POlar bears doing very well, Al Gore and Cult of Climate Change hardest hit!

Via Pirates Cove

Another “OMG, Doom!!!!” talking point/prognostication from the World Of Climatology has bitten the dust

Hey Al Gore, kiss my ass

Hey Al Gore, kiss my ass

But, but, but, I thought the “science was, well you know”

Polar bear population bounces back despite climate change warning

Dr Susan Crockford said: “On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears.”

In a report for the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, she said: “Scientists are finding that polar bears are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice.

“Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey. It really is time for the doom and gloom about polar bears to stop.”

Dr Crockford, of the University of Victoria in British Columbia added: “Polar bears are still a conservation success story. With a global population almost certainly greater than 25,000, we can say for sure that there are more polar bears now than 40 years ago.

“The global estimate is too high to qualify the polar bear as ‘threatened’ with extinction.”

And another prediction from the Gore Cult of Climate Doom goes belly up

Global Warming Cultists Panic Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper

Left Panics Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat To Global Warming Alarmism – Big Journalism


You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled – settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.

Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.

Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean – it is inescapable – that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?

There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.

The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.”

The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.

After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.

The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.

They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.

Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.

Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.

But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion – anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.”

These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.

I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be.

Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him.

I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.

Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.



There is a reason we say Loony left, and not Lucid Left

It is nut cases like this fool

Appearing on the February 17 edition of All In with Chris Hayes, liberal radio talk show host Bob Kincaid essentially argued that the CSX freight-rail company was a graver threat to Americans than ISIS. Kincaid was on the program to discuss an oil-train derailment and fire in West Virginia. For his part, Hayes did not attempt to reel Kincaid in from such an outlandish statement:  

KINCAID: This is terrifying stuff. And sadly it happens in a state where terrifying accidents seem to be the norm, where human beings’ well-being is sacrificed for corporate profit. It’s kinda hard for me not to notice that this isn’t ISIS that did this or any other foreign enemy of the United States. This is a good old domestic American corporation. And they seem to be doing more harm in West Virginia than any foreign power.

HAYES: This is CSX, of course, which is one of the largest rail shippers in the country, which has, has rolled out these new, according to them, safer versions of this and, your point, Bob, I think is important, this not if but when [an oil-train catastrophe happens inside a densely-populated American city].

They really are fools aren’t they? To them Capitalism, not ISIS is evil.

Susan Rice Should Be In Prison – Instead…

Rice: Climate Change, Gay Rights Part Of National Security Strategy – CNS


Speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., on Friday, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice described the terrorist threat from radical Islam as “violent extremism” and said part of President Barack Obama’s national security strategy is fighting “the very real threat of climate change” and promoting gay rights.

Rice’s remarks followed the release on Friday of Obama’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which updates a similar document released by the White House in 2010.

While saying the radical Islamic group ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is an offshoot of al Qaeda and that the United States is committed to “countering the corrosive ideology of violent extremism,” Rice called for a “sense of perspective” when assessing that threat.

“Too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective,” Rice said. “Yes, there is a lot going on.

“Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War,” Rice said. “We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism in a nearly instantaneous news cycle.”

In her remarks, Rice listed other threats to U.S. security, including “the very real threat of climate change” and the necessity of promoting equality for homosexuals.

“American leadership is addressing the very real threat of climate change,” Rice said. “The science is clear.

“The impacts of climate change will only worsen over time,” Rice said. “Even longer droughts; more severe storms; more forced migration.

“So we’re making smart decisions today that will pay off for generations,” Rice said.

Equality for homosexuals is also a focus of the 2015 National Security Strategy, Rice said, by first addressing equality based on gender and then citing the rights of people who oppose gender classification.


Related video:




William Teach: Did you ever notice how much the climate change crowd hates people?

Can you say Population Control?

Of course, when Warmists are talking about birth control, they’re mostly aiming this at 3rd world nations comprised of “minorities”, because, let’s face it, Warmists, with their Progressive leanings, are bigots and racists, love the thought of eugenics, and, let’s not forget that they really love abortion on demand, which is part of what they consider to be “birth control”

Experts Say Birth Control Access Key To Curbing Climate Change

In Pakistan, where just a third of married women use contraception, half of all pregnancies – 4.2 million each year – are unintended, according to the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.

At the same time, the rising population in Pakistan – and elsewhere around the world – is creating more climate-changing emissions and putting more people in the path of extreme weather, food and water shortages, and other climate change pressures.

That suggests that giving more women who want it access to birth control to limit their family size – in both rich and poor countries – could be a hugely effective way to curb climate change and to build greater resilience to its impacts, according to population and climate change researchers and policy experts.

Of course, don’t call this “population control”, which it is

“We’re not talking about population control. We’re talking about giving people the choice to limit their family size and all the good things that go on from that” such as better health and education, said Baroness Jennny Tonge, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, during an event at the UK Parliament Monday on linking population and climate issues.

Oh, of course they are not “talking about population control”, except that they are talking about exactly that, and they know it. The Left mastered double speak a long time ago, and they are doing exactly that in this case.

Oh no, everyone run it is Sea Level Rise!



More ramped up fear mongering to clobber businesses with

In today’s Post, the President is now on record as requiring all federal projects to check off the box “Did this project consider the possible effects of sea level rise?”

In major shift, Obama administration will plan for rising seas in all federal projects

President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing federal agencies to adopt stricter building and siting standards to reflect scientific projections that future flooding will be more frequent and intense due to climate change.

The order represents a major shift for the federal government: while the Federal Emergency Management Administration published a memothree years ago saying it would take global warming into account when preparing for more severe storms, most agencies continue to rely on historic data rather than future projections for building projects.

The new standard gives agencies three options for establishing the flood elevation and hazard area they use in siting, design and construction of federal projects. They can use data and methods “informed by best-available, actionable climate science”; build two feet above the 100-year flood elevation for standard projects and three feet above for critical buildings such as hospitals and evacuation centers; or build to the 500-year flood elevation.

Oh great! Now Valentines Day will be known as Climate Change Day

William Teach exposes the latest idiocy from the Gore Cult of Climate Change

It’s not even February and Warmists are already trying to ruin yet another holiday

(UK Guardian) Environmental campaigners are calling for people to declare their love for the planet on 14 February – Valentine’s Day.

The Climate Coalition, made up of more than 100 UK organisations campaigning for action on climate change, is asking people to submit photos of things they love that they fear losing due to the effects of climate change. Submissions so far include photos of rivers, coral reefs, wildlife and “the changing of the seasons”.