Here are excerpts from an article by the Associated Press called This US summer is 'what global warming looks like':
WASHINGTON (AP) – If you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, scientists suggest taking a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks.
Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho.
These are the kinds of extremes climate scientists have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June.
Scientifically linking individual weather events to climate change takes intensive study, complicated mathematics, computer models and lots of time. Sometimes it isn't caused by global warming. Weather is always variable; freak things happen.
And on and on. Fortunately the article does indeed note several caveats including that these severe phenomena are not worldwide but are regional or local. And this is the most crucial part of debunking ‘global warming’. Because you can always find extremes of weather and climate someplace on planet earth on any given day, week or month.
Meanwhile four of the critical weaknesses of the ‘global warming’ argument are conveniently omitted from these types of articles:
*The alarmists only call it ‘global warming’ when it is summer, when it is hot already. Otherwise it is called ‘climate change’. And very cold weather is ignored or blamed on ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ and never on natural cold.
*The term ‘climate change’ covers any eventuality – hot, cold, snow, wind, rain, flood, drought etc. That is why the fanatics love the phrase ‘climate change’. They are manipulators of the first order.
*The alarmists never explain that nature’s unpredictable brutality explains drought, floods, storms etc. Because “mother nature” is no mother at all. Nature is the most brutal force on the planet. But the ecologists in the warming/climate-change cult will never admit that Inconvenient Truth because they are all nature worshippers.
*The alarmists never discuss the fact that they are getting huge amounts of money to promote ‘warming’ in the form of grants, professorships, awards, tax dollars, research funding, important jobs etc.
Here is one of the ‘warming’ alarmists from the AP article:
As recently as March, a special report (on) extreme events and disasters by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of "unprecedented extreme weather and climate events." Its lead author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University, said Monday, "It's really dramatic how many of the patterns that we've talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now."
Yeah, right… Fact is that these patterns have been happening all over the globe for thousands of years before the ‘warming’ profiteers came along. So all they do is attach their name and their apocalyptic projections to natural disasters and they have ‘global warming’ alarmism.
These people are such phonies…
Meanwhile the ‘godfather’ of the global environmental movement is Briton James Lovelock. Torontosun.com recently reported:
Lovelock… gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
As Lovelock observes, “(Natural) Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
Wonderful. Awesome. The ‘godfather’ of the global enviro movement joins a growing chorus that says that the movement has been hijacked by radicals. This is yet another huge gift to us enviro skeptics.
Naturally the fanatics who now control much of the global ‘green’ movement are rejecting Lovelock as a traitor and a turncoat. Yet Lovelock’s status reflects that of another enviro pioneer, Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, who quit his own organization because he says that it too has been hijacked. Moore also favors nuclear power like all sensible people do.
Indeed major ‘green’ pioneers are agreeing with us conservatives more and more and not with the new generation of ‘green’ alarmists because you just can’t ignore the truth. And the truth is on our side.
Here is another way that the ‘greens’ are ruining us with irrational policies. Foxnews.com recently reported:
Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.
"As ludicrous as that sounds, it's fact," says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. "If it weren't so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical."
And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."
Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.
"None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It's a phantom fuel," says Pyle. "It doesn't exist in the market place."
And Charles Drevna adds, "forcing us to use a product that doesn't exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns."
And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:
"Why would they ask them to blend any at all if it doesn't exist?" Pyle said. "Because they know that they can squeeze some extra dollars out of them."
So indeed this is more treachery from the enviro movement.
(Please bookmark this website. Thank you, Nikitas)