global warming

Chicken Little, meet Turkey Lurkey

Facts are stubborn things, aren't they?  They interfere with the narrative. In Dave Henderson's "Outdoors" column at the Ithaca Journal:

The "experts" are out in force, telling me that turkey hunting is slow this year because the mild spring weather got the breeding started early and the birds were all done before the opening of the season.

See? There's global warming climate change for ya—even you bitter gun-clingers have to admit it now.

Not exactly. Those pesky facts keep getting in the way.

Sorry Bubba, but the folks who actually know about this sort of thing say it ain't so.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission, using a radio telemetry study of hen turkeys, found that the birds didn't begin incubating nests any earlier this year than in the previous two years.
In fact, Pennsylvania has been comparing notes to data collected in the 1950s and 1960s to see if today's birds are nesting earlier, and they aren't. The average date of nest incubation remains around the first week of May.
If that is so, then why are gobblers so hard to come by this spring?
Because there simply are not as many out there as there used to be.
The 2011 spring kill of 18,700 gobblers was down 27 percent from the 2010 kill and well below the previous 10-year average of 32,800. Last fall's kill of 4,243 was about half the 2010 fall kill and well below the 5-year average of 9,800 birds. These are the lowest figures since the mid-1980s.
The population was on a down slide for a couple of years when a disastrous 2009 nesting season devastated things. It may take 4-5 years of good nesting springs to recover.
And hunters are a patient lot.

The NoisyRoom mouths off

I don't usually reproduce posts from other blogs in their entirety, but this one is so good I didn't think excerpting it did it justice.  Here ya go, at the NoisyRoom, "Bad Dreams in the Night":

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

A terrifying new concept has recently reemerged in the global climatology fight and the clarion call is heralded by a book that Zombie just readThe Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.

So, let me get this straight… In the 1970′s, we were all going to freeze to death in a new ice age. In the 2000′s, we were going to be baked alive because of global warming. Now – old is new again and we are going to freeze to death once more. Oh, for crap’s sake, make up your minds, why don’t ya? More death, death, doom and death. How trite.

Just another ploy to spread global Marxism – we just HAVE TO do the following (rinse, repeat and gag):

  • Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
  • Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
  • Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
  • Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
  • In general embrace all environmental causes.

Sound familiar? Al Gore rides again in perpetuity evidently and has mated in an unholy alliance with Cass Sunstein and Progressives worldwide to force us into one global collective hell. Not surprised in the least. Zombie’s view of the whole scenario says it best:

In order to weaken and eventually destroy the existing industrialized nations, we must devise an ecological “crisis” so severe that only voluntary economic suicide can solve it; and if this first crisis doesn’t materialize as planned, then devise another, and another, even if they flatly contradict our previous claims.

These elitists will not stop until they have a crisis that we all must submit to so they can have their way with us and grab the power and fortune they have dreamed of, while putting the riffraff worldwide in their place as subjugates once and for all. A New World Order of slaves and a ruling class – ride the Wayback Machine to medieval times, only on steroids with a heaping side of eugenics for all.

Read Zombie’s latest: The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era? Bad dreams in the night of a purposely created disaster/emergency to force Americans to their knees, haunts me on a nightly basis. You can only look at evil so long before it takes its toll.


Question: When is a scientist not really a scientist?

Ummm...let's see....

George Will put it to a "Republican" presidential candidate:
...For Jon Huntsman: You, who preen about having cornered the market on good manners, recently tweeted, “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”
Call you sarcastic. In the 1970s, would you have trusted scientists predicting calamity from global cooling? Are scientists a cohort without a sociology – uniquely homogenous and unanimous, without factions or interests and impervious to peer pressures or the agendas of funding agencies?
Are the hundreds of scientists who are skeptical that human activities are increasing global temperatures not really scientists?
Here at Redneck Mansion, the answer to this post's title question is: For some people, probably at about the same point that an attorney is not really an attorney.  In an article in the Tompkins Weekly on gas drilling bans and DSEC:
DRAC leaders believe the bans will hold up in court, and have even questioned the motives of the some of the DSEC members. “Our bans will hold up in court. Mr. Kramer states he is an attorney, however, unless one is viscerally educated as to how industry's deliberate, calculated and frankly disturbing practices, one would be ill equipped to comment professionally, about the industry and its effects on our state.
"Viscerally educated"?
Good grief.

Krugmania, only in reverse

This is like "Can You Top This?"

First, Paul Krugman suggested that space aliens might fix the ailing US economy.

Now this.

Anyone listening to the anti-energy development crowd would think that pretty much any research coming out of Penn State must be false on its face.  Has to be.  After all, it's paid for by the very people who want to be presented in a positive light and we've previously posted on the curious phenomenon of Penn State's one-sidedness a couple of times at least.

Wait...(emphasis mine)

UNIVERSITY PARK, Penn. –  We've all heard of the ravaged rain forests and the plight of the polar bear. But as far as reasons for saving the planet go, the one offered by scientists Thursday [August 18th] is truly out of this world.

A team of American researchers have produced a range of scenarios in which aliens could attack the earth, and curiously, one revolves around climate change.

They speculate that extraterrestrial environmentalists could be so appalled by our planet-polluting ways that they view us as a threat to the intergalactic ecosystem and decide to destroy us.

The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis"...

[....] But before we brace ourselves for alien annihilation, the report suggests things could turn in humanity's favor.

"As we continue the search for extraterrestrials into the future, perhaps our thinking about the different modes of contact will help human civilization to avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival," it suggests.

Phew!  That was close.

But...but...but—you mean Penn State is not a hotbed of right-wing pseudo-scientific extremism? 

We'll be attending a conference at Penn State later this year.  We'll let you know if we run into this guy:

h/t Tom

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."

Richard Feynman, no slouch himself when it came to science, said that.

The Babster's been to the left coast and the results aren't pretty.  In today's Ithaca Journal (h/t South of 5 and 20):

Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, D-Ithaca, visited the West Coast earlier this week to tour renewable energy sites in central California and meet with leaders in the green energy field...

[....] "My work on gas drilling has heightened my great concern about climate change, and the role that fossil fuels are playing, according to an overwhelming consensus of our nation's and world's climate scientists," Lifton said. "Peer-reviewed studies are showing that the huge release of methane gas in the drilling and transportation of natural gas, which is mostly methane gas, is likely to significantly add to the amount of greenhouse gas we are releasing into the atmosphere. Since methane gas is anywhere from 72-100 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, such release of methane would add considerably to the already destructive effects we are seeing from climate change."

Lifton said the trip was mostly educational, but may factor into legislation she plans to draft in the next session of the state Legislature...

Remember when the Climategate story broke in November 2009? You remember—the hockey stick? "Hide the Decline"?  Oh, you don't remember? That's because it didn't get muchany play in the lamestream media.  Well, some people noticed anyway and produced a series of videos on the Church of Global Warming at which Babs is a regular worshipper:

Notice the not-very-subtle shift in emphasis in Lifton's remarks above from CO2, the original focus of all the hysteria, to methane, a bugaboo related to our regional environmental cause du jour—fracking.

We here at Redneck Mansion have gone hoarse—in a manner of speaking—on the subjects of our moral and intellectual superiors, global warming (or "climate change" as they now like to call it since "global warming" has become a discredited shibboleth), sustainability, energy development (or the lack of it, more to the point) and the like.  Lifton's brief remarks read like a compendium of logical fallacies, and she makes claims that if not demonstrably false, are at the very least questionable:

...Professor Robert Howarth, a biologist at Cornell University, argues that the gas industry generates as much or more greenhouse gas as the coal industry, though only in the short term. This is because methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and methane leaks during fracking and production59.

85. This conclusion requires unrealistic assumptions about: the quantity of methane that leaks during fracking, production and transport; the lack of methane leaks from coal mines; the residence time of methane in the atmosphere; and the greenhouse warming potential of methane compared with carbon dioxide60. For example, Howarth assumes that methane has 105 times the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide over 20 years; even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only uses a factor of 72 over 20 years, but prefers 25 over 100 years, which is the normal period of comparison. And Howarth gets his numbers on high gas leakage from shale gas wells from unreliable sources, his numbers on gas leakage from pipelines from long Russian pipelines, and assumes that `lost and unaccounted for gas‘ is actual leakage rather than partly an accounting measure61. He also fails to take into account the greater generating efficiency of gas than coal. As one critic puts it of Howarth‘s latest paper:

Practically every paragraph includes an assumption, simplification or choice by the authors that tends to increase the calculated environmental impact of natural gas. Whether that‘s the result of bias or merely a series of judgment calls, it undermines confidence in the final conclusions at the same time it amplifies them. -- Geoffrey Styles, The Energy Collective, 15 April 201162.

86. Absent these unrealistic assumptions, gas is clearly a lower-emission fuel. It is also worth noting that the growth rate of methane concentration in the atmosphere `slowed in the 1990s, and it has had a near-zero growth rate for the last few years‘ according to NOAA63. This is hardly the signature of a growing problem.


We've said it before and we'll say it again—the science is not settled.  Babs would do well to not make it sound as though it were.

The science is settled: "crickets chirping" edition

At Hot Air:

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University...

And now David Evans says

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings...The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome...

Read the rest.

And in lamestream, Soros-funded newsrooms everywhere, the sound of reportage you hear on this and similar stories is...OK, cue the crickets.  Go ahead, click on the hot link.  Maybe you'll find it soothing.

The science is settled, Galileo edition

The geocentric world view that Galileo's inquisitors were still so fond of in 1632:

And, of course, that world view was completely wrong but it took the Catholic Church a very long time to admit its mistake.

Fast forward almost 380 years (almost as long as it took the Church to acknowledge its mistake)...this video, complete with an Annie Leonard-soundalike narrator, was shown during the first part of a two-part presentation on climate change and fracking at a local parish last night:

The climate change presenter stated baldly, "There is no debate about global warming. The only questions are how fast is the climate changing and how severe will that change be."

That's a complete lie.  Of course there's continuing debate, most especially since November 2009 when the "Climategate" scandal broke, and to suggest otherwise—or to state baldly, as in this instance—is disingenuous (and as someone on another blog observed recently "Disingenuous is a fancy word for lying.").  Many of us out here amongst the great unwashed know this:

And for an alternate, specifically Catholic point of view on the global warming hysteria (although the folks last night didn't seem to think that there is or ought to be an alternate view amongst Catholics);

And to back up the assertions in the video above, links to more than 150 files containing documents, John Holdren's Powerpoint presentation at Woods Hole in 2006, tax returns for organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, videos, charts, etc., may be found here.  The hard evidence to support a differing viewpoint on "climate change" and a different interpretation of the motives driving environmentalists certainly exists.

As for the fracking part of the presentation?  Well, we've blogged about the differing opinions on that topic before. Last night's presenter, in a "disingenuous" attempt to appear to be fair and balanced, did mention that an alternate interpretation of fracking had been published by a couple of faculty members at Penn State—but then sneeringly remarked that their work had been funded by the gas industry.  That of course, is way, way different from the work produced by pure-as-the-driven-snow Cornell professors on fracking—whose study was funded by the leftist Park Foundation.  Just sayin'.

And like manna from heaven, into my lap just fell this from Investor's Business Daily (via South of 5 and 20):

...The safety mantra was raised once again last Thursday when Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the appointment of a seven-member panel to study hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as "fracking," and come up with new safety standards that address concerns raised by environmentalists.

....We believe the safety issue is a cover for the Obama administration's ideologically driven animus toward fossil fuels and its deliberate campaign to raise energy prices — and thereby to make its favored "green" alternatives look more competitive and attractive.

But there are never any ulterior motives as far as the "global warming," anti-fracking crowd is concerned. Everything is always for our own—and Gaia's—good. We're just too thick to see it.

Oh, yeah...and Galileo?

In March 2008 the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Nicola Cabibbo, announced a plan to honour Galileo by erecting a statue of him inside the Vatican walls. In December of the same year, during events to mark the 400th anniversary of Galileo's earliest telescopic observations, Pope Benedict XVI praised his contributions to astronomy. A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.

The Internet is killing the planet... letting climate change skeptics exchange ideas.  Since we've had a bunch of posts here about global warmingclimate change, this post at JammieWearingFool (via Hot Air) is relevant:

Now how exactly will Al Gore's masterful invention go about destroying the planet? Why, by giving climate change "deniers" a voice to oppose the environmental wackos.

The planet may not be so lucky. It's increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.

The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it's now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?...

Read the rest.

Climategate one-liner leads to libel suit

Kathy Shaidle says, "Libel laws are what we got when we outlawed dueling." At NRO, via Five Feet of Fury:

Dr. Michael Mann, Director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Penn State University, is suing the climate change denier Dr. Tim Ball and the think tank/web site Frontier Centre for Public Policy for libel – and particularly for an interview in which, in answer to the question, “Do you think anyone will be prosecuted for fraud?” Ball responds, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.”


More goodies from today's Ithaca Journal, this time the "Guest Viewpoint:"

Local governments have led the effort in recent years to envision, accelerate and achieve strong climate protection goals. The 600 local governments that are members of a national network called ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability, have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 23 million tons in 2005 alone. This translates into about $600 million in annual cumulative savings, largely on energy expenditures. The town and city of Ithaca, the Town of Dryden and Tompkins County are all members of ICLEI.


Town of Dryden

* Energy efficiency upgrades at highway department completed.

* Geothermal system and high-efficiency lighting added to town hall facility.

* Provided funding for local residents to get energy audits.

* Sustainability planner hired (who is the person writing this piece--tvm)

* Energy coordinator to be hired in 2011.

* Sustainability planning process under way.

Sounds unimpeachably wonderful, doesn't it? Well, as many people who have been paying attention to the zoning and sustainability discussions (and, yes, they are connected as noted in an earlier post) in Dryden are aware, not so much. Poke around the ICLEI website, and then take a look at the "ICLEI Primer: Your Town and Freedom Threatened."  Sound familiar?


Subscribe to global warming