, which are known to have a strong effect on solar radiation and thus on the Earth's climate.

What they found was remarkable: solar activity, based on models that closely fit past trends, looks to be headed for a sharp downward turn. Indeed, activity could decline to levels not seen since the so-called "Little Ice Age," an unusually cold period that stretched across the Northern Hemisphere and lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850.

As such, a study of this kind, you might think, would be incredibly important. But instead of being greeted with scientific questions or open curiosity about her group's study, Zharkova's team was met with a most unscientific hostility.

"Some of them were welcoming and discussing," she said in an interview with The Global Warming Policy Forum. "But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy."
Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.

And some went well beyond just "pushy."

"They were trying to actually silence us," said Zharkova. "Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our news release."

Global warming scientists, among whom are some real fanatics, often style themselves as latter-day Galileos, standing strong against superstition and religion and bravely taking a stand for scientific truth, just as Galileo did by saying that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa.

But they are nothing of the sort. Indeed, many of these so-called scientists have more in common with Galileo's persecutors than with those who have bravely pushed scientific understanding of our universe and all its workings forward.

For the record, Zharkova isn't alone in her conclusions. Other recent studies, including ones found here and here, suggest the Sun is headed for a period of extremely low activity — which means, all other things being equal, lower temperatures for much of the Earth.

No, the problem isn't the science. The problem is such research is an uncomfortable impediment of the global warming complex's unholy alliance of green interest groups, clueless movie stars, bought-and-paid-for scientists, big government politicians, and even some major corporations that see new global warming regulations as an easy way to crush their smaller competitors.

With global governments spending billions of dollars a year on climate change, almost all of it on those who believe the global warming dogma, there's too much at stake to allow a heretic to question the orthodoxy. That's why Zharkova and others are greeted with unscientific hostility.

posted August 16, 2016 10:11 PM            

Its roughly 22 degrees during the day and as low as 4 degrees at night.

posted September 01, 2016 11:53 AM            

"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow"
Barack Hussein O'Bomber, June 2008

Study Contradicts Rising Seas Claim, Shows Coastlines Are Gaining Land
Jason Devaney
31 Aug 2016

A new study reveals that the Earth is actually gaining more land at coastlines, contrary to the belief that global warming is leaving(leading) to shrinking continents.

The Dutch Deltares Research Institute study found that the Earth has gained more than 107,000 square miles of land over the last 30 years, including roughly 21,000 square miles along coastlines.

Water is taking over land in some areas, however. In that same timeframe, the planet has gained more than 71,000 square miles of water — which includes 12,500 square miles at the coast.

The research group used a tool that measured changes to land and water across the world.

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," researcher Dr. Fedor Baart told BBC News last week. "We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

posted October 14, 2016 10:31 AM            

October 14, 2016
Darn it! Warmist hysterics disappointed hurricane Matthew wasn't a cataclysm
Rick Moran

This is pretty sick when you think about it, but there are apparently some global warming alarmists who are actually disappointed that Hurricane Matthew wasn't the epic disaster that some were predicting before it hit the US.

Billions in damages, massive flooding, and 30 Americans dead is hardly enough to get the blood circulating in these global warming ghouls. They crave catastrophe the same way I crave coffee in the morning.

All the better to "prove" their thesis that unless we return to the good old days of the 1850's and swear off fossil fuels, we are doomed, doomed I say.

IBD:

Before Matthew made landfall Saturday in South Carolina, it had been more than 4,000 days since the last hurricane hit the U.S. That's 10 years, 11 months and about a week.

The alarmists were itching for a large-scale disaster because every day that went by without a hurricane, especially an epic one, meant that their predictions than man-made global warming was going to cause more and bigger storms was another day that made them look like the cons and hopelessly conned that they are.

Their impatient craving for a crisis was summed up well two years ago in August when a fellow named Greg Blanchette tweeted that he "kind of" hoped that North America "gets its ass kicked this hurricane season. It would motivate us on climate action."

Is this the same Greg Blanchette who proposed that service stations be forced to place frightening global warming warnings on gas-pump nozzles, an idea that's now law in North Vancouver, British Columbia? Maybe not. But it doesn't matter. If they're not the same person, it simply means there are two climate cranks running loose out there with the same name.

A couple of years before Blanchette was wishing for wreck and ruin, British naturalist David Attenborough said that "disaster" was needed to wake people up to the threat of climate change.

The "disasters" the U.S. had experience up to that point "with hurricanes and floods", he said, "doesn't do it," so the crisis he was been hoping for must be truly cataclysmic.

On Friday, as Matthew barreled up Florida's coast, Marshall Shepherd, a professor in atmospheric sciences at the University of Georgia, tweeted about the "ridiculous complaining" he was seeing about the hurricane being less severe than expected.

"Some seem disappointed there isn't tragic loss of life/apocalyptic," he said.

Maybe he was addressing those who were upset because they thought the storm was overhyped by forecasters. Or could he have been addressing those who were thinking like Blanchette and Attenborough? Who, by the way, are not alone.

The environmental movement is filled with haters who yearn for a planet without man. After all, Attenborough himself lamented to the British press that humans are a "plague on the Earth." He was probably looking forward to Matthew the way a child looks forward to a trip to the amusement park.

Nothing like a catastrophically devastating hurricane to get a warmist in a good mood. They must positively swoon as TV pictures of hurricane force winds whipping through the palm trees elicit shouts of "go, go, go!"

These cheerleaders for death and destruction couldn't gin up much concern for those who lost their homes or lives.

Actually, I'm surprised they didn't claim that the hurricane track, which took it up the coast of Florida rather than hit the state head on, was proof of global warming. After all, anything that happens is due to climate change so a hurricane that misses is as good as one that smashes ashore.

And they want to lock up skeptics?

posted October 15, 2016 08:18 AM            

Thus, with some out of the box solutions, it is possible to get the desired results without lobbying from either side.

posted October 15, 2016 12:07 PM            

First, The Marxist Messiah didn't ratify a climate treaty. Obama has no authority to ratify treaties. Treaty ratification requires a 2/3rds majority vote of the US Senate.

Second, this so called "agreement" isn't going to reduce CO2 emissions by 70 billion tons...ever.

The human component of CO2 is about 24 billion tons.

posted October 17, 2016 10:11 AM            

First, this is not a treaty. The US Senate would never ratify this piece of garbage...and that's the reason the Marxist Messiah Obama never submitted it for a Senate vote.

2nd, reducing "Hydrofluorocarbons" is not going to reduce atmospheric Carbon Dioxide concentrations by 70 billion tons.

3rd, if these lying bassturds and blotches would just stop hyperventilating over the non existent Man Made Global Warming the non existent problem would be solved. There's been no warming in the last 19 years.

posted November 02, 2016 11:02 AM            

Not even the prospect of being hectored and lectured by the Ex-Rapist in Chief, the Marxist Messiah Obama, the current bungling, incompetent Sec State, the Pope and bungling, incompetent boob, Sec General of the UN could drive movie goers to park it in movie seats to have fingers waved in their faces.

Dismal ratings for DiCaprio’s Global Warming Epic ‘Before the Flood’ – beaten by ‘Bubble Guppies’
Anthony Watts
November 1, 2016

The weekend ratings are out, and they aren’t good news for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Global Warming Epic ‘Before the Flood‘, which we reviewed yesterday on WUWT. Showbuzz Daily has listed the top 150 TV and Cable programs for the weekend, and in ‘the hottest year ever’, discussing the ‘most important topic ever’, Before the Flood came in at #61 for the weekend.

Ironically, the kids show “Bubble Guppies” beat it at #53. Ouch.

Perhaps this snoozer didn’t do so well because of the stellar cast of characters?

I mean, who wouldn’t want to tune in and have a jet-setting actor-millionaire, a government handout beneficiary, a Pope, the globe-trotting Secretary of State, the lame-duck president, the ‘Horndog-in-Chief” and the leader of the U.N. come on for 96 minutes and berate you for doing things like driving your car, eating hamburgers, and just not caring enough about the planet like they do while looking down on us from their private planes?

“Al Gore says it’s so and therefore it is?

posted November 02, 2016 04:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
Today 200 Nations signed a landmark treaty to cut the equivalent of 70 billion tons worth of Carbon dioxide emissions
.

---

This treaty, like every other climate treaty, smells rotten. A reduction in concentration of CO2 in atmosphere will diminish food supply. So the aim may be control of food supply. Some interesting figures and facts below.

Temperature increases 0.006 deg C per year
Current CO2 concentrations at 380ppm / CO2 accounts for 0.037% of the atmosphere

Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2 impoverished!
Jurassic Period (200 m years ago), average CO2 concentrations at 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today
Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

If CO2 goes under 150ppm the PLANTS will DIE.
If we take a look at the formula for life itself : 6CO2 + 6H2O + sunlight = C6H12O6 + 6O2
therefore it takes 6 CO2 molecules to make one glucose molecule.

This means the forests will shrink, food supplies will diminish and life comes to a grinding halt. The rate plant life grows, directly determines how much life this planet can support. Remember that vegetation was much larger and expanse in eras when CO2 was higher.

For the majority of earth's history there has been more CO2 in the air than there is today.
Plants can absorb more sunlight if they have more CO2 available. Vegetation looses less water under higher CO2 levels, meaning vegetation in drought prone areas will live longer and produce more.

Lower CO2 drastically and there will be no life on this planet.

Thousands and thousands of studies show that higher levels of CO2 are good for plants. Many scientists believe plants still aren't getting enough CO2.
A Russian study from 1961-1998 found that as carbon dioxide increased the forest size increased at the same rate.
Pine trees grown for 2 years at 600ppm grow more than 200% faster compared to actual ppm level rates.

Rice was shown to increase mass and use less water with higher co2 levels. Meaning the most important food in the world highly benefits from co2 increase. This also means that during times of drought as long as the co2 was high enough there wouldn't be as great of a shortage of this food thanks to the Industrial Revolution !!!

When farmers, scientists, and people who own green houses want to grow larger plants they increase the amount of co2 to the plants.
Just google search on CO2 aparatus for greenhouses.
Lettuce has been shown to increase by up to 40% with an increase of carbon dioxide (to 550ppm), Tomatoes by 29% and the list goes on and on.

If temperatures and co2 continue to increase, Canada would see an increase of corn up to 186% and soybeans up to 157% between 2040-2069.
Increased levels of co2 help plants by reducing dangerous pathogens/diseases.

Cloud coverage affects temperature 100 times more than co2. If co2 doubles, cloud coverage would only have to increase 1% to counter it.

Here is an interesting link to a list of everything global warming is blamed for, brace yourself you'll be laughing for a month lol http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Historical perspective:

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). This is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time :

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today.

posted December 09, 2016 02:20 PM            

Global Warming Protesters Met With Bitter Cold, Snow
Michael Bastasch
12/08/2016

A small group of global warming activists protesting oil and gas drilling outside the Department of Interior office in Colorado Thursday morning were met with bitter cold weather and snow.

About 10 “Keep It In The Ground” activists waved signs next to a busy road in the Denver area, calling for the Obama administration to stop issuing leases so companies can drill on public lands. Activists say drilling only exacerbates global warming.

The irony, however, is activists stood outside about 4 inches of snow with temperatures hovering in the 20s — in degrees Fahrenheit. The official low temperature was negative 10 degrees early Thursday morning, according to the National Weather Service.

Activists with 350.org and Food & Water Watch braved the cold to protest hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” after two measures to restrict the drilling technique failed to make November’s ballot. The pro-fracking Western Energy Alliance took photos of activists trying to stay warm. You can view the photos here.

“While it is clear that the national activist groups behind these efforts are not abandoning their goal to ban fracking, they picked a day to protest the use of fossil fuels when most Coloradans are likely more thankful than ever for the affordable energy provided by domestic energy development,” Randy Hildreth, a writer for the industry-backed, Energy In Depth, wrote in a blog post.

Now, of course, one cold day doesn’t disprove global warming, but it continues a trend of activists being beaten by cold weather when holding events trying to highlight how fossil fuels are warming the planet.

This phenomenon is called the “Gore effect” — coined after a global warming rally held by former Vice President Al Gore in 2004 was met with frigid weather. A similar rally held by Gore in 2006 in Australia was also hit by cold weather.

It’s not just Gore who’s held freezing global warming rallies. Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners postponed a protest in early 2015 due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.” New Haven witnessed a negative 9 degrees when the event was canceled.

posted December 10, 2016 09:20 AM            

Scott Pruitt is Trump's pick to head the EPA and it's about time the hucksters, con artists and Man Made Global Warming scammers get what they've got coming to them.

It's one thing to hold views about climate. It's quite another to drain taxpayer money from the US Treasury to pad your bank accounts and those of fellow lunatics sucking the life blood out of the US economy to keep their scam(s) operating.

December 10, 2016
Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda
Daniel John Sobieski

Personnel is policy, as they say, and despite his meeting with the High Priest of Climatology, Al Gore, president-elect Donald Trump’s pick of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to be the new head at EPA, shows Trump is serious about pulling back the curtain to expose climate fraud, leaving climate zealots as unsettled as the alleged “science” they trumpet.

Pruitt has already fought the various unconstitutional power grabs that essentially established it as the fourth and unelected branch of government. As Tom Borelli notes in Conservative Review:

Pruitt’s concerns of EPA overreach also includes the agency’s controversial, “Waters of the U.S.” rule that significantly expanded the federal government’s regulatory reach to include ditches on private land. During the presidential campaign, Trump promised to address the regulation that he called one of the “most intrusive rules” and Pruitt could execute the new president’s goal to neuter its impact.

Every puddle in America, every creek running through a farm or ranch would become subject to regulation by the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. Pruitt has set dead aim on this and other EPA abuses.

In an article in National Review, coauthored with fellow attorney general of Alabama, Luther Strange, Pruitt opined that climate science isn’t settled and should be subject to a vigorous debate. He argued that EPA dictates are no different than the tyranny America rebelled against in its founding, and that EPA has no justification to bypass the will of the people as expressed through its elected representatives:

The United States was born out of a revolution against, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, an “arbitrary government” that put men on trial “for pretended offences” and “abolish[ed] the Free System of English laws.” Brave men and women stood up to that oppressive government, and this, the greatest democracy of them all, one that is governed by the rule of law and not by men, is the product…..

Sadly, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this tactic of advancing the climate-change agenda by any means necessary. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is a particularly noteworthy example. This EPA regulation, one of the most ambitious ever proposed, will shutter coal-fired power plants, significantly increase the price of electricity for American consumers, and enact by executive fiat the very same cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that Congress has rejected.

The Clean Power Plan was promulgated without any consultation with Congress. No bills were debated, no votes were taken, and the representatives of the American people had no opportunity to object or offer their own suggestions. The checks and balances built into our system of government were simply ignored as inconvenient impediments to the president’s agenda.

It is the tyranny of the EPA that Pruitt seeks to overthrow. The EPA is the poster child for dictatorship by regulation and its reform is key to President-elect Trump’s agenda of job growth and energy independence. There is no justification for EPA’s draconian dictates. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says global climate change caused by carbon pollution "is one of the most significant public health threats of our time," thus forcing her agency to adopt stringent measures. Yet carbon emissions are declining while temperatures are not rising. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Oct. 21 released data showing energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.8% in 2012.

And according to the EPA, emissions from power plants declined by 10%. CO2 emissions in the U.S. have actually declined by 12% since 2007… while average global temperatures have been flat since 1998. Part of that is due to competition from increasingly abundant natural gas made so by improvements in an energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing.

The EIA notes the country saw an "overall decline" in power generation from renewable sources, but "the carbon intensity of power generation still fell by 3.5%, due largely to the increase in the share of natural gas generation relative to coal generation."

Climate change and global warming hype is nothing more an attempt by climate change scammers to impose what has become a religion. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is quoted in the Daily Caller questioning the tenets of this new religion:

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons….

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

The goal is to use climate change as a means to increase government power over every aspect of our lives, what we make, how we make it, what energy we use, what cars we drive, even what food we eat. The scientific record, as IBD notes, shows that climate change is a scam:

…a paper published recently in the journal Global Environmental Change found that carbon dioxide emissions are essentially self-regulating and that after countries reach a higher GDP level, CO2 emissions either stabilize or even decline, without the need for carbon taxes or carbon capture technology.

Here in the U.S., the fracking revolution has released from our vast shale formations vast natural-gas deposits that have done more to reduce carbon emissions than any IPCC report.

A study published late last year by the Energy Information Administration reported that the "carbon intensity" of the electricity produced in the U.S. actually fell by 13% from 2007 to 2012.

British climate-change skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton recently pointed out at Marc Morano's Climate Depot that the "Great Pause" in global temperatures — now at 18 years and counting — has occurred even as carbon dioxide concentrations have risen.

This 18-year period constitutes roughly half the satellite observation period that began in 1979.

Physicist Gordon Fulks of the Cascade Policy Institute notes that the warming pause since 1997 has occurred while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 25%.

"CO2 is responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring ... and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring," he states.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the source of all plant and animal life. Even if emissions were a threat, and they are not, it's prosperity and the technology that comes with it, such as fracking, that reduce overall emissions in the atmosphere.