56.7* C in Death Valley. Balls. 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

 

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

 

 Licensing

• 5/16/2018

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.

In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."

Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening."

In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.

That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a "Hey, what's going on here?" story.

What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)

We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.

Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."

He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

Edited December 30, 20186 yr by XCR1250

1 hour ago, XCR1250 said:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

There are no end of people who will parse data for an oil industry paycheque. 

As Willis explains, global warming is a long-term process. "Despite the fact it's been warmer and cooler at different times in the last 10 years, there's no part of the last 10 years that isn't warmer than the temperatures we saw 100 years ago."

Assuming our greenhouse gas emissions continue at their present levels with little reduction, existing climate forecasts suggest that our planet will warm by about 4° C (7.2° F) by the end of the 21st century. Although scientists continue to study the nuances of Earth's climate, the link between carbon emissions, global warming and sea level rise over the past century is clear. Even if our global carbon emissions began to fall tomorrow, Earth would continue to warm for some time due to the inertia of the climate system6.

"In the next century it's definitely going to get warmer," Willis says. "You don't need a crystal ball or fancy climate model to say that. Just look at the sea level and temperature records from the past 100 years -- they're all going up." Likewise, Easterling and Wehner's work reminds us that understanding climate change -- one of the most important challenges we face today -- requires a long-term view. "Unlike people," says Willis, "the climate has a very long memory."

For more information about this topic, visit NASA's Global Climate ChangeWeb site.

It’s true the earth is in a state of cooling 

Another Global Warming Study Casts Doubt On Media's Climate Change Fairy Tale

 

 

Climate Hysteria: With climate change activists and the big media still in high dudgeon over President Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Deal, yet another study shows no acceleration in global warming for the last 23 years. Piece by piece, the church of global warming is being dismantled.

The University of Alabama-Huntsville study, conducted by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider, shows that not only is the temperature rising far more slowly than predicted, but that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How do the study's authors know this? They corrected a mistake that many other studies and model forecasts leave uncorrected: First, they used only satellite data, the most comprehensive and accurate temperature numbers available.

---

 

No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective

 

---

Then, they took out the temporary, yet significant, impact of both volcanoes and the El Niño and La Niña climate episodes that periodically wreak havoc on weather around the world.

Once removing the influence of those naturally occurring events,  the study's authors were able to come up with a stable base temperature for the world. Doing this, they found that the rate of global warming currently was 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade — exactly what it was 23 years ago.

This casts serious doubts on the dozens of models used in coming up with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's dire forecast of massive global warming based on rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, mainly from human activity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given that CO2 levels have risen sharply in recent decades but the pace of warming has remained essentially the same suggests that CO2 doesn't have the warming effect that many models assume.

Rick Moran, writing at the American Thinker, puts it this way: "The UAH paper destroys the models that predict rising temps that correlate with rising CO2 levels."

Yep. And it means that the U.N.'s prescription for this surge in CO2 — the massive downsizing of the global economy and the imposition of rigid socialist planning on all industrial economies — is nothing more than quackery, the worst kind of medicine.

But it's the science that is important. Recent analytical studies of global warming models used for the U.N. predictions have found they tend to "run hot" — that is, predict far more warming than actually occurs. This study goes a long way to explaining why.

And over time, the difference in temperature estimates is enormous. Going all the way back to 1880, the study notes that most climate models predict nearly 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit rise in temperatures. But the calculated value from the actual data are less than half that, 2 degrees F.

And by the way, this is a published, peer-reviewed journal study, not a bunch of estimates from questionable mathematical models that were created to serve a political purpose, not a scientific one. It is of course in the interest of the researchers and the governments that fund them to find catastrophic global warming. And that's exactly what they do.

Sadly, this is yet another study that the media will, for the most part, ignore. That's especially true since Christy, a scientist with an impeccable reputation, is known for poking holes in the global warming religion's dogma.

At some point,the left-leaning big media will be forced to recognize the growing evidence of the global warming fraud — just as the holier-than-thou media have in recent days had to come to grips with the tragic reality that the media outlets they work for are filled with serial sexual predators.

Follow The Money:

U.N.'s Global Warming Fraudsters Are More Interested In Climate Cash Than Climate Change

 

Climate Deceit: Just when you think the climate change lunacy couldn't get any worse, the U.N.'s climate-crats up the ante. Meeting in Bonn, Germany, for yet another unneeded climate conference, attendees are now demanding $300 billion a year more to help less-developed nations cope with anticipated climatic warming. Are they kidding?

By the way, that $300 billion is in addition to the $100 billion that the world's governments have already promised to deliver under the Paris Climate Agreement. So now they're asking for a total of $400 billion a year in climate welfare for the developing world. No sane government would sign on to such a scam. Which of course means that most of them probably will.

There's really no end to this insanity. To make it worse, the proposal before the Bonn climate talks calls for the added taxpayer-funded cash to be doled out not by the governments themselves, or even the U.N. No, the money will be channeled through existing nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs.

In other words, left-wing green groups around the world will become the conduits for billions of dollars in money handed out to ethically challenged, nondemocratic governments. Think there might be a tiny temptation for corruption there?

As one green group leader put it, NGOs, not the U.N., need to dole out all this money because "It's so tedious to set up an institution and get it going, and make sure the money reaches the intended people."

Such a scheme will no doubt lead to massive looting and fraud by green groups, which will suddenly hire massive new staffs to handle their new duties, and pay for it all through enormous "handling fees," "service charges," and other nontransparent charges paid for by American taxpayers. Basically, it's a financial model designed to create global fraud.

All of this is based, mind you, on the purely hypothetical future threat that global warming supposedly poses to low-income nations.

"What stands out most clearly is that there isn't currently enough funding to even begin thinking about financing loss and damage, with available climate, development, risk reduction and disaster recovery financing all falling short by an order of magnitude," said a statement by "researchers" at Berlin's Heinrich Boll Foundation.

Of course, apart from its inherent fraudulence, this is all ridiculously wasteful of scarce resources, in particular, the developed world's financial capital.

Why wasteful? Well, let's start with the most obvious and most important point of all: For 19 years, there has been no significant warming in the atmosphere. None. Atmospheric temperature readings — the most comprehensive and accurate temperature data available — taken by satellite show this clearly.

But what about all those highly complex mathematical climate models that show, given the rising amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, that future temperatures will soar — requiring the spending of that $400 billion a year just so poor nations can survive the rising temperatures?

In point of fact, the climate models used by the U.N. to "predict" the future are all but useless. The U.N. has in the past used more than 70 climate models as the basis of its predictions that the climate will get much warmer in the future. The only problem is, none of those models can accurately predict past climate, much less the future.

As the U.N. itself admirably admitted back in 2007: "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

And yet, we're supposed to be laying out not just hundreds of billions, but trillionsof dollars every year to prepare for the possibility of global warming and, if possible, forestall it.

Indeed, we already spend some $1.5 trillion globally on mitigating global warming, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Put in perspective, that's roughly equivalent to all online retail sales globally.

And yet, as climate skeptic and statistician Bjorn Lomborg has noted, even if you take the models seriously and if every nation on earth lived up to its commitments to slash output of CO2 and all other greenhouse gases by 2030, the net reduction in predicted temperature would be just 0.048 degrees Celsius — about 1/20th of a degree. That is a rounding error. Nothing, really.

Despite all this, the U.N. and its enviro-socialist allies would have all of the world's developed economies march lockstep off the cliff of global warming, if they could. They've even suggested making climate-change denial a crime. That's extremism of the worst sort, and intolerable for a free nation to support.

We have suggested before, and we will repeat now, what the only rational response to such financial and scientific lunacy should be: to cease all cooperation with the U.N. on its global warming schemes — which amount to little more than a massive effort to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations, and to put all free people directly under the controlling thumbs of global bureaucrats.

Beta Barbie Hands is a complete moron. 

You know even Trumps whitehouse had to admit it’s real.

2 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Beta Barbie Hands is a complete moron. 

Ha ha you don’t believe in mmgw. 

Of course climate change is real. Is anyone denying that?  

4 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Of course climate change is real. Is anyone denying that?  

No!  You must blame it on man, and generate a taxing scheme from it!   

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

No!  You must blame it on man, and generate a taxing scheme from it!   

I've said it from day 1, "follow the money"

 I was part of a Global cooling study for the Great Lakes, way back in the late 60's & 1970's when they said the Earth was cooling, wonder if there simply wasn't enough cash to be made that they since changed it now to Global Warming. Fact is, and everyone knows this, the Earth is constantly changing, and where did that last Ice Age go to, 10,000 years ago??

28 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

It’s true the earth is in a state of cooling 

Only an idiot doesn't see that.

15 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

Of course climate change is real. Is anyone denying that?  

No, it's constant.  The climate shouldn't change, even in a million years.

You want to make an alt leftist spaz just tell them the climate has always changed lol 

11 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

I've said it from day 1, "follow the money"

 I was part of a Global cooling study for the Great Lakes, way back in the late 60's & 1970's when they said the Earth was cooling, wonder if there simply wasn't enough cash to be made that they since changed it now to Global Warming. Fact is, and everyone knows this, the Earth is constantly changing, and where did that last Ice Age go to, 10,000 years ago??

Do you really think there is more money in climate science than denying mmgw?

 

16 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Only an idiot doesn't see that.

Hmmmm? I think an idiot believes that:

Bush was a better choice than Gore

Mmgw is fake

Trump was a better choice than Hillary

Trump was telling the Truth when he said no one in his campaign had any contact with Russians 

Trump’s “brilliant” moves were going to push the Dow to 30,000 by the end of 2018

 

 

7 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Do you really think there is more money in climate science than denying mmgw?

 

And yet, we're supposed to be laying out not just hundreds of billions, but trillionsof dollars every year to prepare for the possibility of global warming and, if possible, forestall it.

Indeed, we already spend some $1.5 trillion globally on mitigating global warming, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Put in perspective, that's roughly equivalent to all online retail sales globally.

29 minutes ago, XCR1250 said:

And yet, we're supposed to be laying out not just hundreds of billions, but trillionsof dollars every year to prepare for the possibility of global warming and, if possible, forestall it.

Indeed, we already spend some $1.5 trillion globally on mitigating global warming, according to Climate Change Business Journal. Put in perspective, that's roughly equivalent to all online retail sales globally.

Yeah we are suppose to spend money and find ways to save the planet. 

Good ole climatards lol

Edited December 30, 20186 yr by Rod Johnson

 

 

MMGW= Huge Scam:

 

The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains about 80% of what goes on in Washington.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.

I said, "In America and around the globe governments have created a multibillion-dollar climate change industrial complex." And then I added: "A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry." According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009."

Tidal Wave Of Money

This doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn't anyone in the media ever mention this?

But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I've said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the "settled science" of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

 

How big is the climate change industrial complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago, Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama's first term.

That didn't include the tax subsidies that provide a 30% tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive "green" energy.

$5 Trillion Needed?

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study that found that "global investment in climate change" reached $359 billion that year. Then, to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending "falls far short of what's needed" — a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.

This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don't appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you're probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn't happening.

But if you've built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant.

The Untold Scandal

Now here's the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry's own admission, there has been almost no progress worldwide in combating climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse, and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such minuscule returns on investment? After three decades of "research" the only "solution" is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that's the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.

President Donald Trump should tell these so-called scientists that "you're fired." And we taxpayers should demand our money back.

1 minute ago, XCR1250 said:

 

 

MMGW= Huge Scam:

 

The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains about 80% of what goes on in Washington.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.

I said, "In America and around the globe governments have created a multibillion-dollar climate change industrial complex." And then I added: "A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry." According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009."

Tidal Wave Of Money

This doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn't anyone in the media ever mention this?

But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I've said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the "settled science" of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

 

How big is the climate change industrial complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago, Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama's first term.

That didn't include the tax subsidies that provide a 30% tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive "green" energy.

$5 Trillion Needed?

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study that found that "global investment in climate change" reached $359 billion that year. Then, to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending "falls far short of what's needed" — a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.

This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don't appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you're probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn't happening.

But if you've built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant.

The Untold Scandal

Now here's the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry's own admission, there has been almost no progress worldwide in combating climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse, and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such minuscule returns on investment? After three decades of "research" the only "solution" is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that's the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.

President Donald Trump should tell these so-called scientists that "you're fired." And we taxpayers should demand our money back.

• Moore is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks.

Edited December 30, 20186 yr by XCR1250

3 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Hmmmm? I think an idiot believes that:

Bush was a better choice than Gore

Mmgw is fake

Trump was a better choice than Hillary

Trump was telling the Truth when he said no one in his campaign had any contact with Russians 

Trump’s “brilliant” moves were going to push the Dow to 30,000 by the end of 2018

 

 

An idiot is someone who can't think for himself, the core of the Liberal sheep.

http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html?m=0&fbclid=IwAR0QVXBI2LZY0Lv0H3e323hYZLHPZLbjhvUp8-GhiGjy17UKigfaldYJn_Q

Obviously there is a market in telling people that mmgw is fake. If makes them feel better. But in the end ignoring science to make yourself feel better is the ultimate form of cowardice. 

it could warm up a touch right now actually.

 

balls are cold when going to the garage to get more whiskey