“Ghostbusters” or global warming?

posted at 9:21 am on March 31, 2014 by Jeff Dunetz

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

One might remember the quote above from the movie Ghostbusters but it also works as a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global warming released by the United Nations on Monday.

The report reflects the IPCC projections of the effects of a 0.5-8.6 degrees increase in temperature (Fahrenheit) this century. What it ignores is that there has been no global warming for 17 years and six months.

As described in the New York Times the IPCC report warns:

It cited the risk of death or injury on a widespread scale, probable damage to public health, displacement of people and potential mass migrations.

“Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger,” the report declared.

The report also cites the possibility of violent conflict over land or other resources, to which climate change might contribute indirectly “by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

The scientists emphasized that climate change is not just some problem of the distant future, but is happening now. For instance, in much of the American West, mountain snowpack is declining, threatening water supplies for the region, the scientists reported. And the snow that does fall is melting earlier in the year, which means there is less meltwater to ease the parched summers.

Many of the reports’ warnings are disputed by what is really happening in the world. For example it talks about global warming damaging food supplies, yet the USDA shows the 2.241 billion tons of grain were produced worldwide in 2012 vs.1.846 billion in 2000.

The report seem to blame the west coast drought on climate change (the lack of snow meltwater) but less than three weeks ago National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Martin Hoerling wrote in the NY Times:

We can also say with high confidence that no appreciable trend toward either wetter or drier conditions has been observed for statewide average precipitation since 1895. This drought is not part of a long-term drift toward reduced precipitation over the state.

The biggest problem with the latest IPCC report are the questions it doesn’t attempt to answer such as:

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?

-The climate models used to predict global warming proved to be wrong, what makes the revised models more reliable?

-What makes the IPCC so sure the warming trend  of the 1980s through the mid 199os and the warming stoppage ever since,  aren’t  simply part of the Earth’s natural climate cycles?

-Since global warming stopped over 17 years ago, why didn’t their doom and gloom predictions revealing themselves back  then?

Until those questions are answered and their doom and gloom predictions actually start happening, documents such as the IPCC report released Monday are as fictional as the movie Ghostbusters.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

And what’s the over/under on when some libtard will claim the earthquakes in LA are the result of climate change?

HumpBot Salvation on March 31, 2014 at 9:26 AM

It has been 60 or 70 years ago but I remember like it was yesterday every Fouth of July my mother would complain that all the fireworks going off across the nation made it hotter and that caused it to rain. She was 100 years ahead of her time.

Herb on March 31, 2014 at 9:27 AM

And what’s the over/under on when some libtard will claim the earthquakes in LA are the result of climate change?

HumpBot Salvation on March 31, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Wrong…they are being caused by fracking…/

PatriotRider on March 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM

Illegal Immigration will kill us faster.

TimBuk3 on March 31, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Ask better questions is the first step to stop believing in false facts.

dentalque on March 31, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Many of the reports’ warnings are disputed by what is really happening in the world

That silly, why in heavens name should that matter.

jmtham156 on March 31, 2014 at 9:30 AM

“Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.”

http://www.nipccreport.org/

Viator on March 31, 2014 at 9:31 AM

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/31/ghostbusters-or-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-7883509

Nope. They will blame Fracking, drilling or mining. Some other human activity.

dentalque on March 31, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Wrong…they are being caused by fracking…/

PatriotRider on March 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM

In ND and TX no less, lol

Mini-14 on March 31, 2014 at 9:32 AM

If Hollywood is looking for its next disaster movie script, they can look no further. Maybe if all the believers would send us all their money, we could save the planet or something.

Kissmygrits on March 31, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Give us your money…or we’re all gonna die or something….

workingclass artist on March 31, 2014 at 9:35 AM

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

Fallon on March 31, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Hide the decline plateau.

Occams Stubble on March 31, 2014 at 9:37 AM

What it ignores are the facts.

One of the authors of a U.N. draft report on climate change, Dr. Richard Tol, pulled out of the writing team, saying his colleagues were issuing unfounded “alarmist” claims at the expense of real solutions.

sadatoni on March 31, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Tell them about the Twinkie…

Free Indeed on March 31, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

One might remember the quote above from the movie Ghostbusters

The irony is that the scene you’re referencing depicts the EPA guy as the antagonist.

Doughboy on March 31, 2014 at 9:43 AM

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

Fallon on March 31, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Now that is the question-maybe Michael Mann would know.

jmtham156 on March 31, 2014 at 9:43 AM

In 5 to 10 years the earth will be so hot liquid steel will rain from the sky!

tdarrington on March 31, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Fish Instead of People, Ideologies without Consequences – Victor Davis Hanson

“If only people had to live in the world that they dreamed of for others.

Endangered species everywhere are supposed to be at risk — except birds of prey shredded by wind turbine farms, or reptilian habitats harmed by massive solar farms. High-speed rail is great for utopian visionaries — except don’t dare start it in the Bay Area, when there are yokels aplenty down in Hanford to experiment on. Let’s raise power bills to the highest levels in the country with all sorts of green mandates — given that we live in 70-degree year-round temperatures, while “they” who are stupid enough to dwell in 105-degree Bakersfield deserve the resulting high power bills. We need cheap labor, open borders, multiculturalism, and identity politics, but not too near my kids’ Santa Monica or Atherton prep schools. I like my beamer in La Jolla and my Mercedes in Menlo Park, but not the fracking that might provide cheaper gas for Juan and Jose who drive a used 10-year-old Yukon 40 miles to work in Mendota.

Appreciate these contradictions of the liberal elite mind and the current California drought is logical rather than aberrant.

In this third year of California drought, perhaps 500,000 acres of farmland will lie idle for lack of water. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be sunk into lowering wells, as the aquifer dives, when too many straws compete for too little water at the bottom of the glass. There are reasons why a drought threatens existential ruin in the billions of dollars rather than mere hardship. Our forefathers 50 years ago knew well the ancient California equation: a) California’s population always grows; b) 80% of the state wishes to live where 20% of the rain falls; c) therefore, to ensure that the normal cycles of drought do not prove fatal to commerce and agriculture, man must transfer water from the north to the south of the state.

Unlike 1976-77, there are no longer just 23 million Californians, but 40 million. But unlike the past, Californians in the 1970s gave up on completing the state California Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project that had supplemented the earlier Colorado River, Big Creek, and Hetch Hetchy water storage and transference efforts.

At some fateful moment in the 1970s, the other California on the coast, drunk with the globalized wealth that poured into Napa Valley, the Silicon Valley, the great coastal university nexuses at Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA and Caltech, the entertainment industry, the defense industry, and the financial industry decided that they had transcended the old warnings of more Californians needing far more water to survive more droughts. When you are rich, you can afford for the first time in your life to favor a newt with spots on his toes over someone else that lacks your money, clout, and sensitivities.

The once envisioned reservoirs on the Klamath were cancelled. The supplemental lakes on the Sacramento and American were as well. There was to be no twin wet-year storage lake south of the San Luis Reservoir. No Temperance Flat was to augment Millerton Lake. Such construction was considered far too 19th century in it unnatural building and damming and canaling.

Of course, it was. But so was the most unnatural project of them all, Hetch Hetchy, the engineering marvel that brought the purest water in America by the force of gravity over 160 miles into the Bay Area, making the dense corridor of San Francisco to Silicon Valley what it is today.

Had we finished the California Water Project and the Central Valley Project, or had population tapered off at 30 million, or had global warming been real and created a Central and Southern California tropics with 40 inches a year of rain, then we would not be courting ruin. But we grew and stopped building water storage at the same time and the climate remained what it always was.

Yet it was worse than that still. Our mountain reservoirs were intended for four grand purposes: to store water for agriculture, to store water for hydroelectric generation, to store water to prevent flooding below, and to store water for recreation in our newfound 40 or so Sierra and Northern California lakes.

Note what our forefathers did not envision. They did not foresee that this contemporary and far wealthier generation would not just abandon their plans, and thus make it dangerous for California to grow as it had, but also would create a fifth and novel use for our manmade and unnatural lakes: to release precious water to enhance green fantasies about returning to a 19th century landscape of salmon jumping in our southern rivers from sea to Sierra, and bait fish and minnows in the delta swimming as they had for eons. How odd that naturalists wanted unnatural reservoir to improve on nature.

The sin of not investing in “infrastructure” to keep up with population growth was compounded by a greater sin still of misappropriating infrastructure. Those who had stopped the building of more unnatural dams — a green movement birthed among the opulence of Northern California that sought exemption from the ramifications of its own ideology — now wanted infrastructure to store the water necessary for its own dreams of replenishing salmon in the rivers.

I say dreams, because the pre-reservoir river landscape of 19th-century California had been characterized both by too much and too little water. Rivers flooded in the spring (Tulare Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley was for a few months each spring one of the largest fresh-water lakes west of the Great Lakes), only to grow dry by September as the snowmelt was gone and the new storms had not yet arrived. Only the reservoirs that the environmentalists scolded us about could provide the necessary water for a utopian steady year-round river that had never existed.

The result is that there are now zero water deliveries for agriculture from our vanishing reservoir waters. Those who stopped the 15-million-acre feet of additional storage space that might have saved the state now tap the last drops that flow from the dams they opposed in pursuance of theories that remain unproven.

The water disaster is not shared by everyone in quite the same way. In a rare irony, the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts cross the San Joaquin River on their way to the Bay Area. Surely such Bay Area-owned waters might have been diverted to increase the San Joaquin River’s flow to the sea? Could not the Apple executives and the UC professors have showered once a week to save the smelt or to let the poor salmon at least make it to the Tuolumne River?

There is a great sickness in California, home of the greatest number of American billionaires and poor people, land of the highest taxes and about the worst schools and roads in the nation. The illness is a new secular religion far more zealous and intolerant than the pre-Reformation zealotry of the Church. Modern elite liberalism is based on the simple creed that one’s affluence and education, one’s coolness and zip code, should shield him from the consequences of one’s bankrupt thoughts that he inflicts on others. We are a state run by dead souls who square the circle of their own privilege, who seek meaning in rather selfish lives, always at someone else’s expense.

It is that simple — that pernicious….”

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/ideologies-without-consequences/?singlepage=true

workingclass artist on March 31, 2014 at 9:49 AM

Back when they first started sending up satellites every time we had bad weather the old folks used to blame it on “all them satellites and things”.

crankyoldlady on March 31, 2014 at 9:49 AM

All the “disaster scenarios” are based on one false assumption: We are incapable of adapting. At all.

However, if you do assume we are capable of some level of adaptation, warming could be a huge benefit. Longer growing seasons, more land capable of growing crops (look at how a few dams made huge swaths of desert into cropland), etc.

taznar on March 31, 2014 at 9:50 AM

The OFA email I received (btw – I can’t get off the email list despite unsubscibing multiple times) reads:

Who are you gonna call?

They can’t even get that right.

Oh, I don’t know how I got on the email list. My “account” with them started in the fall of 2012. They list a Milwaukee zip code for me (I live in NC).

mankai on March 31, 2014 at 9:51 AM

We are warming the earth so fast, thermometers haven’t been able to keep up over the past 17 years. The earth is warming so fast we are sucking energy out if the distant past. That is why there was an ice age 10000 years ago.

tdarrington on March 31, 2014 at 9:51 AM

“Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger,” the report declared.

You could say it’s due to climate-change because all of this could happen if the eco-socialists get their way.

Fenris on March 31, 2014 at 9:53 AM

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

Fallon on March 31, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Exactly. And what is the “correct” level of CO2? And what would a “correct” climate be doing right now?

Thedirty little secret is- no baseline has been defined. So everything that follows is BS.

Bat Chain Puller on March 31, 2014 at 9:54 AM

In 5 to 10 years the earth will be so hot liquid steel will rain from the sky!
tdarrington on March 31, 2014 at 9:47 AM

Utter nonsense. Everyone knows steel can’t get hot enough to melt! [/sarc]

SunSword on March 31, 2014 at 9:55 AM

It’s the liberal way: when you’re being proven wrong, double down!

Christian Conservative on March 31, 2014 at 9:56 AM

The lemmings always have to have something to worry about.

GarandFan on March 31, 2014 at 9:59 AM

“British officials were last night accused of ‘political interference’ in a crucial report on international climate change. The economic impact of global warming was ramped up in the final draft by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Shortly before authors wrote the final version, a British Government official passed scientists a note complaining about an earlier, more moderate draft. The final document, published today in Japan, increases the predicted economic impact of global warming. Critics said the suggestion of political interference by the Coalition, which set out to be the ‘greenest government ever’, was alarming.” –Ben Spencer, Daily Mail, 31 March 2014

Viator on March 31, 2014 at 10:01 AM

SunSword on March 31, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Fire may not be able to melt steel, but climate change can. Climate change can do anything!

tdarrington on March 31, 2014 at 10:02 AM

For example it talks about global warming damaging food supplies

The report seem to blame the west coast drought on climate change

If the UN were really that concerned about these things they could just tell the US government to stop paying farmers not to plant crops and to stop creating man-made droughts in CA.

antipc on March 31, 2014 at 10:02 AM

The “United Nations”: If everyone doesn’t give us control of their lives socialism will crumble, economic growth will run rampant, the planet will fall into ruin, rampaging hordes will control the streets, and our moral authority over every aspect of your life will end.

jaime on March 31, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Don’t ya’ll know that the current quakes are caused by that damned, fracking Global Warming Climate Change, and that the San Andreas fault was caused by Gaia’s sobbing because Noah didn’t kill off his whole family?

vnvet on March 31, 2014 at 10:16 AM

All the “disaster scenarios” are based on one false assumption: We are incapable of adapting. At all.

However, if you do assume we are capable of some level of adaptation, warming could be a huge benefit. Longer growing seasons, more land capable of growing crops (look at how a few dams made huge swaths of desert into cropland), etc.

taznar on March 31, 2014 at 9:50 AM

Silly human parasite/virus. Adaptation only applies to the natural world when it is in balance. The parasitic humans are an unnatural anomaly that has thrown the planet out of balance and prevents the natural cycle from naturally cycling. The only way to make balance again is to eliminate the human virus or give all our money and absolute power over us to the “right” people. If we don’t do one or the other like right now, we are all doomed to die a horrible death. Simply put, it is the end of the human race if we do not do something to eliminate the human virus infecting the planet. Our only hope of survival is to eradicate all humans so that the planet can again come into balance.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 31, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Don’t ya’ll know that the current quakes are caused by that damned, fracking Global Warming Climate Change, and that the San Andreas fault was caused by Gaia’s sobbing because Noah didn’t kill off his whole family?

vnvet on March 31, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Come off it. Anyone of reasonable intelligence knows that Noah is a myth created by white men that believe in an invisible sky daddy in order to oppress woman and people of color.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 31, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I just lower the thermostat.Warming problem solved for me.

docflash on March 31, 2014 at 10:21 AM

All this UN alarmism is based on models, not empirical evidence. The models have proven wrong, yet the left bitterly clings to them. The reason, of course, is that it’s not actually about climate. It’s about politics, disinformation and redistribution of assets.

petefrt on March 31, 2014 at 10:21 AM

The report also cites the possibility of violent conflict over land or other resources, to which climate change might contribute indirectly “by exacerbating well-established drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

…China and Russia…could not be reached…for comment!

KOOLAID2 on March 31, 2014 at 10:24 AM

“Throughout the 21st century, leftist socialist policies climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger,” the report declared.

FIFT.

RDH on March 31, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Guess these folks are headed to the progressive denier gulag…

“The latest independent peer-reviewed NIPCC scientific report found no link between human activity and climate change.

“The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice-covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, the subject of this Summary for Policymakers, examines the scientific research on the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels on the biological world. It finds no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.”

The NIPCC report found that the human effect on climate change is likely to be small.

The scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. Previous volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series were published in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. Those volumes along with separate executive summaries for the second, third, and fourth reports are available for free online on this site.

Whereas the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.

Climate Change Reconsidered II consists of three parts, the two being released now and an earlier volume, subtitled Physical Science, released on September 17-18, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois USA. Additional release events took place the following weeks in Washington, DC, New York, Florida, St. Louis, England, Germany, Holland, and California. That volume can be viewed here….”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/03/confirmed-independent-peer-reviewed-nipcc-scientific-report-finds-no-link-between-man-and-climate-change/

workingclass artist on March 31, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Yawn. The predictions are only based on the assumptions put into the computer models. A these models can be manipulated to say anything. There is no science involved and this has nothing to do with the climate.

Ellis on March 31, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Is there anti-global warming website?

Oil Can on March 31, 2014 at 10:33 AM

– Since global warming stopped over 17 years ago, why didn’t their doom and gloom predictions revealing themselves back then?

Hey there Mr. Dunetz. Any chance we can have that again, this time in English?

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on March 31, 2014 at 10:33 AM

All this UN alarmism is based on models, not empirical evidence. The models have proven wrong, yet the left bitterly clings to them. The reason, of course, is that it’s not actually about climate. It’s about politics, disinformation and redistribution of assets.

petefrt on March 31, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Here are some global warming models that I can believe in. Oh Yeah!

Oldnuke on March 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Until those questions are answered and their doom and gloom predictions actually start happening, documents such as the IPCC report released Monday are as fictional as the movie Ghostbusters.

Now wait just a darned minute here! Global warming is settled science, why are we even debating this anymore?

Nobody will be madder than Obama when he finds out that there are still deniers out here in the real world….. where it snowed yesterday (March 30th) in Northern Virginia. The first week of the Cherry Blossom Festival.

Happy Nomad on March 31, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Jeff, your questions are better addressed to the first report, which covered the science of warming. This one covers the impact, which is more speculative.

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?

Well, it didn’t. The rate of increase has slowed, mostly because of a series of La Nina cycles that have moved warmth deeper into the ocean. If the La Ninas stop, the temperature will start coming up again, as it did for the previous 40 years.

-The climate models used to predict global warming proved to be wrong, what makes the revised models more reliable?

They weren’t “wrong”, they overshot a bit. That still makes them more accurate than the projections of people who said we would be cooling now, which we should be if global temperature were tracking solar activity.

-What makes the IPCC so sure the warming trend of the 1980s through the mid 199os and the warming stoppage ever since, aren’t simply part of the Earth’s natural climate cycles?

Much faster than previous changes. And the only process that can explain the change, at this point, is AGW. Solar cycles, volcanic activity, orbital changes — the drivers of previous climate change events — have been excluded.

The second IPCC report is interesting, but I would take it would take it with some salt as predicting the secondary effects of global warming is far more difficult than the primary science. For example, no one predicted the polar vortex. I do think we should be cautious about the massive irreversible geo-engineering experiment we have been carrying out by massively increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. I know people like to think we can do anything we want with no effect, but history belies that.

Hal_10000 on March 31, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Here are some global warming models that I can believe in. Oh Yeah!

Oldnuke on March 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I was trying to figure out how to work some models into this. You beat me to it. The second from the right reminds me of my wife when she was young. Back then my wife have arms, legs, hands and all the other parts that make up a female human. Well, she still does but just not as young.

I will pay if she reads this.

Luckily she has forgotten her password so she hasn’t looked at HA for a while.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 31, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Pre-Determined ‘Science’: Flashback 2009: UN Climate Chief Predicted UN’s 2014 report would prompt call ‘to take action much faster than we planned’

UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chief Rajendra Pachauri in a September 23, 2009 in New York City Speech: ‘When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’”

~

“The next report will be worser! And the one after that…? Worser!”

Akzed on March 31, 2014 at 10:54 AM

The “United Nations”: If everyone doesn’t give us control of their lives socialism will crumble, economic growth will run rampant, the planet will fall into ruin, rampaging hordes will control the streets, and our moral authority over every aspect of your life will end.

jaime on March 31, 2014 at 10:09 AM

They say that like it’s a bad thing. I guess for a Fascist, it is.

Quartermaster on March 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM

http://www.ClimateDepot.com

Akzed on March 31, 2014 at 10:59 AM

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?


Well, it didn’t.
The rate of increase has slowed, mostly because of a series of La Nina cycles that have moved warmth deeper into the ocean. If the La Ninas stop, the temperature will start coming up again, as it did for the previous 40 years.

What ended the last Ice Age?

Akzed on March 31, 2014 at 11:02 AM

okie, okie, come out to play!!

slickwillie2001 on March 31, 2014 at 11:05 AM

The IPCC is recycling Ehrlich’s BS from the 1970′s

Akzed on March 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM

EPA agents raid ammunition company on alleged ‘environmental violations’

Akzed on March 31, 2014 at 11:07 AM

When the law is against you, pound the facts.

When the facts are against you, pound the law.

When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.

Saltyron on March 31, 2014 at 11:24 AM

The second from the right reminds me of my wife when she was young.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 31, 2014 at 10:53 AM

This is the spitting image of my wife when I met her. Same build, same hair, and the eyes. That’s what did it for me. Every time I watch a movie with her in it all I see is my wife.

Oldnuke on March 31, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Well, it didn’t. The rate of increase has slowed, mostly because of a series of La Nina cycles that have moved warmth deeper into the ocean.

All is explained, all is completely understood. No mystery, what a relief.

They weren’t “wrong”, they overshot a bit.

A BIT!? Hahahahahahahaaaaa

Much faster than previous changes.

What previous changes, specifically? Oh never mind, you’re not even close on this one.

Bat Chain Puller on March 31, 2014 at 11:36 AM

What ended the last Ice Age?

Akzed on March 31, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Mastodon flatulence.

Oldnuke on March 31, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Well, it didn’t. The rate of increase has slowed,

Oh, so we have had a massive warming cut, then. Warming austerity, if you will? Success!

tdarrington on March 31, 2014 at 12:37 PM

…I will pay if she reads this.

Luckily she has forgotten her password so she hasn’t looked at HA for a while.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 31, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Ummm. Never mind.

Tsar of Earth on March 31, 2014 at 1:28 PM

“We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.” — Luke 7:32

Or, in slightly more modern terms, Al Gore and Man-Bear-Pig “Nobody takes me serial!!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 31, 2014 at 1:33 PM

The report reflects the IPCC projections of the effects of a 0.5-8.6 degrees increase in temperature (Fahrenheit) this century. What it ignores is that there has been no global warming for 17 years and six months.

Well, there was a 0.5 degree warming during the LAST century, and the Earth is producing more food than it did 100 years ago. Did the IPCC ever consider that a little warming (longer growing seasons) might be a GOOD thing?

If they’re worried about the extra CO2 in the air, hundreds of experiments have shown that plant growth rates and crop yields tend to INCREASE with CO2 concentration, which would tend to alleviate food shortages, not create them!

The IPCC modelers also seem to forget about the tremendous heat capacity of the oceans. If extra CO2 in the air was able to trap an additional 1 Watt per square meter over the entire earth, this could only melt enough ice to raise sea levels by about 4 millimeters per year, or about 16 inches in a century. Since current sea-level rise rates are less than 2 millimeters per year, the actual heat trapped by CO2 is less than 0.5 W/m2.

Steve Z on March 31, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Ummm. Never mind.

Tsar of Earth on March 31, 2014 at 1:28 PM

She can’t post without her password so she doesn’t even want to look at the comments. She is strange that way.

Dr. Frank Enstine on March 31, 2014 at 2:07 PM

After reading about the IPCC report in the “respectable” press, I was struck by the fact that the warnings of immediate catastrophe were growing wilder, while (at the same time) the evidence of a link between CO2 levels and warming were getting much more sparse.

SubmarineDoc on March 31, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Whoever said that science is a purely objective enterprise (in contrast to religion, which is alleged to be entirely subjective) completely underestimated human nature. Philosophy affects the productivity of science about as much as, if not more than, the tools and processes used by scientists. The IPCC serves as a great example to discourage people from blind faith in scientists; especially those with political interests.

LancerDL on March 31, 2014 at 2:39 PM

The report reflects the IPCC projections of the effects of a 0.5-8.6 degrees increase in temperature (Fahrenheit) this century.

Guessing it’ll warm on average between 0 and 9 degrees is the best we can do with “settled science”?

gekkobear on March 31, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Well, Jeff, doesn’t really take much to figure out the answers to your questions. You just have to do a little reading.

-Why did the Earth stop warming 17 years ago?

It didn’t. Of course, if a lie is repeated often enough, soft minds will believe it. Global warming is progressing just fine (unfortunately).

The folks who know more about what’s really happening with climate than just about everybody else:

http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

-The climate models used to predict global warming proved to be wrong, what makes the revised models more reliable?

Every model ever created about anything is wrong. And they will always be wrong. So what?

-What makes the IPCC so sure the warming trend of the 1980s through the mid 199os and the warming stoppage ever since, aren’t simply part of the Earth’s natural climate cycles?

Certainty is relative. No scientist expresses certainty, but only levels of confidence. You have a comprehension problem, Jeff.

-Since global warming stopped over 17 years ago, why didn’t their doom and gloom predictions revealing themselves back then?

Your understanding of the science is as poor – maybe worse than – your sentence construction. At least scientists go back and check their work.

oakland on March 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM