For Global Warming Campaigners, 2013 Was The Year From Hell

cancel2 2022

Canceled
snow.jpg


Associated Press

A Druze man and woman clear snow from their door way in the Druze village of Beit Jann on Mt. Meron in the Galilee, northern Israel on Dec. 16, 2013, when a winter storm last week dumped rare snow across the region and caused heavy disruptions in Israel.


Almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong for the cause of global warming

2013 has been a gloomy year for global warming enthusiasts. The sea ice in the Antarctic set a record, according to NASA, extending over a greater area than at any time since 1979 when satellite measurements first began. In the Arctic the news is also glum. Five years ago, Al Gore predicted that by 2013 “the entire North polar ice cap will be gone.” Didn’t happen. Instead, a deflated Gore saw the Arctic ice cap increase by 50% over 2012. This year’s Arctic ice likewise exceeded that of 2008, the year of his prediction. And that of 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Weather between the poles has also conspired to make the global warming believers look bad. In December, U.S. weather stations reported over 2000 record cold and snow days. Almost 60% of the U.S. was covered in snow, twice as much as last year. The heavens even opened up in the Holy Land, where an awestruck citizenry saw 16 inches of snow fall in Jerusalem, almost three feet in its environs. Snow blanketed Cairo for the first time in more than 100 years.

2013 marks the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] year of no warming on the planet. It marks the first time that James Hansen, Al Gore’s guru and the one whose predictions set off the global warming scare, admitted that warming had stopped. It marks the first time that major media enforcers of the orthodoxy — the Economist, Reuters and the London Telegraph – admitted that the science was not settled on global warming, the Economist even mocking the scientists’ models by putting them on “negative watch.” Scientific predictions of global cooling – until recently mostly shunned in the academic press for fear of being labelled crackpot – were published and publicized by no less than the BBC, a broadcaster previously unmatched in the anthropogenic apocalyptic media.

2013 was likewise bleak for businesses banking on global warming. Layoffs and bankruptcies continued to mount for European and North American companies producing solar panels and wind turbines, as did their pleas for subsidies to fight off what they labelled unfair competition from Chinese firms. Starting in 2013, though, their excuses have been wearing thin. China’s Suntech, the world’s largest solar panel manufacturer, has now filed for bankruptcy, as has LDK Solar, another major firm. Sinovel, China’s largest manufacturers of wind turbines and the world second largest, reported it lost $100-million after its revenues plunged 60%, and it is now closing plants in Canada, the U.S., and Europe.

While these no-carbon technologies get buried, carbon rich fuels go gung ho. Last month Germany fired up a spanking new coal plant, the first of 10 modern CO2-gushers that Europe’s biggest economy will be banking on to power its economy into the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Worldwide, 1200 coal-fired plants are in the works. According to the International Agency, coal’s dominance will especially grow in the countries of the developing world, helping to raise their poor out of poverty as they modernize their economies.

But important as coal is, the fossil fuel darlings are indisputably shale gas and shale oil. This week the U.K. sloughed off the naysayers and announced it will be going all out to tap into these next-generation fuels. Half of the UK will be opened up to drilling to accomplish for the U.K. what shale oil and shale gas are doing for the U.S. – drastically lowering energy costs while eliminating the country’s dependence on foreign fuels. China, too, has decided to tap into the shale revolution – in a deal with the U.S. announced this week, it will be exploiting what some estimate to be the world’s biggest shale gas reserves, equivalent in energy content to about half the oil in Saudi Arabia.

2013 as well marks a turning point for the governments of the world. January 1, 2013, Day One of the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, saw Kyoto abandoned by Canada and Russia, two fossil fuel powerhouses. With their departure Kyoto became a club for the non-emitters – the Kyoto Protocol now only covers a paltry 15% of global emissions. At UN-sponsored talks on global warming in Warsaw last month, the Western countries of Europe, North America, and Australia refused to even discuss a proposal from developing countries that would limit emissions in the future.

2013 also saw Australia elect a climate-skeptic government in an election that was hailed as a referendum on climate change. Upon winning, the government promptly proceeded to scrap the country’s carbon tax along with its climate change ministry, now in the rubbish heap of history. Other countries are taking note of the public’s attitude toward climate change alarmism – almost nowhere does the public believe the scary scenarios painted by the climate change advocates.
2013 was the best of years for climate skeptics; the worst of years for climate change enthusiasts for whom any change – or absence of change — in the weather served as irrefutable proof of climate change. The enthusiasts fell into disbelief that everyone didn’t join them in pooh-poohing the failure of the climate models. That governments and the public would abandon the duty to stop climate change was in their minds no more thinkable than Hell freezing over. Which the way things are going for them, may happen in 2014.


Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com


http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...arming-believers-2013-was-the-year-from-hell/
 
Last edited:
Who is Lawrence Solomon and What is Energy Probe?

Who knows! There isn't any information and the wiki page was apparently written by Solomon himself! And as opaque as this information is the identity of his funders is even more of a mystery! As in he won't say a word. Here's what one person thinks and the quotation from the site is accurate. It's pure right wing horseshit that is for sure!

"If you read the wiki entry on EP...you would have found that Energy Probe is a Canadian non-governmental organization which promotes alternatives to polluting coal and nuclear power. Energy Probe’s executive director, Lawrence Solomon, is a prominent environmentalist… Now I admit that it is possible to be an environmentalist and also a frothing-at-the-mouth GW septic, but I don’t think LS has managed that trick. And oddly enough, it turns out that the text was written by… Solomon.

So I tried to find some sources about Energy Probe, and essentially failed. They look very much to me like a pro-property rights right-wing pro-coal astroturf group, possibly one with a better history. Their first principle is ["]We work for environmental sustainability by promoting property rights (private or communal), markets, the rule of law, the right to know, accountability through liability, cost and risk internalization, economic efficiency, competition, consumer choice, and an informed public.["]

So is it any wonder that tommy not only likes this guy but tries to perpetuate the image of innocence and environmentalist. So dishonest! So much lying going on. Does tommy who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate know that as well as setting cold records last year, Central Park in New York City was 70º day before yesterday. That is about as relevant for global warming as any other temperature or any other snapshot in time is. And whether or not the planet continues to hear up or didn't surpass the previous year, is of little consequence. Climate change is happening and it is not about the temperature in Central Park on the 21st of December, it is about trends and long term increases in temperature.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html
 
Thanks I've been trying to convince my super frugal wife to make the change!

I have a neuton, it was pretty expensive and one of the earliest battery powered available then. In fact, I think we bought it about the second or maybe even the first year they were available. It was about $369 or so, but it was well worth it. I just looked on Amazon and nearly everyone makes one, so they are about half that cost now! But even at $400 with tax it was worth it just in ease of operation and lack of any BS. No gas, no oil, no spark plug, no winter storage problems, no maintenance and no muss or fuss; now it needs a charge a little more often but for the first 4 years it only needed changing about once or at most twice a year. It's been completely and totally trouble free. And no cord to run over or coil up. Just put in the key, squeeze the handle and mow!

Just make sure you get the 36 volt battery model for power!
 
Last edited:
I have a neuton, it was pretty expensive and one of the earliest battery powered available then. In fact, I think we bought it about the second or maybe even the first year they were available. It was about $369 or so, but it was well worth it. I just looked on Amazon and nearly everyone makes one, so they are about half that cost now! But even at $400 with tax it was worth it just in ease of operation and lack of any BS. No gas, no oil, no spark plug, no winter storage problems, no maintenance and no muss or fuss; now it needs a charge a little more often but for the first 4 years it only needed changing about once or at most twice a year. It's been completely and totally trouble free. And no cord to run over or coil up. Just put in the key, squeeze the handle and mow!

Just make sure you get the 36 volt battery model for power!
Thanks I'm going to get the highest volt black and decker makes.
 
Thanks I'm going to get the highest volt black and decker makes.
I just looked at their's and that is the 36 volt too, I think! Good luck with it. It beats a gas mower all to hell! And about a quarter the damn noise too. And no smoke or smell!
 
Shame that Rune decided to fall on his sword for Darla, this would make his head spin.

I doubt it, there is nothing in that article that says anything about climate, snow in Israel isn't climate it's weather! And celebrating 1200 new coal plants in developing countries is nothing but coal lobbying and coal propaganda. But I wouldn't expect a dumbass such as yourself to pick up on nuances, because you're too busy pretending this Lawrence Solomon is an environmentalist or who knows what at this point. Maybe he is another fake scientist just like you! As long as the water level on the Atlantic coast keeps rising, it really doesn't matter whether the globe gets a 1/2 degree warmer next year or not, the damage will be done. But neither you nor he are really talking about anything long term, you're both talking about the snow in Jerusalem two weeks ago! That's not climate, that is weather. Learn the difference, mr science!
 
dear anti warmists ,


the day I will accept YOUR theories on what is happening scientifically is when it is the prevailing opinion in the scientific community.

Until then you are picking scientific theories for political reasons.


convince the scientists if you think your correct.
 
dear anti warmists ,


the day I will accept YOUR theories on what is happening scientifically is when it is the prevailing opinion in the scientific community.

Until then you are picking scientific theories for political reasons.


convince the scientists if you think your correct.
Attention Ecoterrorist until you start doing more than non believers you will be called chicken little.
I at least use an electric weed eater.
 
Well it was not surprising given the dirth of science to support it.
Do you all know that with one notable exception, so-called greenhouses cannot cause greenhouse effect without breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?
That one exception is H2O and what is unique about it is that it can change its form freely in the atmosphere (solid to liquid to gas and back the other way (which provides the external work needed per definirion of the 2nd law).
Maybe some day warmer scientists will present some evidence to support their claims. But no repeatable experimentation has been providded to date, only computer modelling.
 
says some GUY on the internets.


why tell us all your sceincey stuff cant convince any scientists?

start convincing the scientists of the world and convince them if you are so correct
 
Last edited:
Back
Top