Climate Donkey

February 16, 2009

Global warming death trains due to coal plants, more James Hansen crematorium talk

Unbelievable and indefensible rhetoric.  Alas, never let a good crisis go to waste… “Rahm Emanuel”

James Hansen commentary in the Guardian

Headline and byline:

Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them

The government is expected to give the go-ahead to the coal-burning Kingsnorth power plant. Here, one of the world’s foremost climate experts launches an excoriating attack on Britain’s long love affair with the most polluting fossil fuel of all

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species – its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.

This is not the first time that James Hansen has used utterly indefensible and downright toxic language with Holocaust connotations.

Flashback:  from Dot Earth 11/26/07

The statement came in testimony Dr. Hansen gave on Oct. 22 [2007] before the utilities board of his native state, Iowa. He pressed the case for forbidding the construction of new coal-burning power plants unless and until technologies were developed to capture and store the heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions. The full text of the testimony is at Dr. Hansen’s Columbia University home page,

“Coal will determine whether we continue to increase climate change or slow the human impact. Increased fossil fuel CO2 in the air today, compared to the pre-industrial atmosphere, is due 50% to coal, 35% to oil and 15% to gas. As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels. Recently, after giving a high school commencement talk in my hometown, Denison, Iowa, I drove from Denison to Dunlap, where my parents are buried. For most of 20 miles there were trains parked, engine to caboose, half of the cars being filled with coal. If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.


Bill Clinton sees global warming ending civilization, cratering

When questioned by Ann Curry on the Today Show (Feb 16), Clinton ruminated:

BILL CLINTON: In the short run. In the medium-term, because I think we’ll come out of the economic crisis, terror and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are. In the long term, the prospect that the climate will crater and we won’t be able to preserve civilization is.

Mark Finkelstein’s blog

Perhaps Bubba is angling for his own Nobel Peace Prize by threatening the end of civilization.

February 9, 2009

Climate Change Derangement Syndrome (CCDS)

It is time to add to the list of psychological conditions generated by the media and furthered in an attempt to increase awareness of a liberal agenda item, talking point, or group think revelation. Previously in 2003, Charles Krauthammer, columnist and Fox News regular analyst, coined a term known as “Bush Derangment Syndrome” or BDS for short. The terminology caught on because it sounded so similar to IBS or Irritable Bowel Syndrome, a malady foisted upon television watchers during commercials, typically of the View.

Krauthammer explains, ” Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”

Unfortunately there is no cure for BDS, and in the intervening years since, and one successful reelection of Bush, hundreds if not thousands of cases of BDS infection have taken place, especially in the leftist havens of Hollywood and network television newsrooms.

Yet today, we have a new syndrome, with potential legitimate medical implications called Climate Change Derangement Syndrome.  As reported in the Boston Herald, Feb. 9, 2009:

Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of “climate change delusion.”

“Climate change could have a real impact on our psyches,” says Paul Epstein, the associate director for the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

There is evidence [media generated conjecture] that extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods, cyclones, and hurricanes, can lead to emotional distress, which can [maybe, who knows] trigger such things as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, in which the body’s fear and arousal system kicks into overdrive.

Of course, no one can predict what effect warming will have on our psyches.”

Sounds like we may need to expand our hospital emergency rooms with a special wing for CCDS sufferers!  But alas, the authors of the report have found a way to stave off the potentially crippling effects of CCDS:  liberal activism…

“In the long term, we may also derive some psychological benefit from banding together with other citizens to mitigate the effects of global warming. Taking action might not only give us back a sense of our own sense of efficacy against a powerful outside force, but also help us build community and social ties that offset stress, said Epstein and other specialists.

“Getting involved can be an antidote to the depression that can come from the overwhelming realizations that we have to face . . . ,” Epstein said. “It can be empowering to realize that what you do is effective.”

Thanks Paul Epstein for the wonderful suggestions on how to deal with CCDS — get involved in liberal environmental protests.  Take action.

So, in summary, here is the newly accepted definition of Climate Change Derangement Syndrome (CCDS):

An acute distancing from reality of gullible and oftentimes undereducated patients who demonstrate an extreme sensitivity to and empathy with media generated and hyped climate change doomsday scenarios.  The patient typically parrots left-wing talking points in an attempt to justify far-reaching, fascist reorganization of global economy and society.  To assuage guilt ridden consciences about the progress and prosperity of humanity at the expense of Mother Earth, a patient may waste money on carbon credits or flush otherwise useful assets down the toilet.  The overwhelming nature of the hysterical predictions in the media cause the patient to lose all sense of logic and rationality.

July 14, 2008

Global Warming: 3 degrees of separation

Sometimes it is even hard for scientists to explain a natural phenomena. The rapid development and wobbly motion of Hurricane Bertha in the North Atlantic was not well explained by hurricane center forecasters. However, they did not blame global warming but accepted that nature can be unpredictable. That is exactly why scientists enter the field of meteorology: to be able to study on a daily basis unpredictable and changing natural phenomena from tornadoes and cold fronts to thunderstorms and hurricanes.

Weather is cool. The Weather Channel, recently bought by NBC for billions of $, is a valuable property both on television and on the internet because the US economy is hugely dependent upon the weather and climate. Weather is also news.

Weather is also political. And the evolution of weather and climate as able to influence policy has coincided with a reinvigoration of the environmental movement centered largely around global warming and anti-fossil fuels agendas. The intersection of politics and science does not occur in the windowless laboratories of university offices, but in the media including newspapers, television, movies, and of course the internet. We are being assaulted with a literal tidal wave of information and suggestions for coping with climate change. But, do journalists and politicians have the appropriate expertise to digest and understand the countless studies and press releases supplied almost hourly? I argue no.

One case study from Congressman Ed Markey of Mass (D): CNS News Service
Global warming led to Darfur, Somalia (Black Hawk Down).

However, to get to this conclusion, we have to go through some hula hoops and play a game of “Kevin Bacon’s six degrees of separation”.

A drought occurred in Somalia in 1993 which resulted in a famine. International aid was sent to Somalia and required the United States military to send in forces to separate the groups fighting over the limited food aid. The Black Hawk Down disaster occurred because of the situation we were put into. — Markey’s conclusion from a speech to high schoolers.

It is clear that droughts occur all the time all over the globe, however, it is no secret that limited resources in an area lead to competition for said resources.

Other students who came from the World Wildlife Fund’s Alliance Southeast Climate Witness Program blamed Hurricane Katrina on global warming, which is nonsense.

Markey continued to create facts and connections which are unfounded: There now is no question that this harm is being caused by human activity. It’s warming up the planet and melting the glaciers. There is an underwater heat wave going on. The waters get warmer and warmer and that intensifies the storms and creates even greater havoc when those storms reach land.

Markey is not a dumb guy by any stretch of the imagination; he is adeptly cherry-picking scientific studies or ideas he has heard about and crafting them into a yummy cherry pie for the consumption by a highly suggestable and likely voluntarily captive audience. I am willing to bet that Markey knows he is exaggerating or to put the term bullshitting to use, talking out of his behind. Eventually these exasperating comments will fall deaf on the ears of the constituents who are more interested in feeding their families rather than be taxed into oblivion by regressive carbon taxes and domestic oil production policies.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

July 9, 2008

Gas effects: Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study

The picture says it all from an article in the Telegraph: Scientists study cow farts and burps collected in a plastic tank to battle global warming.

cow fart

Argentine scientists are strapping plastic tanks to the backs of cows

Experts said the slow digestive system of cows makes them a key producer of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that gets far less public attention than carbon dioxide.

Consider the other companion studies:

Eating beef is less green than driving

Flower may hold key to cow methane reduction: mitigate global warming

Methane, which is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, is emitted at the prodigious rate of 100 to 200 litres a day by the average dairy cow, mainly from the front end, according to Michael Abberton of the Institute.

July 5, 2008

Only seven years left to stop global warming, increase taxes

Bleak warnings. Tipping points. Running out of time. Too late to do anything.

Yet, the EU for the past 3 years has implemented carbon trading schemes, which tax economic activity that relies on emissions of carbon dioxide. After these 3 years, it is still getting worse? So what was the benefit of the EU’s taxation scheme on carbon if global warming is going to become irreversible in 7 years? Clearly, according to recent polls (Most Britons Doubt Climate Change), at least the British are keen to the scientists overstating the certainty of their theories/results/ideas.

So, on July 4, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered another bleak assessment to the world: (AFP article cited)

only seven years remained for stabilising emissions of global-warming gases at a level widely considered safe…we would have to stabilise the greenhouse-gas concentration at more or less the level at which we are today.

“(…)But in order to do that, we have a window of opportunity of only seven years because emissions will have to peak by 2015 and reduce after that. We cannot permit a longer delay.


We cannot PERMIT a longer delay? This type of language is a bad sign coming from the head of a scientific group like the IPCC, or is it better described as a Political Action Committee these days? Why the urgency all of a sudden again? Well it is likely that the IPCC and the socialists believe that the public is losing interest because even after paying through the nose all of these new taxes, nothing is being accomplished.

Thus, it is timee to start blaming heat waves and floods and other current weather events on global warming. Gone is the usual refrain that “one cannot attribute one individual hurricane, flood, or heat wave to global warming”. Now scientists have concluded that yes! they have become more frequent because of climate change and we are seeing it now. This attribution science is very shaky at best and many conclusions are unfounded for sure.

Pachauri also sounded a note of caution about the 2 C (3.6 F) figure, as evidence was mounting that climate change was accelerating faster than thought. Heatwaves and floods were increasing, and higher temperatures were having a far-reaching effect on glaciers and snowfall.

The term “acceleration of global warming” will be the new and improved lingo during the next several months, as the IPCC and the socialists attempt to scare the hell out of the world once again.

June 28, 2008

Climate change searches: Google trends show waning interest.

A popular and easy tool to track the evolution of internet search engine requests is provided by Google Trends.


Each week, there are countless news pieces and press releases concerning zillions of climate change impacts, aspects, and prognostications about the atmosphere, ocean, and biosphere.

When searching for “climate change”, the following Google Trends plot is produced:

The change-points are labeled A-F with the most significant being the release of the IPCC climate change report beginning in early 2007.  After the Nobel Peace Prize presentation (F), and the beginning of Northern Hemisphere winter, interest in climate change crashed in late December 2007.  The bottom time series indicates a drop off in news reference volume going into 2008 that has not reached the hysteric levels of 2007.

This chart includes worldwide searches, with the rankings according to region stacking up as follows:

  1. Australia
  2. New Zealand
  3. South Africa
  4. United Kingdom
  5. Canada
  6. Ireland
  7. Singapore
  8. India
  9. United States
  10. Switzerland

It follows that the top 6 out of 7 cities are located in Australia with the first three being Canberra, Adelaide, and Sydney.

In the United States, the top state searching for climate change is Vermont, with the District of Colombia, Alaska, Maine, and New Hampshire finishing the top-5, respectively.  The number one city is Boulder CO, where the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is located and is heavily involved in climate change research.  Very few surprises here.  The more liberally oriented (blue states) areas of the country tend to care more about envrionmental issues such as climate change.

A similar plot can be produced for “global warming” searches.  The drop off over the past few months is similar to the fall-off seen in the “climate change” search.  Interest in hurricanes has become almost non-existent.  With the exception of the 2004 and 2005 seasons, in which the 4-Florida landfalls and Katrina/Rita lit up the news wires, the past 30 months have seen little interest.


June 23, 2008

British polling shows people lack trust in climate change scientists

A public poll in the UK has found that Britons do not entirely believe the climate change scientists whose research is propelling the government on urgent socioeconomic and political upheaval.

The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Now consider the NOAA Climate Extremes report that was released late last week. Was this the motivation of that report as well — to overwhelm all doubt and make drastic action a fait accompli?


There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public’s doubts on last year’s Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.

Here in the US, 4$ a gallon gasoline has even caused Lindsay Graham’nesty and John McCain and even the venerable Q-Tip Charlie Crist to suggest opening offshore drilling. Apparently the British do not like the price of gas especially with their government’s confiscatory and punitive energy taxes.

Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that ‘many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change’, and that four out of 10 ‘sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say’. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.

60% think there is still a debate! Al Gore says otherwise, and puts his electricity usage up as evidence. Oops.

Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as ‘stealth’ taxes.

Green jobs = Unemployment
Green taxes = clean and environmentally friendly socialism without the guilt

The proponents of AGW know that the public is skeptical and will have to redouble their efforts to scare the crap out of people. The media is complicit and will have to ramp up their coverage of floods, tornadoes, rain, clouds, wind, sunrises, etc.

June 11, 2008

Article XXXI of Kucinich Impeachment of Bush: Katrina


President Bush should have foreseen the ravages of Hurricane Katrina and “predicted” this disaster and prepared the federal government machine to “protect life and property” according to Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment articles.

…given decades of
foreknowledge of the dangers of storms to New Orleans and specific forewarning in the days prior to
the storm…

This type of statement is almost as credible as saying that Bush caused Katrina or global warming caused by Bush caused Katrina. Either way you look at it, Bush is responsible for the decades of decrepit living standards in New Orleans perpetrated by the Democrat Party in charge of the city and state. However, that has come to an end…Bobby Jindal … Just as Carter brought us Reagan, Katrina gave us Jindal.


The predictable increased strength of hurricanes such as Katrina has been identified by scientists for years, and yet the Bush Administration has denied this science and restricted such information from official reports, publications, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s website. Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, wrote in 2006 that “hurricane intensity has increased with oceanic surface temperatures over the past 30 years. The physics of hurricane intensity growth … has clarified and explained the thermodynamic basis for these observations. [Kerry] Emanuel has tested this relationship and presented convincing evidence.”

This is poppycock. The Emanuel study was published 4 weeks prior to Katrina! Also, how does Bush divine the future and know that Science would declare “hurricane intensity has increased…” in 2006? NOAA scientists are continuing to investigate the linkages between Hurricanes and global warming even though some have said the science is settled (Al Gore). In fact, and surprisingly so to alarmists, the relationship between sea-surface temperature warming and hurricane intensity is not all that well understood. Global warming has little impact in tropical storms and hurricane numbers, NOAA reports
That doesn’t sound so cut and dried after all. This is bad science and a reflection of over 5 years of bad media reporting on the issue. No one in the tropical cyclone research field will challenge this, speak up, or say anything to the contrary. Academics are typically lefists and asserting cover-ups is getting just plain old.

May 30, 2008

Charles Krauthammer — Global Warming Agnostic

Charles Krauthammer lends his usual wit and psychiatrist’s prospective to the important issue of global warming. He is not convinced one way or the other and approaches the issue from a pragmatic point of view.

In his weekly column, he makes some very insightful comments:

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

The speculation he refers to concerns climate models, which are inherently not predictions but scenarios of the future climate based upon an evolving understanding of how nature operates. It is arrogant to assume we can predict with even 50% certainty what the earth’s climate will look like in 2080.

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven’t seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global-warming debate over. Consider: If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex, and speculative — is a closed issue.

But why would Newsweek publish such a cover story?

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney, and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual Left.

Here we go now. The left will be re-empowered.
Vaclav Klaus, who has been ripping global warming as a religion, condemning the tactics of a new Stalinism-like movement,
sees the command-and-control mechanisms of the new “green-left” as a threat similar to communism.

Krauthammer continues:

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts, and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (Communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual Left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Are you green enough? You drive a huge SUV, how wasteful. Eat organic.

Barak Obama is cited as an expert on the subject, mixing in some foreign policy experience with his forward looking hope and change canard:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

How is this new technocracy going to control our every movement? Well, control carbon and they control your body. What you can eat, your energy usage, what you breathe out. It is all carbon.

“There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.”

So what does the global-warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research — untainted and reliable — to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

So, who wants to start rationing. Can you just imagine the amount of data that the government would be collecting to manage your life?

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at