Category: Uncategorized

Intellectual Vertigo: Trivia, Emotionalism in One Spot Check (taxpayers pay for this?)

Intellectual Vertigo: Trivia, Emotionalism in One Spot Check (taxpayers pay for this?)

via Master Resource
http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

“I, therefore, juxtapose feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies scholarship to demonstrate how eastern fox squirrels are subjected to gendered, racialized, and speciesist thinking in the popular news media as a result of their feeding/eating practices, their unique and unfixed spatial arrangements in the greater Los Angeles region, and the western, modernist human frame through which humans interpret these actions.”

– Professor Teresa Lloro-Bidart (below)

“Trump and the climate-destroyers he brought into office with him, such as Rex Tillerson and Scott Pruitt, are not driven by compassion for victims. They are animated by a callous and rapacious search for profits for themselves and their cronies. If they cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn’t want to ban Syrian refugees like the Kurds from the United States. Nor would they want to spew ever more tons of the most noxious gas of all into the blue skies of the only planetary home the human race has.”

– Professor Juan Cole, The Nation (below)

It’s absurd and offensive enough when a “liberal studies” professor from California State Polytechnic University (!) wastes our tax and tuition money writing worthless gibberish for an “academic” journal like Gender, Place and Culture.

In what some will call a scholarly article, Teresa Lloro-Bidart, PhD explains how a relatively recent shift in reddish-brown garbage-eating tree squirrel demographics

presents a unique opportunity to question and re-theorize the ontological given of “otherness” that manifests, in part, through a politics whereby animal food choices “[come] to stand in for both compliance and resistance to the dominant forces in [human] culture.” I, therefore, juxtapose feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies scholarship to demonstrate how eastern fox squirrels are subjected to gendered, racialized, and speciesist thinking in the popular news media as a result of their feeding/eating practices, their unique and unfixed spatial arrangements in the greater Los Angeles region, and the western, modernist human frame through which humans interpret these actions.

Thankfully, this extract from an abstract will be seen by few people outside Ms. Lloro-Bidart’s circle of like-minded academics with too much taxpayer support. Unfortunately, other academician nonsense gets far more attention, indoctrinates too many of our children, and influences too many important public policies, especially on energy and climate.

The ‘Miracle Molecule’ as Poison

University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole’s April 17 article in The Nation is a case in point. (You can’t make this stuff up, nor can you say any longer that it’s just an isolated case, an aberration.)

Bashar al Assad’s sarin gas attack killed people and “consumed the world’s attention,” Professor Cole intones. But President Trump is far worse. He is committed to releasing hundreds of thousands of tons a day “of a far more deadly gas – carbon dioxide.”

A deadly gas? Carbon dioxide is the Miracle Molecule that enables plants to grow and makes all life on Earth possible. Plants absorb CO2 exhaled by humans and emitted by burning wood, dung, fossil fuels and biofuels – and then release oxygen that humans and most animals need to survive.

Hundreds of studies demonstrate how slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels (rising from 0.03% or 300 parts per million a century ago to 0.04% or 400 ppm today) are making crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren deserts.

Claims that CO2 has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have always controlled Earth’s climate, and is now causing “dangerous manmade climate change,” are not supported by actual planetary evidence that could survive peer review, despite any supposed 97% consensus, or any analysis beyond the closed circle of alarmist scientists who are all chasing more government grants and seek to protect one another’s data, analyses, conclusions, reputations and funding.

Earth as Venus?

Professor Cole goes even further off the deep end when he pontificates that “CO2 is a deadly greenhouse gas that turned Venus into a torrid hellhole hot enough to melt lead.” The world is putting “32 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere” every year, he warns, and the United States emitted “5.17 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2016 all by itself – some 16 percent of the total.” Turning Earth into Venus could easily happen, and soon, he implies. Please breathe deeply and slowly, Mr. Cole.

Venus is 26 million miles closer to the Sun than Planet Earth – which likely plays at least some small role in making the Evening Star hot and uninhabitable. Another factor might be Venus’s atmospheric composition: 96.5% carbon dioxide, with the remainder being mostly nitrogen.

That’s 965,000 parts per million – 2,412 times Earth’s 400 ppm. That concentration would indeed be deadly for most life on this planet, but it will take us a few more years to get to that point, even if humanity keeps emitting such prodigious amounts of CO2 each year.

Alkaline Oceans?

Even CO2 that is washed out of the atmosphere “typically goes straight into the oceans,” Prof. Cole continues, “where it turns them acidic,” threatening a “mass die-off of marine life.” What absurd bunk.

Fossil records show that marine life thrived when CO2 levels were many times higher during past geologic eras. Far from being or becoming acidic, the oceans are mildly alkaline. Their vast volumes of water will not become acidic from human fossil fuel use: that is, to drop from their current pH of 8.1 into the acidic realm below 7.0 on this logarithmic scale.

Oceans may become slightly less alkaline with another century or two of human carbon dioxide emissions, but most marine organisms will be unaffected, while others will adapt or evolve. Moreover, mankind’s ultimate resource – our creative minds – will likely invent miraculous new non-carbon energy technologies long before even that slight reduction in alkalinity actually occurs.

(Someone should also remind the good professor that all those renewable energy sources he seems to favor – wood, animal dung, charcoal, ethanol, wood chips, methane from plant waste digesters and so on – also generate carbon dioxide when they are burned. And the amounts we can get from anything short of converting nearly all cropland and wildlife habitat worldwide into biofuel plantations would support far more basic life styles and living standards than even college professors and students will likely tolerate.)

More Floods, Droughts?

In his next few paragraphs, Professor Cole returns to more mundane matters – blaming fossil fuels and carbon dioxide for floods, droughts and rising seas.

Scientists, he says, have been able to find “no natural explanation for how rapidly Syria has been drying out over the past century or for the withering severity of the latest drought.” Human-caused climate change, they concluded, “made this Frankendrought as much as three times more likely to happen than if our coal plants, factories and automobiles had left Mother Nature alone.”

Just as bad, a “massive flood in Pakistan in 2010 killed 2,000 people, made 20 million homeless, and for a time submerged a fifth of the country.” That too happened because “human-caused climate change is messing with the jet stream,” say other scientists. As fossil fuels heat the Earth, “the jet stream sometimes gets stuck in a particular pattern, fixing weather extremes such as droughts in place for longer.”

Syria has been drying out since the middle of World War I, according to this timeline, and the Dust Bowl dried up much of the United States during the 1930s, sending millions of Americans far from home, in search of jobs and better lives. But now, Cole says, we must contend with manmade, CO2-driven Frankendroughts – to go along with Frankenfood, Frankenenergy, Frankenfloods, Frankenseas and other fearsome monsters that inhabit the anti-technology activists’ universe.

Roman, Mayan, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Egyptian, Anasazi and other cultures prospered in warm, wet periods and collapsed during cold and drought eras, climate historians Dennis Avery and John Brooke observe. This happened many times, in centuries-long patterns of success and affluence, followed by long periods of utter failure when millions died and millions more migrated. The cold, stormy periods of crop failures, disease, starvation and death described in Brian Fagan’s The Little Ice Age occurred when carbon dioxide levels were 280 ppm or lower.

One of the longest droughts in history still afflicts an area that for more than 1,000 years was a verdant savannah and river region, populated by elephants, hippopotami, crocodiles, giraffes, antelope, other wildlife, and human hunters – but for the past five millennia has been the vast Sahara Desert. It dried up because of the same powerful and still poorly understood natural forces that caused ice ages, little ice ages, Roman and Medieval warm periods, and countless other climate changes. Humans played no role.

Blaming fossil fuels for today’s climate and weather problems is disingenuous fear-mongering.

Rising Seas by Feet?

Manmade climate change is also “expected to raise sea levels some four feet by the end of this century. With storm surges, the loss of life could be substantial,” Cole claims next, citing no experts.

However, as meteorologist Robert Endlich points out in his recent MasterResource.org post, Virginia tide gages show perceived sea level changes of only 0.2 inches per year, or 20 inches per century – and a large portion of that is not melting ice or rising seas at all. Instead, much of what appears to be sea levels getting higher and inundating more coastal areas is actually lands subsiding for multiple reasons, causing coastal areas to dip below ocean waters that are rising very little.

Indeed, sea levels worldwide have risen some 400 feet since the last major ice age ended – with no help from humans! In recent decades, seas have actually been rising at only seven inches per century. That may cause a few problems, especially when hurricanes and “superstorms” hit during high tide and full moon, but it is hardly the catastrophe that Juan Cole, Al Gore and other alarmists suggest.

Killer Carbon Dioxide

In his final tirade, Professor Cole fumes:

Trump and the climate-destroyers he brought into office with him, such as Rex Tillerson and Scott Pruitt, are not driven by compassion for victims. They are animated by a callous and rapacious search for profits for themselves and their cronies. If they cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn’t want to ban Syrian refugees like the Kurds from the United States. Nor would they want to spew ever more tons of the most noxious gas of all into the blue skies of the only planetary home the human race has.

As Alex Epstein and I and many others have repeatedly pointed out – to no avail, when speaking to activists of the eco-imperialist Left – reliable, affordable carbon-based energy improves living standards, saves lives, supports job creation and preservation, and benefits our poorest families most.

Professor Cole would have us safeguard people and planet from a host of exaggerated, fabricated and illusory manmade climate change cataclysms, by banning the fossil fuels that still provide more than 80% of America’s and the world’s energy. He would have us ignore the inconvenient reality that no one is dying from any climate or weather events that can be tied by any convincing evidence to those vital fuels.

Infinitely worse, he would have us ignore the horrid reality that, in Earth’s most impoverished regions, more than two billion people still burn firewood, charcoal and dung in open indoor and outdoor fires for cooking and heating. For them, access to oil, coal, natural gas and electricity is literally a matter of life and death.

In those destitute, desperate regions, millions are dying every year from lung infections caused by pollution from these open fires. Millions more perish annually from intestinal diseases caused by bacteria-infested food and water. Still more millions die because medicines spoil due to lack of refrigeration, and because healthcare is primitive at best in clinics and hospitals that still do not have electricity, clean water, proper sanitation, refrigeration or even window screens to keep disease-infested insects out.

It is frightening to think that academics like this ill-educated history professor are indoctrinating our children. It is more frightening to realize they are advancing policies that will impair livelihoods and living standards in developed nations – and help perpetuate energy deprivation, poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition and premature death in the most impoverished countries on the only planet they have.

————

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

The post Intellectual Vertigo: Trivia, Emotionalism in One Spot Check (taxpayers pay for this?) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

May 14, 2017 at 06:08PM

Barents Sea Grows Ice in May

Barents Sea Grows Ice in May

via Science Matters
http://ift.tt/2oqIky9

 

 

Something surprising is happening with Arctic ice.  It is May and ice should be melting, but instead it is growing and in the unlikely place of Barents Sea.  The images above show the ice positions since April, and you can see on the left how ice refused to leave Newfoundland, and how the right how Barents is not backing down but increasing.

The graph below shows how in recent days 2017 NH ice extents have grown way above average, even including the exceptionally low amounts of ice in the Pacific, Bering in particular.

Much of the growth is due to Barents adding 85k m2 in the last 5 days to reach 572k km2, an extent last seen two weeks ago.

The graph below shows Arctic ice excluding the Pacific seas of Bering and Okhotsk.  This provides an even more dramatic view of this years ice extents.  Mid April Arctic ice was average, and look what has happened since May began on day 121.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some insight into the unusual Arctic ice growth comes from AER Arctic Report and Forecast May 8, 2017

Currently positive pressure/geopotential height anomalies are mostly focused on the North Atlantic side of the Arctic with mostly negative pressure/geopotential height anomalies across the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (NH). This is resulting in a near record low Arctic Oscillation (AO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) for May.

It might be the second week of May but an unusually strong block/high pressure exists in the northern North Atlantic including Iceland and Greenland and is more commonly associated with winter. The unusually strong block is contributing to not only below normal temperatures to both sides of the North Atlantic, including Europe and the Eastern US but late season snowfall to Southeastern Canada, the Northeastern US and Russia. The negative geopotential height anomalies that have developed both downstream across western Eurasia including Europe and upstream across the Eastern US are predicted to persist for much of the month of May helping to ensure a relatively cool month of May for both Europe and the Eastern US.

Summary

Do not be mislead by reports of declining sea ice in the Arctic; it is a distraction based on early melting in the Pacific, especially Bering sea.

Meanwhile, on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, we have sightings and reports of ice surges along the coast of Newfoundland, such amounts not seen since the 1980s. Below is a NASA satellite photo of Newfoundland Sea Ice, May 5, 2017 Source: Newsfoundsander

 

via Science Matters http://ift.tt/2oqIky9

May 14, 2017 at 12:46PM

A prime example of why correct facts don’t matter to climate alarmists

A prime example of why correct facts don’t matter to climate alarmists

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Respected climate scientist refutes false claim that tree died due to climate change, and the pressure to not do so

Toby Nixon writes:

The Seattle Times ran a hysterical story about how climate change killed a large tree at the Washington Park Arboretum in Seattle. Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and no climate change skeptic, demolished the Times story in a strongly-worded blog post.

But perhaps more importantly, he goes on to describe the kind of pressure to which he is subjected to not post such corrections because of the ammunition it gives to “deniers”. It is an excellent exposition on the corruption of the scientific method that is rampant in climate science — not just the suppression of dissent, but the suppression of every small corrections of the most exaggerated claims.


Mass writes:

So what about temperature?  Let’s examine the maximum temperature trend at the same Seattle Urban location for summer (June through August).  There is a slight upward trend since 1895 by .05F per decade. Virtually nothing.

What about the period in which the poor lived (it was planted in 1948)? As shown below, temperatures actually COOLED during that period.

You get the message, the claim that warming summer temperatures produced by “climate change” somehow killed this pine is simply without support by the facts.
So the bottom line of all this is that the climate record disproves the Seattle Times claim that warming and drying killed that pine tree in the UW arboretum.  There is no factual evidence that climate change ended the 72-year life of that tree.  The fact that a non-native species was planted in a dry location and was not watered in the summer is a more probably explanation.

Why is an important media outlet not checking its facts before publishing such a front page story? Linda Mapes is an excellent writer, who has done great service describing the natural environment of our region.  Why was she compelled to put a climate change spin on a story about the death of a non-native tree?

Now something personal.  Every time I correct misinformation in the media like this, I get savaged by some “environmentalists” and media.  I am accused of being a denier, a skeptic, an instrument of the oil companies, and stuff I could not repeat in this family friendly blog.  Sometimes it is really hurtful.  Charles Mudede of the Stranger is one of worst of the crowd, calling me “dangerous” and out of my mind (see example below).

I believe scientists must provide society with the straight truth, without hype or exaggeration, and that we must correct false or misleading information in the media.   It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will “do the right thing.”

Read the whole thing: http://ift.tt/2qh1yZo

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

May 14, 2017 at 11:13AM

Scrapping green subsidies would be a much faster route to cheaper energy bills than price caps

Scrapping green subsidies would be a much faster route to cheaper energy bills than price caps

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Short and to the point – Booker on green subsidies in the Telegraph today:

 

 

image

I would defy anyone unfortunate enough to hear the Today programme at 8.10 last Tuesday morning to have made head or tail of an interview in which our Business Secretary, Greg Clark, droned on for 10 minutes with Justin Webb about the Tories’ promise of a “cap” on energy bills. The essence of this flood of deathly jargon was that, thanks to something called the Competition and Markets Authority, this could save 17 million households a total of £1.4 billion a year.

What Clark and Webb never mentioned, of course, were the figures recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility, showing the soaring cost of those green subsidies and taxes we all pay for through our energy bills. These are officially projected to more than double by the end of this Parliament, from £7.3 billion last year to £14.7 billion, or from £292 a year for each household to £565.

In other words, even if Theresa May’s “cap” on energy saves £1.4 billion a year, this will be dwarfed by the additional £7.4 billion a year due to be added to our bills under the Climate Change Act. But if you ask any candidates in this make-believe election what they think of those figures, almost certainly they will never have heard of them. If they come to your door, try it.

http://ift.tt/2reeAGj

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

May 14, 2017 at 09:24AM