Category Archives: Global Warming / Climate Change

Going after your wallet in the name of climate change: Bloomberg awards grant to Seattle to study traffic congestion pricing

The city of Seattle – like many west coast, progressive run cities – has many, many problems (homelessness, needles left on the streets, open drug use, feces and urination on the streets, increased crime due to lack of enforcement, etc.).

Having not solved those issues with massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, Mayor Jenny Durkan is moving  on to solving climate change seeking another way to steal more taxpayer dollars.

MyNorthwest reports that the Michael Bloomberg’s American Cities Climate Challenge has awarded the city a $2.5 million grant to study ways to address climate change. One item the mayor wants to study is traffic congestion pricing.

The mayor said, “We’ve got a lot of work to do to see exactly how we would implement it, how we would put up the cameras to catch people, how you would charge, how much you charge, and what we do for equity,” Durkan said Friday. “Because there’s a number of people right now who have to travel into Seattle … because they can’t afford to live here anymore. It’s tied to affordability.”

Of course the mayor has no idea when the traffic congestion pricing program would be implemented. Guess she’s got plenty of time to burn through a $2.5 million grant.

The end goal, of course, is twofold: Get more of your money and force you to change your behaviors. From the report: “The pricing would establish tolls to drive on select Seattle streets, perhaps with differing charges depending on the time. The aim is to discourage people from driving cars around town as the population grows.

The mayor also said, “If you look across the globe, those cities that have implemented congestion pricing have had the greatest success on getting people out of vehicles and reducing vehicles in the city,” she said. “It’s had another huge, very important benefit. That’s a health benefit. The number of asthma cases in children have dropped precipitously in those areas where they’ve actually had congestion pricing.”

Read the whole MyNorthwest story here.

Seattle hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1952. And they knew EXACTLY what they were getting when they elected demorat Jenny Durkan in 2017.

Sorry Seattleites…I’m fresh out of empathy for y’all.

See also:

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

More fake hurricane-weather news

This morning, FOTM‘s DCG posted a video showing how the Weather Channel broadcasts fake news about Hurricane Florence by exaggerating how strong the wind is.

A reporter pretended to be unsteady on his feet, buffeted by the supposed strong wind. Alas, the video camera showed that right behind the reporter were two people casually strolling by.

I had a GIF made of the video in case YouTube takes it down:

But it’s not just the Weather Channel that is engaged in fake weather news.

CNN, too, faked its Hurricane Florence reporting, as shown in the pics below (source: Mark Dice).

The first pic is from CNN’s live footage of Anderson Cooper standing in the supposed deep flood waters up to his waist.

Notice, however, the camera man standing in shallow water just a few feet away.

Here’s a pic of the same flood waters taken from a different camera angle showing the same camera man and another CNN employee standing in shallow water.

Note: Snopes says the pics are actually of Anderson Cooper reporting on Hurricane Ike in 2008. If true, it just goes to show Cooper and CNN have been engaged in fake weather reporting for at least 10 years.

But it wasn’t just Anderson Cooper faking weather news.

CNN’s senior diplomatic correspondent Michelle Kosinski also engaged in fake weather news.

Here she is, paddling in a canoe, in seemingly deep flood waters.

Alas, her lie is revealed when two men casually slosh by, showing that the “deep flood” is only ankle deep.

If the MSM fake weather news, what else are they faking?

H/t Vivian Lee

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

HYPOCRITE: Harrison Ford wants us to stop electing leaders who don’t believe in science

Hollyweird HYPOCRITE Ford: Do as I say, not as I do…

Harrison Ford, like many in Hollyweird, is a HYPOCRITE.

While speaking at the Global Climate Action Summit, Ford whined about climate change and anti-science political leaders. He said, “If we can’t protect nature, we can’t protect ourselves.”

He also said the following: ““If we don’t change the path that we’re on today, the future of humanity is at stake. While you work to meet the challenge of climate change, I beg of you— don’t forget nature. Because today, the destruction of nature accounts for more global emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world. For God’s sake, stop electing leaders who don’t believe in science.”

Read about his speech here.

First of all, I don’t need some smug, self-righteous Hollyweird actor telling me who I should vote for. That’s MY decision and MY decision alone.

Secondly, let’s take a look at what this HYPOCRITE does for a hobby, shall we?

According to Wikipedia, Ford is a licensed airplane and helicopter pilot. He owns the following private aircrafts:

  • Gulfstream II
  • Bell 407
  • de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver
  • Ryan PT-22

Apparently at one time he had amassed a collection of seven private aircrafts.

This guy, like many Hollyweird stars, flies via private jets when traveling about the world lecturing us.

This guy has the AUDACITY to speak to us about “global emissions” when he yearly emits more from his private aircraft flights than I will ever be responsible for in my lifetime?

You, Mr. Harrison, are a FLAMING HYPOCRITE.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Bad news for global warmists: Trees and forests increased 865,000 sq. mi. instead of decreased

In 2015 in its alarming report, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations dolefully claimed that global tree canopy (or forests) had decreased by a catastrophic 129 million hectares in just 25 years:

In 1990 the world had 4,128 million [hectares] of forest; by 2015 this area had decreased to 3,999 million ha. This is a change from 31.6 percent of global land area in 1990 to 30.6 percent in 2015.

But according to a new study published in Nature, satellite data show that in the 34 years from 1982 to 2016, global tree canopy cover actually increased by 865,000 square miles.

According to the square mile to hectare conversion formula, 1 square mile = 258.998811 hectares. An increase in global tree canopy of 865,000 sq. miles, therefore, is the equivalent of an increase of 224.034 million hectares — in contrast to the UN report’s decrease of 129 million hectares.

The abstract of “Global land change from 1982 to 2016,” by Xiao-Peng Song, et al., in Nature, 560 (2018), pp. 639-643, says:

Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia.

The greatest increase in tree canopy or forests occurred in Europe, including European Russia, where it exploded by 35%. China is a close second, where tree canopy gained 34%. In the U.S., tree canopy increased by 15%.

In fact, the increase in forests in the United States and bad management are fueling the terrible scourge of California wildfires.

Umair Irfan reports for Vox on Sept. 4, 2018, that California has 129 million dead trees, spread across 8.9 million acres, which are kindling for wildfires:

The bumper crop of kindling helps explain why this has been the worst year on record for California wildfires. Already, more than 876,000 acres have burned in California, compared to 228,000 last year at the same time. The Mendocino Complex Fire, now almost fully contained at more than 459,000 acres, is the single largest fire on record in state history. The largest fire before that, the Thomas Fire, was just put out in January this year.

Worse still, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesperson Heather Williams said the recent fires have barely made a dent in the glut of dead trees,  and peak fire season in Southern California is still to come later this year.

See also “CA Wildfires Could Increase 77% By 2100“.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Fake News: National Geographic's starving 'climate change' polar bear

Sat, 04 Aug 2018 18:42:46 +0000

eowyn2

Last December, National Geographic magazine published a heart-rending video of an emaciated polar bear barely able to walk.

National Geographic captioned the video “THIS IS WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE LOOKS LIKE” — attributing the starving polar bear to climate change. On the video’s YouTube page is this text:

This is what climate change looks like. This starving polar bear was spotted by National Geographic photographer Paul Nicklen on Somerset Island….

As temperatures rise, and sea ice melts, polar bears lose access to the main staple of their diet—seals. Starving, and running out of energy, they are forced to wander into human settlements for any source of food. Feeding polar bears is illegal. Without finding another source of food, this bear likely only had a few more hours to live.

Now, eight months later, one of the two National Geographic photographers who took that video admits that they didn’t really know the polar bear was starving because of climate change.

Cristina G. Mittermeier writes in the August 2018 issue of National Geographic:

The connection between an individual animal’s death and climate change is rarely clear—even when an animal is as emaciated as this polar bear.

Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy. With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral—and people took it literally….

When Paul posted the video on Instagram, he wrote, “This is what starvation looks like.” He pointed out that scientists suspect polar bears will be driven to extinction in the next century. He wondered whether the global population of 25,000 polar bears would die the way this bear was dying. He urged people to do everything they could to reduce their carbon footprint and prevent this from happening. But he did not say that this particular bear was killed by climate change.

National Geographic picked up the video and added subtitles. It became the most viewed video on National Geographic’s website—ever. News organizations around the world ran stories about it; social media exploded with opinions about it. We estimate that an astonishing 2.5 billion people were reached by our footage. The mission was a success, but there was a problem: We had lost control of the narrative. The first line of the National Geographic video said, “This is what climate change looks like”—with “climate change” highlighted in the brand’s distinctive yellow. In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption….

Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story—that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear.

I can’t say that this bear was starving because of climate change….

National Geographic‘s editor appended this note at the beginning of photographer Mittermeier’s mea culpa:

Editor’s Note: National Geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular starving polar bear in the opening caption of our December 2017 video about the animal. We said, “This is what climate change looks like.” While science has established that there is a strong connection between melting sea ice and polar bears dying off, there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death.

Here’s the deceptive starving polar bear video:

If human-made “climate change” is real, why would its proponents have to lie and deceive?

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Feminists rejoice: UK determines that sandwiches should be replaced with more "environmentally-friendly" lunches

feminist
From The Independent UK: The UK’s annual consumption of sandwiches has a greater impact on the environment than the use of eight million cars, scientists have claimed.
Researchers at the University of Manchester calculated the carbon footprint of 40 different types of sandwiches – both home-made and pre-packaged – taking account how the ingredients were produced, the packaging, as well as food waste discarded at home and elsewhere in the supply chain.
About 11.5 billion sandwiches a year are eaten in the UK, according to the British Sandwich Association (BSA).
The study found ready-made “all-day breakfast” sandwich containing egg, bacon and sausage to have the highest carbon footprint, generating 1,441g of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) – the same as driving an average car for 12 miles.
Professor Adisa Azapagic, from the university’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Sciences, said: “Given that sandwiches are a staple of the British diet as well as their significant market share in the food sector, it is important to understand the contribution from this sector to the emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, consuming 11.5 billion sandwiches annually in the UK generates, on average, 9.5 million tonnes of CO2 eq, equivalent to the annual use of 8.6 million cars.”
Those containing pork meat, cheese, tomato or prawns were also deemed carbon-intensive by the researchers but home-made favourite ham and cheese was found to have the lowest CO2 eq.
The study, published in the journal Sustainable Production and Consumption, found the estimated impact of ready-made sandwiches ranged from 739g CO2 eq for egg and cress to 1,441g CO eq bacon, sausage and egg. The carbon footprint of the most popular home-made sandwich, ham and cheese, varied from 399g to 843g CO2 eq depending on the recipe.
Agricultural production and processing of ingredients were found to be the largest contributor to a sandwich’s carbon footprint, accounting for around 37 per cent to 67 per cent of CO2 eq for ready-made sandwiches. Packaging material contributed 8.5 per cent of CO2 eq and transporting and refrigerating adding a further four per cent.
Keeping sandwiches chilled in supermarkets and shops accounts for up to a quarter of their greenhouse gas emissions, researchers said, adding that making them at home using the same ingredients could cut emissions in half.
The team concluded that a combination of changes to the recipes, packaging and waste disposal could halve the carbon footprint of the sandwiches.
The BSA estimates that extending the shelf life of sandwiches could reduce waste by more than 2,000 tonnes a year. Prof Azapagic said: “We need to change the labelling of food to increase the use-by date as these are usually quite conservative. Commercial sandwiches undergo rigorous shelf-life testing and are normally safe for consumption beyond the use-by date stated on the label.”
Responding to the research, Friends of the Earth called for retailers to stock more environmentally friendly lunch options.
Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner for the green lobbying group, said: “The meat and dairy industry is one of the biggest causes of climate change, so cutting back on meat and cheese fillings will be good for the planet – as well as our health. But supermarkets need to step up to the plate and make sure their sandwiches aren’t toasting the planet. It’s almost impossible to find a plant-based filling among the meaty and cheesy offerings.”
h/t Moonbattery
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

8 years ago, Al Gore said North Pole will be completely ice-free by now

Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:57:52 +0000

eowyn2

Eight years ago, on December 14, 2009, at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be completely ice-free by now:

(2:14 mark) “There is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during . . . some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

That was FAKE NEWS!

As you can see in the graph below, the North Pole is in no danger of completely melting. In fact, as measured by Greenland Ice Core’s interglacial temperatures, the Earth actually is in a cooling period, compared to severe warming periods in the past, most recent period being the warming during the Middle Ages.

The graph below shows that global surface temperature actually had been cooling since 2001, and began a warming uptick after 2014:

Al Gore is only one of climate-change doomsday-sayers who, like him, are proven to be wrong, again and again. But that doesn’t stop them from continuing their alarmist predictions — and getting wealthy while so doing.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Bioethicist opinion: Science proves kids are bad for earth; morality suggests we stop having them

travis rieder

Travis and his child in his Twitter profile picture


The author of this opinion piece, Travis Rieder, PhD, is the Assistant Director for Education Initiatives, Director of the Master of Bioethics degree program and Research Scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics. He is also a Faculty Affiliate at the Center for Public Health Advocacy within the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
From NBC News: A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.
The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have written widely on the topic myself.
But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn’t have environmental and ethical consequences.
The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.
Most environmentalists accept this sort of ledger view when it comes to recycling, driving, and flying, but support begins to decrease when applied to family planning. The opposition is typified by Vox writer David Roberts, who argues that “such an accounting scheme is utterly impractical” because it seems to entail that one is never responsible for one’s own emissions. Because “we don’t want to double-count,” as Roberts says, this means parents are really only responsible for their kids’ emissions.
The flaw in this objection is the plausible-sounding caveat: “we don’t want to double-count.” Because why wouldn’t we want to double-count? If moral responsibility added up mathematically, then double-counting would be a serious problem. But I think it’s clear that we should not accept a mathematical model of responsibility.
Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.
Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical.
If you buy this view of responsibility, you might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.
Read the rest of this opinion here.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown threatens to put climate-change protesters 'in the ground'

California governor Jerry Brown is in the midst of a 10-day tour in Europe to propagandize about anthropogenic (man-made) “climate change,” which will end with the United Nations conference on climate change.
Several days ago, at an event organized by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Brown bemoaned about humans’ “greed” and “inertia” and urged that a “transformation” is needed in our consciousness — that what is needed is mass “brain washing”. (See DCG’s post here.)
Yesterday, Brown was in Bonn, Germany, at the U.S. Climate Action Pavilion on behalf of “America’s Pledge,” which brings together leaders from both the private and public sectors to ensure the U.S. remains dedicated to the climate goals of the Paris Agreement that President Trump had nixed because the agreement would undermine the U.S. economy.
Mandy Mayfield reports for the Washington Examiner that what appears to be a handful of protesters disrupted Brown’s speech by yelling and chanting about fighting pollution and keeping oil in the ground.

Visibly irritated at the protesters, Brown “jokingly” called for the protesters to be killed — “put in the ground”. Brown said:

“I wish we could have no pollution, but we have to have our automobiles. I agree with you, in the ground. Let’s put you in the ground so we can get on with the show here.


Imagine what the MSM would do if President Trump had called for putting protesters “in the ground”.
Nor do I believe Jerry Brown was joking.
If the Left had their druthers, they would have all dissidents exterminated.
Do you remember that commercial for the 10:10 Campaign — a worldwide campaign to reduce carbon emissions by at least 10% by 2010? In the commercial, school children and adults who refuse to join 10:10 are blown up into bits, their blood and pieces of flesh spattering those nearby.

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Mets pitcher, a "Texan Republican," links hurricanes to US pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

noah snydergaard

Private Mets’ Delta jet (l) that pitcher Syndergaard (r) flies each season

I wonder how much carbon emissions this pitcher and his team emit while flying via their private Delta jet each season to play baseball? Hypocrite.
From Fox News: New York Mets star pitcher Noah Syndergaard tossed a curveball to Twitter fans late Monday, suggesting the number of deadly hurricanes that have ravaged the United States in recent weeks is “karma” for the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
Syndergaard, 25, a starting pitcher for the Mets who has been on the disabled list since May, linked the spate of recent hurricanes – Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria – to President Trump’s June pullout from the Paris deal. On Saturday, a European Union official said the U.S. may be open to reviewing the terms of the accord, but National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster quickly shot down the “false report.”
“U.S. pulls out of Paris Climate Accord. Then hit by 4 hurricanes in 6 weeks. Global Warming Karma?” Syndergaard wrote, adding the hashtags: “I’m a Texan Republican” and “wake up.”
Syndergaard, nicknamed ‘Thor’ for his likeness to the fictional character due to flowing, blonde locks and a chiseled frame, tweeted later: “…..and I know Karma.”
To that post, he added the hashtag “take the MRI.” That tweet was an apparent dig at himself for refusing an MRI before he was scheduled to pitch on May 1. Syndergaard ended up injuring himself during the game, after which he was placed on the disabled list. He has yet to pitch in another major league game this season.
Social media users quickly responded to the pitcher’s climate change claim.
“Stick to baseball because weather obviously isn’t your strong point,” Rdsknsfan3 wrote.
“You just lost a lifetime Mets fan. Stick to pitching, if you can stay healthy for even one freaking season. Stupidity Karma?” MaximilianoNJ wrote.
Added LHVPundit: “Stick to what you know (baseball) and leave the science to scientists. Mets fans don’t care about where you stand on political issues.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0