8th March 2017
8th March 2017
13th Feb 2017
Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.
Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.
Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.
In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?
The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.
The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.
Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!
In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!
So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?
Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.
That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.
And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.
Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).
Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.
So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?
The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).
The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).
All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.
If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?
Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.
24th Jan 2016
Climate change is a hoax developed as part of a secret plot by the United Nations to undermine democracies and takeover the world, a top adviser to Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has warned.
Maurice Newman, the chief business adviser to the prime minister, said the science showing links between human activity and the warming climate was wrong but was being used as a “hook” by the UN to expand its global control.
“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN,” he wrote in The Australian.
“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” Born in Ilford, England, and educated in Australia, Mr Newman, a staunch conservative and former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, has long been an outspoken critic of climate change science.
He was appointed chairman of the government’s business advisory council by Mr Abbott, who himself is something of a climate change sceptic and once famously described climate change as “absolute cr**” – a comment he later recanted.
In his comment piece – described by critics as “whacko” – Mr Newman said the world has been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he wrote.
“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Eco-catastrophists [ …] have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.”
Environmental groups and scientists described Mr Newman as a ‘crazed’ conspiracy theorist and some called on him to resign.
“His anti-science, fringe views are indistinguishable from those made by angry trolls on conspiracy theory forums,” said the Climate Change Council.
Professor Will Steffen, a climate change scientist, told The Australian Financial Review: “These are bizarre comments that would be funny if they did not come from [Mr Abbott’s] chief business adviser.” Mr Abbott’s office did not respond but his environment minister said he did not agree with Mr Newman’s comments.
The article was written by Mr Newman to coincide with a visit by Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change negotiation, who has urged Australia to reduce its reliance on coal. Australia is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon emissions per capita.
Since his election in 2013, Mr Abbott has abolished Labor’s carbon tax, scaled back renewable energy targets and appointed sceptics to several significant government positions.
19th Jan 2017
World temperatures hit a record high for the third year in a row in 2016, creeping closer to a ceiling set for global warming with extremes including unprecedented heat in India and ice melt in the Arctic, U.S. government agencies said on Wednesday.
The data, supported by findings from other organisations, was issued two days before the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who questions whether climate change has a human cause.
Average surface temperatures over land and the oceans in 2016 were 0.94 degrees Celsius (1.69 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average of 13.9C (57.0F), according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
U.S. space agency NASA reported almost identical data, and the UK Met Office and University of East Anglia, which also track global temperatures for the United Nations, said 2016 was the hottest year on record.
Temperatures, lifted both by man-made greenhouse gases and a natural El Nino event that released heat from the Pacific Ocean last year, beat the previous record in 2015, when 200 nations agreed a plan to limit global warming. That peak had in turn eclipsed 2014.
“We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Global temperature records date back to the 1880s. Temperatures are unlikely to set a new peak in 2017 after the El Nino faded, even as greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels keep building up in the atmosphere, led by China and the United States.
Piers Forster, climate expert at the University of Leeds, said this year was likely to be cooler. “However, unless we have a major volcanic eruption, I expect the record to be broken again within a few years,” he said. Ash from big eruptions can dim sunlight.
Among last year’s extreme weather events, wildfires in Alberta were the costliest natural disaster in Canada’s history while Phalodi in west India recorded a temperature of 51C (123.8°F) on May 19, a national record.
North America also had its warmest year on record, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia suffered severe damage from rising temperatures, and sea ice in both the Arctic Ocean and around Antarctica is at record lows for mid-January.
At a conference in Paris in late 2015, governments agreed a plan to phase out fossil fuels this century and shift to renewable energies such as wind and solar power.
They agreed to limit warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times, while pursuing efforts for 1.5C (2.7F). By that yardstick, the rise stood at about 1.1C (2.0F) in 2016.
“Long-term indicators of human-caused climate change reached new heights in 2016,” Petteri Taalaas, head of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organisation said, referring to rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane.
Trump, who has described climate change as a hoax, has threatened to cancel the Paris Agreement and shift to exploiting cheap domestic coal, oil and gas. At a meeting in Marrakesh days after Trump’s victory, however, almost 200 nations said it was an “urgent duty” to combat climate change.
“The hottest year on record is such a clear warning siren that even President-elect Trump cannot ignore,” said Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London.
6th Dec 2016
Global warming that scorched the surface of Mars for up to 10 million years may have wiped out life on the Red Planet, it is claimed.
It is thought Mars froze over roughly 3.8 billion years ago before warming periods melted the surface and created deep valleys and canyons.
Scientists believe this could by why the planet has water-carved features.
Water provides the conditions needed for life – so there could have been living organisms on Mars billions of years ago.
However, if there was life on Mars it would have been wiped out by climate change.
A build-up of greenhouse gasses in Mars’ dense atmosphere is thought to have sparked dramatic climate cycles.
Some studies have suggested the warming of Mars was brought on by asteroid impacts, but many researchers believe warming cycles are responsible.
Natasha Batalha, a graduate student of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, said: “With the cycling hypothesis, you get these long periods of warmth that give you sufficient time to form all the different Martian valley networks.”
The valleys on Mars are similar in width to the Grand Canyon – which is thought to have been carved out 16 million years ago when the Colorado River swelled after melting.
This type of climate model demonstrates how warming periods caused by greenhouse gasses persisted for millions of years, researchers claim.
Jim Kasting, a professor of geosciences at Penn State, said: “We think Mars had to be warm for millions to tens of millions of years, and the impact hypothesis can keep it warm for thousands of years.”
“In terms of water, we need millions of meters of rainfall, and they (previous studies) can get hundreds of meters.”
Batalha added: “Mars is in this precarious position where it’s at the outer edge of the habitable zone.”
“It’s receiving less solar flux, so you start at a glaciated state.”
“There is volcanic out-gassing, but because you are colder, you don’t get the same deposition of carbon back into the planet’s surface.”
“Instead, you get this atmospheric build-up and your planet slowly starts to rise in temperature.”
Researcher are still trying to work out if Mars could have produced enough carbon dioxide and hydrogen for this process to work.
Kasting said: “We would be well off if early Mars had plate tectonics just like Earth has today.”
“Then it works.”
“But that’s a big debate.”
“A lot of people don’t think Mars ever had it.”
18th Nov 2016
The DHS, and Secretary Johnson (in his official capacity) have been sued for the damage that has been caused to citizens because of expansive immigration policies and lax enforcement, and for not conducting an environmental analysis of the effect of their policies. The plaintiffs want transparency from the federal government and environmentally informed decision-making.
The nine plaintiffs urge that communities have been harmed and overwhelmed by school overcrowding, traffic congestion, water and air pollution, destruction of property and livestock, loss of green space, and interference with the peaceful enjoyment of private property. There were 14 affidavits attached to the complaint by those harmed by the federal government’s policies.
Affiant Don Rosenberg’s 25-year-old son Drew was in his second year of law school when an unlicensed illegal-alien driver ran over him three times and killed him. Rosenberg’s affidavit, an exhibit to the lawsuit, notes the stresses caused by congested areas, including traffic tie-ups and congestion, and says that the growing population in southern California has meant that there is not enough water to sustain the population. Rosenberg has lived in southern California for 30 years and he says he supports the lawsuit because DHS failed to take into account the environmental impacts of its mass immigration policies. Rosenberg maintains a website explaining the horrific things his family went through after his son was murdered by an illegal alien.
The plaintiffs, who are represented by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), want DHS to be transparent to the public and report “all potential impacts of the action.”
Lead IRLI counsel, Julie Axelrod told Breitbart Texas, “The federal government has been ignoring our nation’s preeminent environmental law for the past 46 years. NEPA, which stated directly that endless population growth is not in the national interest, was supposed to prevent exactly what has happened— that the public is in the dark about the massive environmental impact of the policy choices of their government.”
Axelrod explains, “In 2015, there was one new immigrant for every two births in the United States— which means a huge amount of population growth is entirely due to government policy. But DHS has never done any analysis of the environmental impact of deluge added to deluge of people. How can DHS imagine they have no environmental effect? The government recognizes that if it builds a new road or a new school it has an environmental impact—but why does it think new roads or schools, or other structures are built in the first place, if not to serve the needs of the population?”
The nine plaintiffs include: Californians for Population Stabilization, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, Floridians for Sustainable Population, Scientists and Environmentalists for Population Stabilization, New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association, Floridians for Sustainable Population,Whitewater Draw Natural Resource Conservation District, the Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Glen Colton, and Ralph Pope.
The plaintiffs charge that the DHS has closed its eyes to the environmental effects of immigration and has ignored federal law that governs the issue. They point to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and urge that federal law requires any federal agency to take a “hard look” at every “major federal action.” They urge that the U.S. government must consider any action that will affect the environment, and to both analyze and publicize those effects.
They seek to force DHS to contemplate the “enormous impacts to the human environment caused by legal and illegal immigration.”
Ian Smith, a spokesman for the Immigration Reform Law Institute told Breitbart Texas:
The Left has always been vocal about American consumption rates, i.e., that one fifth of the world’s oil is consumed in America, while its share of the population is only five percent. But they say nothing about the U.S. being easily the number one importer of people on the planet. Indeed, America’s population growth rate is comparable to that of the Third World. Currently, over 10 percent of all the people born in Mexico are living in the U.S., all of whom now consume like Americans. It is estimated that the carbon footprint of the average immigrant is four times higher than it would have been had they remained at home. America’s high population growth and high consumption means we have an outsized impact on the world’s environmental systems. Quite simply, reducing immigration is the best way to reduce our carbon footprint on the planet.
Smith says much of the immigration-control movement was actually founded and supported by environmentalists. He points to Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, who he says was a staunch restrictionist in the 1970s, and other notable public environmentalists like Nelson Rockefeller, Gaylord Nelson, and Population Bomb-author Paul R. Ehrlich.
“Even bellwether environmental groups like the Sierra Club understood the harmful effects of unregulated immigration. The Sierra Club flipped in the mid-nineties after they got a $100-million dollar check from a hedge fund manager who didn’t like their immigration angle,” Smith urges. “Now they won’t even share a platform with environmentally-focused restrictionist groups.”
The IRLI highlights the Census Bureau and says that half of all urban sprawl is a result of population growth. They note a report by the Center for Immigration Studies and say that 80 percent of the population growth is attributed to immigration. They also say that between 1990 and 2010, the population in the United States grew by over 61 million people and this can be attributed to the wide immigration policies and soft immigration enforcement of DHS and the INS before it. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) was the predecessor to the DHS.
It is projected that the population of the U.S. will grow from 321.37 million (2015 figures), to 407.41 million in 2055.
Former Colorado Democratic Governor Richard D. Lamm told Breitbart Texas, “Americans have a right to know the environmental impacts of our government’s mass immigration policies, especially when half of all immigrants go to just five metropolitan areas in the country: New York, Chicago, San Francisco-Oakland, Los Angeles and Southern Florida. It’s no coincidence that the latter two sprawl-centers contain the largest number of species now on America’s endangered list.”
Lamm, an affiant in the lawsuit, now serves as the co-director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver in Colorado. He is the author of the book “Population and the Law.”
24th Oct 2016
Geneva (AFP) – The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere averaged a record 400 parts per million in 2015, an ominous milestone for the planet’s health, the UN said Monday.
The greenhouse gas has previously passed the 400 ppm threshold on certain months in specific locations but never on an annual global basis, the United Nations World Meteorological Organization said.
In its latest Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, WMO also reported that CO2 concentration rates had “surged again to new records in 2016” and predicted the annual average would stay above 400 ppm “for many generations.”
The concentration of CO2 spiked in part because of a strong El Nino, the whether phenomenon that occurs every four to five years with a broadly warming effect.
El Nino “triggered droughts in tropical regions and reduced the capacity of ‘sinks’ like forests, vegetation and the oceans to absorb CO2,” WMO said.
But the head of the Geneva-based agency, Petteri Taalas, warned against complacency just because El Nino has subsided for now.
“The El Nino event has disappeared. Climate change has not,” he said.
Taalas called CO2 “the elephant in the room” in the battle to rein in climate change.
He applauded the landmark deal reached in Rwanda’s capital Kigali earlier this month to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, a category of dangerous greenhouse gases widely used in refrigerators and air conditioners.
But he said that without similarly bold action against C02 emissions, the world will fail to meet the goals laid out in the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
The WMO’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin tracks concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere, rather than emissions.
Aside from CO2, the report monitors concentration rates of methane, nitrous oxide and several other gases with a major impact on climate change.
22nd Oct 2016
The United Nations has rejected the media credentials of three journalists from a conservative news outlet in Canada to the upcoming UN climate summit in Morocco in November. Nick Nuttall, a UN official, admitted in an October 18 CBC interview that The Rebel news outlet is being banned from attending the UN summit because of its skeptical reporting of the UN’s climate claims.
Nuttall tried to justly the UN media ban by noting that The Rebel TV host Ezra Levant has called UN promoted climate change fears a “crock.”
“What does [calling climate change a ‘crock’] add to the public’s understating?” Nuttall asked the CBC.
The UN’s Nuttall told the CBC “I don’t see what he is actually reporting, you know, as being particularly helpful.”
But much to the shock of the UN official, the warmist Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) Carol Off was having none of it. The CBC’s Off openly challenged the UN’s censorship of the media outlet.
“Do people have to prove that they’re helpful in order to be accredited journalists?” Off, who hosts the ‘As it Happens’ program on the CBC, asked the UN’s Nuttall.
A clearly flustered Nuttall responded, “Well, what do you think journalism is about?”
The CBC’s Carol Off tersely responded “reporting.”
As the Nuttall continued to dig himself deeper into a media hole, Off demanded an answer.
“I am just wondering again about he subjectivity of rejecting the credentials of The Rebel,” CBC’s Carol Off asked again.
Off summed up the UN’s obvious bias in rejecting the news outlet’s request for credentials.
“So it does seem that what Mr. Levant is saying is true — that you didn’t like his point of view,” Off asked.
Nuttall responded. “No, not really. The point is he seems to be advocating a particular point of view which is so personal that it didn’t seem to be a genuine media outlet to me.”
Nuttall also tried to justify the UN’s censorship by claiming the conservative media outlet “seemed to be more kind of anti-refugee, anti-climate, anti-this, anti-that. And I just didn’t feel that it was maybe appropriate in terms of better understanding climate change issues and giving balanced reporting to a general public.”
Nuttall also claimed that The Rebel “caters to other people’s prejudices.”
The Rebel’s Ezra Levant responded to the UN’s Nuttall in full here
Full audio of UN”s Nick Nuttall interview on CBC here:
CBC’s As it Happens host Carol Off spoke with the UN’s Nick Nuttall. Nuttall was involved in the decision to deny Rebel Media accreditation for next month’s meeting. Here’s an excerpt of their conversation:
CAROL OFF: Mr. Nuttall, Ezra Levant says that you have rejected his application because you don’t like Rebel Media’s point of view. How do you respond?
NICK NUTTALL: We looked at Rebel Media and we just really weren’t sure what it was. I mean, we weren’t sure if it was a platform for this chap Ezra — I can’t remember his last name now …
CO: Levant. Ezra Levant.
NN: Ok fine, yeah. I don’t live in Canada, so I don’t know. We get a lot of people who purport to be journalists and sometimes they’re NGOs or civil societies or others with all kinds of different axes to grind and all kind of issues. We try and just make sure that we accredit what we consider to be journalists.
“I looked at Rebel Media’s website and it seemed to me that this was a kind of website that was very much pushing a very particular point of view and therefore made me wonder how it was funded, who backs it, and what kind of purpose they were there to serve.”– UN’s Nick Nuttall
CO: On what grounds did you reject Mr. Levant and Rebel Media’s application?
NN: I looked at Rebel Media’s website and it seemed to me that this was a kind of website that was very much pushing a very particular point of view and therefore made me wonder how it was funded, who backs it, and what kind of purpose they were there to serve. Looking at some of the headlines on their website … there didn’t seem to be much balance in the reporting. It seemed to be more kind of anti-refugee, anti-climate, anti-this, anti-that. And I just didn’t feel that it was maybe appropriate in terms of better understanding climate change issues and giving balanced reporting to a general public.
CO: So it does seem that what Mr. Levant is saying is true — that you didn’t like his point of view.
NN: No, not really. The point is he seems to be advocating a particular point of view which is so personal that it didn’t seem to be a genuine media outlet to me… I don’t see what he is actually reporting you know as being particularly helpful.
CO: Do people have to prove that they’re helpful in order to be accredited journalists?
NN: Well, what do you think journalism is about?
NN: Reporting. Factually, accurately, honestly, trying to get the truth out of what actually is going on in this very complex world. And, from the little I saw, which were inflammatory headlines on issues that weren’t even related to climate change … It was a croc of something, or other.
CO: He called it “climate change croc”.
NN: Yeah, well what does that add to public understanding? What is journalism?
CO: Is it not possible, though, by rejecting his application that you have given his position even more publicity?
NN: That is one reason why I was slightly reluctant to do this interview with you … Many people have written to me that he’s very adept at using this kind of thing to generate more money through crowd-funding to keep his website going. I hope that people who maybe listen to this interview will think twice.
CO: Can he do anything to convince you otherwise to give him the accreditation?
NN: Well I have to say that two Canadian journalism associations have in fact written to me saying that we should rethink the situation. Now, when serious Canadian journalist associations actually write to me on that basis and are willing to stand by this individual and his website and what he covers, then now, I’m chewing that over. [These associations] have credibility, it would seem, and so I’m really thinking about it.
18th Oct 2016
Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can’t get their “dirty weather,” as Al Gore calls it? Then they’ll just have define down what a disaster is.
Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”
The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.
Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.
After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed. ”
“We need a new hurricane intensity metric,” he said, “that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland.”
The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides “a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane’s sustained wind speed.” But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.
“So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”
“This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”
The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — has failed to show a link between hurricanes and global warming. They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.