2014: Year of Futility in the Fight Against Climate Change

Sign_Stop_global_warmingGuest essay by Steve Goreham

Originally published in Communities Digital News.

The year 2014 was another year of futility in the fight against climate change. Climatists redoubled efforts to convince citizens that urgent action is needed to stop dangerous global warming. But the gap between public warnings and actual events produced an endless stream of climate irony.

January began with a frosty bang as an arctic air mass descended on the central United States, following a similar event in December. What was once called a cold snap is now ominously christened a “polar vortex.” Record-low daily temperatures were recorded from Minnesota to Boston, along with all-time seasonal snowfalls in many cities.

In a White House video released on January 8, John Holdren, chief science advisor to President Obama, made the paradoxical statement, “But a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

Also in January, passengers of the research ship Akademik Shokalskiy were rescued after the ship was locked in ice for 10 days near the antarctic coast. The expedition lead by professor Chris Turney had intended to study how weather patterns near Antarctica were changing due to man-made global warming.

On February 16, during a presentation in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that climate change was “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” Only two days later, protestors set fire to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, leading to the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych. In March, Russia seized the Crimea. In July, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine, and political unrest continues today. In the Middle East, slaughter of innocent civilians and beheading of western captives became a growing trend. Man-made climate casualties seem remarkably scarce in comparison.

In March, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations released Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, part of its Fifth Assessment Report. The report said that man-made climate change would reduce world agricultural output. Lead author Dr. Mark Howden stated, “There’s increasing evidence that climate change is also impacting on agriculture, particularly on some of the cereal crops such as wheat and maize. The negative impacts are greater and quicker than we previously thought.”

Meanwhile, farmers continued to ignore the warnings of the IPCC. According to the US Department of Agriculture, world agricultural production set all-time records for all three major cereal crops in 2014, with rice output up 1.1 percent, wheat up 11.2 percent, and corn up a whopping 14.0 percent over 2013.

The Obama administration continued its attack on coal-fired power plants, which provide about 40 percent of US electricity. In June, the EPA proposed new restrictions on carbon emissions that would make it virtually impossible to build a new coal-fired plant in the US. At the same time, more than 1,200 new coal-fired plants are planned across the world, with two-thirds to be built in India and China.

In his 2007 Noble Prize acceptance speech, former Vice President Al Gore warned that the arctic ice could be gone in “as little as seven years.” But arctic sea ice rebounded in 2014 and antarctic sea ice has been growing for decades. According to the University of Illinois, satellites measured global sea ice area at above the 30-year average at the end of 2014.

In September, the United Nations held a climate summit in New York City to urge the world to conserve energy and reduce emissions. Spokesman Leonardo DiCaprio stated, “This disaster has grown beyond the choices that individuals make.” Mr. DiCaprio neglected to mention his frequent flights on carbon-emitting private jets or his ownership of the world’s fifth largest yacht, purchased from a Middle East oil tycoon.

In October, climate skeptics reported the eighteenth straight year of flat global temperatures. Satellite data shows no temperature increase since 1997. The “pause” in global warming is now old enough to vote or to serve in the military.

Hurricanes and tornados are favored events for generating alarming climate headlines, but US weather events were few in 2014. US tornadic activity was below average and the lack of strong hurricanes continued. No Category 3 or stronger hurricane has made US landfall for more than eight years, the longest period since records began in 1900.

The last half of 2014 witnessed a steep drop in world petroleum prices from over $100 per barrel to under $60 per barrel. Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, technologies perfected by US geologists and petroleum engineers over the last two decades, produced an explosion in US oil production and triggered the fall in world prices.

But the concurrent drop in US gasoline prices to two dollars per gallon is not welcomed by man-made global warming believers. Former Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said in 2008, “So we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” English journalist George Monbiot has lamented, “We were wrong about peak oil: there’s enough in the ground to deep-fry the planet.”

With all the climate fun in 2014, what will 2015 hold?

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

Advertisements

210 thoughts on “2014: Year of Futility in the Fight Against Climate Change

  1. Unfortunately Obama’s got a pen and a phone. He’s not running for reelection anymore and he doesn’t have to worry about Democrats losing any more House or Senate seats. Those facts, and not the clearly and recently expressed will of the voters, is what, as his aides have said, has ‘energized’ him. We may not like bogus CAGW science, but CAGW science likes us.

    • Guys, guys, you need to get with the program. It doesn’t matter if you have a mountain of evidence contradicting CAGW, all it takes is one scintilla of “evidence,” no matter how contrived, irrelevant, bogus or fabricated. So, voila, 2014 was the “hottest year on record,” based on ground measurements which are “estimated” and “adjusted” to suit the argument. They’re not interested in scientific certainty, just financial certainty for their bank accounts and phoney baloney jobs. So they’ll continue to go to their save the earth conferences, belching carbon fuels to and from, back and forth from their cushy jobs and expense accounts. Losing that is the catastrophe they’re actually concerned about. But, ask a voter what are they more concerned about, man made pollution or man made global warming? Then ask them if they want to pay more taxes to save the world. People intuitively know CAGW is a scam and are not interested in sending climate reparations to China or anywhere else; of course politicians want to decide for them. Luckily we have elections. Unluckily the US and Ontario, Canada have bought into their “we are part of government” meme, so they get to have this crap foisted onto them. Sometimes democracy sucks.

      • Philjourdan

        You have not provided evidence of any president subsequent to Truman that has taken any action to affirm EO number 9981.

        Until you provide us with such evidence, it is apparent ant once an EO is issued, it remains in effect until recinded by a president, invalidated by a court, or overridden by Congress.

      • Davey, yes I have. I am sorry, but I am not your teacher. I told you the PROOF that the EO was superfluous. It is your own obstinance and ignorance that does not allow you to understand history.

        So stop lying,

    • The good thing is that all of Obama’s actions through executive orders and regulations can be overturned by the next President with their pen. Nothing this man say’s or does means anything towards the future of this country. He is nothing more than a JOKE. It just took a while for the American people to realize that fact. So we should not get too excited about what he is going to do these next 2 years. They are temporary and will only be in effect until he leaves office.

      • No, an executive order does not expire when the president leaves office. It is permanent unless a subsequent president rescinds it, a court overturns it, or an act of Congress overturns it.

      • Yes it does. Better recheck your facts. The executive order expires with the signatory. It is not a law. it is not an amendment. It is nothing more than an opinion.

      • philjourdan
        ..

        Better check your history
        The Emancipation Proclamation was an “Executive Order”, and the last time I checked, it is still in force.

        In a similar fashion, you ought to check Truman’s Executive Order 9981………it is still in force today

      • No David, the EP only applied to states in rebellion. SO which of the 57 are they?

        EOs only last until the next president. At which time he may (and I quote):

        New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors

        A choice! Which means the default is they expire, since it cannot be a choice if no action is done.

      • philjourdan

        Tell me, since Truman issued 9981, can you please provide us all with the actions issued by each and every subsequent president that affirmed the order????????

      • philjourdan

        I know how to comment.

        You still have not answered the following……

        Tell me, since Truman issued 9981, can you please provide us all with the actions issued by each and every subsequent president that affirmed the order.?

      • You do not know how to comment as your comment is referenced to Bobby Davis.

        And your dementia is running rampant as I answered it – CRA.

        I am not your teacher.

      • Mr Philjouirdan

        I sincerely apologize for showing that you do not know much about Executive Orders.

        Please accept my apology.

      • More lies. YOu have yet to provide any evidence of your supposition. However, I have provided concrete proof of your ignorance as well as your sock puppets.

        So which states are in rebellion, and what happened to the CRA?

        Or is your dementia setting in again?

    • Just remember that it was a Republican that created the EPA and it will be a Republican that puts it back in it’s place. Obama’s planted “moles” in the agency will be weeded out and those regulations harmful to the economy will be wiped off the books.

  2. Where can I find the latest estimates on the length of the ‘pause’ by the 4 metrics used to measure it global temperature? I’m going to a New Year’s day party, and want to confront the faithful the the latest and most correct lengths. Pause is logically incorrect, and gives away the game to the warmists. It is far more correct to say that global warming has stopped (for the length of the ‘pause’).

  3. I am afraid we are fighting a powerful MEME. CO2 is associated with global warming, that in turn is linked to catastrophic events. Real science is no longer important – the meme has taken over. Another association with CO2 is pollution. At the end of 2014 I have no idea yet how to fight the meme but we need to get out of our current mode and come up with our own meme to spread. Science has never won from a meme.

    • Plants/plankton use photosynthesis to turn CO2 & sunlight into food. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist absent Carbon Dioxide. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitude; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures also lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall and save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile and life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.

      • Don’t forget the part where the excess oxygen from that CO2 is released by those plants and becomes the stuff we, along with the rest of the Regnum Animale breath on a continual basis.

    • Marketing for success involves repeating the same message across multiple media for long periods of time. It also involves dominating that media. Add the motivation of fear and a bottomless budget and it’s a powerful propaganda tool. A few articles in disparate media cannot compete.

      Some people on the opposing side need to get their act together.

  4. The facts remain, but the myth lives on. However, Australia lead the way with a glimmer of hope that sanity will return. 2015 will be another year of a battle of wills, between science and religion. And the religion side is pulling out all the stops, lining up the largest religions to battle with them.

  5. While i detest DiCaprio’s stance on CAGW as much as anyone, he does not own that yacht. It is owned by a member of the UAE royal family(oil wealth, of course), and is 400+ feet long and valued at over $600M.

    Hypocrisy on steroids in a multitude of ways from DiCaprio? Yes.
    But he doesn’t own the tub. Please edit for accuracy.

  6. Who knows, maybe next year the Climatists will find climate change. So far, they’ve been
    looking for climate in all the wrong places…

    • So far, they’ve been looking for climate in all the wrong places…
      ==========================================
      Barbara Boxer could see it from her window; it’s hard to tell whether it’s pure idiocy or not:
      “In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change’s impacts – from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires …This new IPCC report identifies the serious threats to human health, vital infrastructure, and the world’s economy that will multiply as temperatures warm. It confirms that we must cut carbon pollution now to avoid lasting changes to our planet”.

    • Climate change is happening, I see it happen every day, just by looking out of the window, our German Environmental ministress is claiming.

      Yes you can find it, if you are eager enough for searching it. Just look at the Artic / North Pole selfies from satellite 36 years apart. The amount of ice floes in the East Chinese Sea has considerably decreased. 36 more years going on like the previous and the East Chinese Sea will be free of ice, just as Al Gore predicted.

      http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/2014/12/ein-selfie-unser-erde-vom-nordpol-aus.html

      And something more you can see clearly on the Ne’erday’s satellite photo of 1979: No snow available globally, except on Greenland. But this was probably some old ice…

      (On my site you can easily translate everything just by using the translate button on the left bar)

      • Johannes Herbst

        Nice claim. Please explain the all-time record excess sea ice around Antarctica this past June: At 2.06 million “excess sq kilometers of sea ice, just the “extra Antarctic sea ice was the same area as Greenland. It not unusual: Antarctic sea ice has been steadily increasing since 1992. Arctic sea ice has recovered from its 2007 and 2012 lows, and has been within 1 std deviation of its 1970’s “normals” all year in 2014.

        Further, from today’s limits, there is more heat lost from the open ocean 7 months of the year than can be gained from the little sunlight at very low solar elevation angles that does occur over the Arctic ice. Now, may, June, July? Yes, more energy is absorbed. And then promptly lost over the next 8 months into the polar skies.

      • Given that the northernmost extent of the East China Sea is about 32N, it’s is not surprising it’s ice-free.

  7. Cold snap, polar vortex, warmer winters are all consistently predicted projected by our wonderful climatologists climastrologists. On the issue of Antarctica the IPCC’s models projected an increase in sea ice extent, though they note the increase and admit it’s all poorly understood. [IPCC – PDF]

    Science Direct – June 4, 1999
    Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model
    …….”Based on this research, it’s quite likely that the warmer winters over the continents are indeed a result of the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Dr. Shindell said…….Other authors of the Nature paper were Gavin A. Schmidt,…..

    Ten years later and what’s this I see?

    Science Direct – November 17, 2010
    Global warming could cool down northern temperatures in winter
    The overall warming of Earth’s northern half could result in cold winters, new research shows…..The researchers base their assumptions on simulations with an elaborate computer model of general circulation, ECHAM5, focusing on the Barents-Kara Sea north of Norway and Russia

    • CORRECTION – I meant to say:
      “On the issue of Antarctica the IPCC’s models projected an DECREASE in sea ice extent…”

    • It’s called “science”; as new information emerges, new conclusions are reached.. For the record, the temps only stay colder for a few years, then things heat up again.

      • Put a number on it Harry. Go on. Tell us all when it’s going to heat up? And while you’re at it, dig up the references to the climate scientists who have told us about their certain conclusions in the past… which oddly they never recanted while suddenly claiming that it’ll start to heat up real soon…

        Real science gets it wrong sometimes and before issuing the next prediction admits that it got wrong. Charlatans never do.

      • If I had absolute certainty in my beliefs and didn’t have to worry about facts, I’d be writing posts for this site.

      • So do you admit that Gavin and co.’s alarmism in 1999 about us boiling to death each winter was complete rubbish?
        Why should we believe them now, as their past record is fairly useless?

        If it does warm up again, so what? The world is a better place when it’s warmer. Just ask the Romans.

      • I don’t know who Gavin is or what he said in 1999, so I’m not going to comment on it.

        As far as the Romans go, it’s not the absolute temperature that matters (unless that temperature becomes unbearably cold or hot, of course.) It’s how much of a change it is from the current environment, which we’ve optimized to produce food for 7+ billion people. Even in a best case scenario where we discount the potential impact of extreme weather and where warming means that we can eventually farm the Canadian or Russian tundra, the loss of existing food and water sources is going to happen a lot faster than the acquisition of new ones. And that’s the best case, it could be we just lose arable land and don’t get anything back.

      • Sir Harry Flashman
        December 30, 2014 at 11:34 am

        I don’t know who Gavin is or what he said in 1999, so I’m not going to comment on it.

        As far as the Romans go, it’s not the absolute temperature that matters (unless that temperature becomes unbearably cold or hot, of course.) It’s how much of a change it is from the current environment, which we’ve optimized to produce food for 7+ billion people. Even in a best case scenario where we discount the potential impact of extreme weather and where warming means that we can eventually farm the Canadian or Russian tundra, the loss of existing food and water sources is going to happen a lot faster than the acquisition of new ones. And that’s the best case, it could be we just lose arable land and don’t get anything back.

        I have not read so much unsubstantiated rubbish in such a short sentence in all my time at WUWT. To tackle all this vomit from one comment is too much. Did you know that world food production is at record high? Do you want to leap into the PETM? That’s as bad as it gets for this century, yet observations V IPCC projections means it’s not going to happen.

      • Poppycock, sir, you show yourself a cad and a bounder with such ungentlemanly language. PETM? When the temperature rose 5C over 20,000!! years and there were no humans on the planet, thereby ensuring its irrelevance to anything we’re talking about today.

        And yes, we’re very good at producing food, especially when we haven’t yet seen a 5C increase in temperature over a few short decades. But I wouldn’t bet the farm (so to speak) on that not happening, especially when we don’t have to.

      • What’s called science? Making asinine statements like mild North American winters are the new norm and then switching it to cold North American winters are the new norm after one cold year, that’s scientific? I do believe you didn’t read the article and from your other rants it’s clear you are more faith based and less fact based in your stance.

    • Please keep using the term “climastrologists”. It has become my favorite word to use with true believers. They’ve stopped trying to correct me and the extremely dim lights are becoming noticeable as they are starting to come on. 8D

    • Reply to ==> Sir Harry Flashman.
      You say it’s called science and I do understand how science moves forward. Unfortunately no matter what happens to northern hemisphere winters it will be caused by global warming. Unfortunately for you that is NOT science. Whatever the observations it backs up the theory!!! Really?? That is Climastrology.

      Now you might think I’m naive enough not to understand the climate war, but I’m not. The climate war is exactly about science. There are papers produced by climate scientists that said Antarctica should see a decrease in sea ice extent [IPCC 2013]. Today we get ‘explanations’ that the increase is now caused by global warming. I will not go on but you need to take a re-think about how science works ALONG with the points I have made. I have many more.

      IPCC AR5 SPM – 2013
      Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations. {9.4.3}

      There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region. {10.5.1}
      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

      Go have a cup of hot coco and sit in a cold, dark room. Re-think your method.

    • Sir Harry Flashman
      December 30, 2014 at 11:34 am

      I don’t know who Gavin is or what he said in 1999, so I’m not going to comment on it…..

      Oh deary me. We have an uninformed intruder. Sir Harry, please do some homework first before laying in about science. Dr. James Hansen is an astrophysicist by the way.

      Your homework: see De. James Hansen 1988 – global warming – AC off – GISS and Gavin Schmidt. And that is just the start. You have a very long way to go. Now search for

      “oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, ”
      “The Oceans will begin to boil”

      Your jumping off point is below. You can of course look for yourself but it will take you time. Here is James Hansen in his own words.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/quote-of-the-week-dr-james-hansen-of-nasa-giss-unhinged/
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/14/boiling-oceans-and-burning-reputations-with-james-hansen/

      • Just to be clear Sir Harry, Hansen and Schmidt worked at the same place. Schmidt took over Hansen’s position.

    • Sir Harry Flashman
      December 30, 2014 at 12:40 pm

      Poppycock, sir, you show yourself a cad and a bounder with such ungentlemanly language. PETM? When the temperature rose 5C over 20,000!! years and there were no humans on the planet, thereby ensuring its irrelevance to anything we’re talking about today.

      We have seen a global temperature rise since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE of 0.8C. Now see this, all of it.

      Abstract
      Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
      Kathy J. Willis et al
      4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
      How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 °C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772000903495833

  8. Hottest year ever. Yeah, it is. Giant typhoons in Asia (because extreme weather isn’t measured only by the United States). Unprecedented rainstorms and associated flooding in the eastern US. And the list goes on, which is why you had 400000 people marching in New York. In a decade this site is either going to do a complete 180 or it’s going to have tumbleweeds blowing through it while people marvel at the nonsense that used to be posted here.

      • Harry, although I don’t adopt your stance I have a grudging respect.

        It’s good to see that you accept that time will tell with all this anyway. One way or the other and would change your stance accordingly.

        May I ask what conditions might get you to change to a more skeptical position?

      • What would convince me to shift position? An indisputable drop – or even a convincing pause – in temperatures lasting a decade or more. Before I get harangued about “The Pause!” (which is really a slight slowdown in the rate of increase and nothing more) , I would be looking specifically at temperatures in the Arctic region where warming is much more evident than elsewhere.

        Barring that, a large and reputable set of climate scientists all calling for reassessment of AGW theory, and explaining why. I don’t believe in massive conspiracy with for or against AGW (not because people wouldn’t want to do it, but because they are generally too incompetent to do it well), so I would be content with that.

      • @ Jones – I am definitely sincere and strident. I’ve mentioned before that I don’t just come here to troll; I would like nothing more than to find convincing evidence that AGW isn’t happening and that it isn’t going to be bad. I’d certainly sleep better.

        However, I’ve been following this issue since well before Al Gore came on the scene, and thus far nothing on this site has persuaded me that the stated conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists are either wrong or conspiratorial.

      • Harry is using fossil fuels and is an eco-hypocrite. Don’t be fooled by the troll, he is a SIR after all. 😉

      • Of course I’m using fossil fuels; otherwise I’d have to live in shack in the woods and hunt raccoons with a crossbow. But there are better ways. And I’m not just trolling for kicks, I believe that my points are valid and believe it or not, I do listen to what others are saying. Except to the crazy-ass stuff, which seems to be kind of your thing,

      • Sir Harry Flashman
        December 30, 2014 at 12:43 pm

        Of course I’m using fossil fuels;…..

        I have said this many times. Just scratch the skin of a Warmist and you will find an eco-hypocrite. They enjoy and use fossil fuels but want us to abandon them.

        Here is a simple question for Sir Harry Flashman
        Before coming here (or any other climate change blog / comment section) to tell us to abandon fossil fuels, don’t you think you should first abandon your fossil fuel use??? Is this an unreasonable request? If YOU don’t take the issue that serously then how do you think others will??

      • Jimbo – let me respond in all seriousness, because I’m spending too much time here and it’s getting old for everyone. I’m not telling anyone to do anything. I’m offering up ideas that I believe would benefit all of us, but they will only work through cooperation, not through one side of believers forcing things on another. Change can be very good.

        Anyway, you will all be happy to hear I’m done with this thread, though I can’t promise I won’t pop up elsewhere when I have renewed energy. Happy New Year to all of you.

      • Eve, you asked

        “Harry, why is your electricity still on?”

        Harry the liar said

        Hydro, nukes, and wind. You?

        Harry the liar responded to me:

        Of course I’m using fossil fuels;

        Busted! Or where you lying by omission?

        Goodnight Sir and learn to be more honest with yourself. It’s called fighting your own hypocrisy, it’s not going to be easy with fossil fuels. Just ask 97% of climate scientists. 😉

        Love and peace.

      • Sir Harry Flashman
        December 30, 2014 at 1:10 pm

        Jimbo – let me respond in all seriousness,….

        In all seriousness you failed to do you homework because you admitted you did not know who Gavin Schmidt was!!! That is serious even if you do not know it.

        Get your stuff together man – don’t be such an un-informed troll next time. Keep warm – using wind this winter. I will use COAL, OIL AND GAS. PS I do not have any financial interests whatsoever in fossil fuel providers. Just understand that there are people out there who simply see that you are WRONG.

    • @Sir Harry Flashman December 29, 2014 at 5:36 pm:
      Did you choose your internet handle because you’re (source Wikipedia) “a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady.” Just askin’ Because that would explain your rant.

    • If you would check the WUWT reference pages for Tropical Cyclones, you would find that neither global typhoon frequency nor hurricane frequency are on the rise. Cyclone energy is also on the low end of the chart. If you have reliable evidence to the contrary, please post it with the links.

      • Sir Harry Flashman;
        This is the trend we’re seeing – not more storms, but the strong ones are stronger.

        Uhm… but that’s not what the article you linked to actually says. It says for example:

        but pinning all of Sandy’s fury—its hybrid nature, the scale of its winds, its unusual track—on global warming is premature, says Shepherd, the current president of the American Meteorological Society.

        Then it goes on to make the case, not that strong storms are becoming stronger, but that some storms (one wonders about the others, did they stay the same or change in the opposite direction? the article doesn’t mention that) are reaching their strength more quickly. This seems to be restricted to Category 3 storms, hardly the strongest on the planet:

        A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s.

        Well getting to be a Category 3 storm in nine hours less says nothing about the strength of the strongest storm which are Category 5, and it doesn’t even claim that the Category 3 ones are stronger instead, or even that some of them bump up one category to 4 as a result.

        They do go on to claim that we storms ere even wetter. Again, they cite “come storms” without looking at the whole picture, but that’s still a low different form the most powerful storms becoming more powerful, isn’t it? Nut they make another rather interesting claim, that water vapour in the air column has increased by 4%”

        uring the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column

        Well that’s rather interesting because most of the studies I have read are reporting satellite data supporting less water vapour in the atmosphere, not more. But let’s suppose you ate right. Water vapour in the tropocs runs on the order of 30,000 to 40,000 ppm. a 4% raise would be 1600 ppm and has a absorption spectrum that overlapse that of CO2. CO2 in the same time frame has increased roughly 50 ppm. So the water vapour increase would be 32 times that of co2. How could it be that water vspour increased 32 times as much is CO2, is also a GHG nearly as strong as water vapour, and yet we can barely measure the temperature change? Perhapse a change in GHG forcing 32 times that of CO2 turns out to be a multiplier of nothing?

      • davidmhoffer, How many of those “changes” in storms from the 1980 data are due to better data? 9 hour faster strengthening? How many storms do we have accurate hour by hour data for then and now? Just putting some more perspective in.

        Tornadoes killed a lot more people when I was a kid, not because the were stronger but because our ability to track and warn has increased dramatically and all that accumulated data has massively increased our knowledge base. Same goes for hurricanes. Big differences from when I moved to Florida 25 years ago and what it is now on the science and measurement “front.”

      • Gawd, worst typo I’ve seen on this cite…

        davidmhoffer – December 29, 2014 at 10:21 pm
        “They do go on to claim that we storms ere even wetter. Again, they cite “come storms”… “

      • Sir Harry Flashman December 29, 2014 at 6:25 pm
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

        This is the trend we’re seeing – not more storms, but the strong ones are stronger. THis has been predicted for a number of years.
        +++++++++
        There’s so much wrong with this article. Sea surface temperatures rising as a result of what? The sea surface temperatures were not that high and not above recent past norms either. The storm was NOT strong relatively. It was not even considered a hurricane by the time it hit landfall. It was two storms that bumped into each other and it dump a lot of rain and wind. You need to sift through the emotional bull crap

    • Curious. Had you noticed the lights going out your favorite alarmist sites, Harry? Some have even given up, and they’re dropping out of the rankings, as, according to the IPCC own numbers, is the public perception of global warming’s importance, with less people finding it relevant than ever. But this site’s numbers keep growing. Must be all those 130-400 K people… (out of 350 million) all making friends and influencing people.

    • “Hottest year ever.” OK, Harry, being hottest by a few hundredths of a deg C caused all that mayhem in the world? Really? How the heck did they manage with much larger changes in temp back in the 1930s? How many people marched then? How many excess storms were there? What the heck is ‘excess’ anyway.

      Please, do get a life and see what’s real. If you are now the tallest you’ve ever been in in your life – by a few tenths of an inch, say, over previous years, are you panicking to get all your clothes re-tailored?

      Just get back to us when you’ve determined what the right temp is for life on earth – or indeed, on your planet. Ego?? You don’t have an ego? Hah! You don’t even have an ‘ergo’!

      Happy New Year! It’s gonna be cool….

      • If you throw a frog in boiling water, he jumps out…if you heat the water up slowly, he assumes everything’s find until he turns into frog’s legs. Similar premise.

        More importantly, do you think I look taller?

      • Harry F:

        If you throw a frog in boiling water, he jumps out…if you heat the water up slowly, he assumes everything’s find until he turns into frog’s legs. Similar premise.

        More importantly, do you think I look taller?

        What a load of frogs’ bollox you pretend for an argument! Do I think you’re taller? On this performance you’re lower than the dog’s bollox. But still, feel free to have a very Happy – and cooler – New Year.

    • Sir Harry Flashman is a TROLL sent in to throw the threads. I now realise his BS because even he does not believe his BS. He is actually a mad eunuch taking various banned substances.

    • Here is the mark of a liar OR incompetent. Sir Harry said he did not know who Gavin Schmidt was yet he says:

      Sir Harry Flashman
      December 30, 2014 at 6:41 am
      ,,,,,However, I’ve been following this issue since well before Al Gore came on the scene, and thus far nothing on this site has persuaded me that the stated conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists are either wrong or conspiratorial.

      If you do not know who Gavin Schmidt is despite your above comment then you must be lying or incompetent.

      • Hi from Oz. Jimbo, I would add a third option for describing our wordy benighted visitor. As we say here in Oz – “maybe he is just a sh!t-stirrer”. A happy New Year to all, and may all the warmists wake up sane tomorrow.

    • Sir Harry Flashman
      December 30, 2014 at 1:10 pm
      ……..
      Anyway, you will all be happy to hear I’m done with this thread, though I can’t promise I won’t pop up elsewhere when I have renewed energy. Happy New Year to all of you.

      I am not happy that you are “done with this thread”. I like your ignorant self exposure. Let’s hope your “renewed energy” is renewable energy. Stop being a self confessed eco-hypocrite. Prince Charles et al will have to struggle with this sooner or later – high co2 enjoyment – tell others to produce less co2. It’s called HYPOCRISY. Live with it but don’t deny it.

    • Flash,

      Extreme weather events have been declining for decades. Nothing it “unprecedented”. And they found 400,000 clueless dopes in New York. So what?

      You say:

      In a decade this site is either going to do a complete 180 or it’s going to have tumbleweeds blowing through it while people marvel at the nonsense that used to be posted here.

      Disagree with the first premise. It is the government scientific community that will do a complete 180º change in direction over the next decade. Either that, or their funding will dry up. Do you think they will let that happen?

      No, they will change direction, and warn the public about a new scare. No doubt you will be jumping on that bandwagon, too.

      As for your second premise, I already marvel at some of the nonsense posted here. That’s why I’m commenting about your post.

  9. No Category 3 or stronger hurricane has made US landfall for more than eight years, the longest period since records began in 1900.

    If I were an alarmist, I would call it “unprecedented.” But I recognize that a 114 years is not nearly long enough to make such a claim, whether it be for hurricanes, temperatures, or precipitation. But there is one thing that worries me. The US has now become so used to not having strong hurricanes hit its shores that when it does happen again, alarmists in the media will have a heyday pointing out the destruction caused by the hurricane and using it as proof of climate change. School children, in particular, will believe them because in their short lifetimes, a Category 3 hurricane will be an “unprecedented” event. Never mind that it used to be the norm.

    • “School children, in particular,…”

      I had a similar thought. At what age does a person become aware of major weather events that do not impact directly? One hurricane made U.S. landfall this year: Arthur, grazed the Outer Banks of North Carolina with 100 mph winds, at the time of the July 4 holiday. Unless it disrupted a person’s activities it isn’t likely to be remembered.
      H. Katrina (2005) is best remembered as demonstrating the ineptitude of local, state, federal politicos. Because of that ineptitude there were consequences. High school students of 2005 may remember this situation. Anyone under the current age of 20 will likely not know of this episode, or only know of it has history – like WWII.

      • Actually, in the USA with our Common Core curricula Climate Change is basically imbedded in every lesson, in one way or another. Our kids get almost daily indoctrination on that topic. You should check your schools, because most of our programs and those in the UK/Australia come from similar sources. This site has some good background on the topic: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/

  10. what will 2015 hold? Sachs is never short of an opinion….watch your retirement funds:

    30 Dec: SMH: Jeffrey Sachs: How to pay for climate safety
    The purpose of the global financial system is to allocate the world’s savings to their most productive uses. When the system works properly, these savings are channeled into investments that raise living standards; when it malfunctions, as in recent years, savings are channeled into real-estate bubbles and environmentally harmful projects, including those that exacerbate human-induced climate change.
    The year 2015 will be a turning point in the effort to create a global financial system that contributes to climate safety rather than climate ruin. In July, the world’s governments will meet in Addis Ababa to hammer out a new framework for global finance…
    The basics are clear. Climate safety requires that all countries shift their energy systems away from coal, oil, and gas, toward wind, solar, geothermal, and other low-carbon sources…
    Several major pension funds and foundations in the United States and Europe have recently made the move. They have wisely heeded the words of the former CEO of oil giant BP, Lord Browne, who recently noted that climate change poses an “existential threat” to the oil industry…
    Every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, or gas adds to long-term global warming, and therefore to the long-term costs that society will incur through droughts, floods, heat waves, extreme storms, and rising sea levels. While these future costs cannot be predicted with precision, recent estimates put the current social cost of each added ton of atmospheric CO2 at $10-100, with the US government using a middle-range estimate of about $40 per ton to guide energy regulation…
    With international oil prices dropping – by a whopping $40 per barrel since the summer – this is an ideal moment for governments to introduce carbon pricing..
    Moreover, new revenues from carbon taxes would be a boon for governments. High-income countries have promised to help low-income countries invest in climate safety, both in terms of low-carbon energy and resilience against climate shocks. Specifically, they have promised $100 billion in climate-related financing per year, starting in 2020, up from around $25-30 billion this year. New revenues from a CO2 tax would provide an ideal way to honor that pledge…
    The math is simple…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-to-pay-for-climate-safety-20141230-12fcrs.html

    • “The purpose of the global financial system is to allocate the world’s savings to their most productive uses. When the system works properly, these savings are channeled into investments that raise living standards…”

      In what universe is ‘investing’ in extremely inefficient, far less productive forms of energy raise living standards around the world? Jeffrey Sachs has mastered Orwellian Doublespeak and/or Irish Diplomacy: the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip!

      There is no way the man is dumb enough to believe what he is saying. He must be hoping that most people are that stupid.

  11. With the advent of the internet I believed that it was going to be much more difficult for anyone or any group to blatantly lie to the public and get away with it, because the public had the truth at their finger tips. Oh, how naive I was.

    It appears no more difficult today to fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, than it was when Abraham Lincoln coined that phrase; particularly if it is a lie that some people want to hear.

    There was enough information readily available in 1990 for this lowly meteorologist to come to the conclusion that the risk of a global warming crisis was negligible, and the evidence for a crisis was confined to speculation. 25 year later and there is still no physical evidence supporting a man-made global warming crisis. All physical evidence continues to support the ‘skeptical’ view that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a minimal effect and that effect is overwhelmingly positive. Yet the lie persists, even though all the evidence that it is a lie is readily available at every man, woman and child’s finger tips. It persists because a significant number of powerful people want it to persist.

    Recently, a young man lied to reporters and said that another man had his hands in the air and was pleading with a police officer not to shoot him, when the officer just gunned him down. That testimony was later shown to be a lie by the evidence, the testimony of other witnesses and even the recanting of the original witness, but the lie persists because many people want to believe it is true.

    Obama lied about Obamacare and we believed him because we wanted to. Our leaders continue to lie about the solvency of social security, the strength of the dollar, the inflation rate and unemployment. We believe all of the lies because we want to, even thought the truth is readily available to anyone who wants to look.

    Some argue that the lies are a good thing. They argue that the ends justify the means. Mahatma Gandhi said this truth on that subject:

    “They say, “Means are, after all, means.” I would say, “Means are, after all, everything.” As the means, so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end.”

    Any ends achieved by lies will be corrupted and invariably lead to greater and greater corruption. The myth of a man-made global warming crisis cannot die soon enough.

    • Jim,
      Your paragraph beginning “Obama lied …”
      You write “we” – wrong! The use of the “royal we” has a place; this is not it. I never believed him, and in fact, almost never believe him, many others likewise.
      The Social Security officials and many politicians are frequently pointing out that system’s problems. They are not lying about it. Many people do not understand SS. Some want to increase the benefits via redistribution. Those are different issues.

    • Jim, you will appreciate the movie “[American] Sniper” when it comes out. A powerful parable of the conflict between means and ends within one man working within a system and culture that itself is deeply troubled.

  12. The fall in world oil prices is intended to change the economics of fracking and put pressure on Russia. It has achieved its goal.

    • No it did not. fracking is dirt cheap, still is. Russia is on the rebound. Clearly you dont keep up to date

  13. Long live futility.
    The meme is crumbling before our eyes, even the UN activists acknowledge this as they franticly negotiate for exemption from criminal laws.
    The German Report back in April 2014 was another nail in this zombie cause’s coffin.
    Germany spent 21.8 billion euros for electricity worth 2 billion.
    Ontario Canada Auditor general Dec 2014 , government has wasted 52 billion dollars on wind and solar.
    Well I say it could not happen to nicer people, the activists hectored and threatened all who asked to see the evidence they claimed they had.
    We were know nothing planet haters, deniers of the coming Catastrophe, evil just for doubting the great faith.Or who cares if the theory is wrong, we are still doing good, bringing social justice to an economy near you now….
    Karma is such a drag, the internet never forgets and absolute conviction of ones righteousness usually leaves few options for retreat.
    How are your local do-gooder types, former loud saviours of the planet, quick to scream “think of the children” into any attempt to understand their terror.. doing now?
    Mine are mighty quiet.
    They keep changing the subject.
    But they continue to lust for power and cling on to their government jobs, nothing to see here move along is the new song of these fools and bandits.
    2015 will be entertaining.
    Follow the money.

  14. I guess Harry is from Ontario, hydro, nukes and wind. So he is not concerned about using electricity but he still believes in some kind of climate catastrophe? I notice that he forgot about the gas plants that are backing the wind power and the quadrupling of energy prices in Ontario because of wind power. Harry, do you care about the 10% of people in Ontario who can no longer afford electricity? Me, I left Ontario and am living in a naturally warm climate where I do not pay for heat and have only one light on at a time.

  15. Who’s the “we” Monbiot never believed in Peak Oil. Peak Oil is real and it’s simply a case of when it’s no longer profitable to use oil. It’s interesting people here ignore the fact that less viable oil sites came online when oil prices got expensive and have been sidelined with recent cheap oil.

    It’s also to note this site keeps citing the 1997-98 “pause” canard. Not only is this supposed pause just found on sites like this and nowhere else but from an anecdotal level summers are warmer and winters less cold than the 90’s.

  16. Oh, and you forgot to mention that 2014 was the warmest year yet. Or you only like your own factiods?

    • Traf: “…warmest year yet” – and you felt it? It changed your whole life? That tiny, minuscule, half of a gnat’s gonads difference in GAT (whatever that is) gets you alarmed? Could it also be that the this year is a ‘peak’? You know, the point from which it is all downhill?

      • Harry, for me 2014 was very clearly warmer than any past year I can remember. Even though winter was very cold, the summer and rest of the year has been much hotter than typical. It’s extraordinary. BTW, in May I moved from Pennsylvania to south Florida, but other than that, absolutely nothing changed.

  17. A very nice summary of the silliness. I point out that the political troubles in the Middle East are NOT overwhelming anthropogenic global warming according to alarmists. Rather, they’d issued a chain of custody for the tragic events in that region that holds that ISIS is due to Syria, Syria is due to drought and climate change (not totalitarianism or Muslim fundamentalism) and climate change is due to human fossil fuel emissions. So the silliness goes much deeper than you have even reported. And let’s not forget that an individual polar bear “died from climate change” and large walrus haul outs are now signs of disaster rather than biological health and abundance. You cannot make up stuff this stupid.

  18. It is true that old habits die hard. But old dogmas ( especially the dogma of the warmistas) just never say die.

  19. Typo: “lead” should be “led” in:
    “The expedition lead by professor Chris Turney . . . .”

  20. does this guy really believe what he writes? i doubt it.

    23 Dec: ProjectSyndicate.org: Adair Turner: Please Steal Our Fossil Fuels
    (Adair Turner, a former chairman of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority and former member of the UK’s Financial Policy Committee, is a senior fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and at the Center for Financial Studies in Frankfurt)
    With just days left to go, 2014 seems certain to be the warmest year on record, or at least the runner-up…
    The New Climate Economy report, launched by the United Nations in September, estimates that the investment required over the next 15 years will total $14 trillion. But the incremental capital costs relative to a high-carbon economy are a smaller $4 trillion, less than a third of 1% of global GDP over that period. And the maximum sacrifice of future income per capita will be no more than 1-4% of global GDP. That means that the world might have to wait, say, until December 2051 to reach the income and prosperity level that it would otherwise have achieved the preceding January.
    So we do not need fossil fuels to support prosperous economies. If some extra-terrestrial thief came in the night and stole two-thirds of the planet’s coal, gas, and oil reserves, all of humanity could still enjoy the household appliances, information-technology products and services, heating, lighting, and mobility that define the modern world…
    But no such thief exists, and we are cursed with fossil fuels in dangerous abundance. Some environmentalists claim that we will soon reach “peak fossil fuels,” making green energy essential not only for the climate, but also for continued growth. Sadly, that is not the case.
    Total gas and coal reserves could support current demand for more than a hundred years, and technological progress – for example, hydraulic fracturing, which has unlocked shale energy – makes an ever growing share of these reserves economically attractive…
    As 2014 draws to an end, falling oil, gas, and coal prices threaten to undermine investment in green energy and stimulate wasteful consumption. In the United States, sport and crossover utility vehicles – the largest of which are five meters long and weigh 2.6 tons – are the automobile market’s fastest growing sector…
    Whatever deity might have put fossil fuels on earth has shown no willingness to take them back. Maybe this holiday season we should wish for a miracle. Absent that, we should commit to leaving most fossil fuels forever in the ground.
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/low-fuel-prices-threaten-environment-by-adair-turner-2014-12

    Wikipedia: Adair Turner, Baron Turner of Ecchinswell
    Jonathan Adair Turner, Baron Turner of Ecchinswell (born 5 October 1955, Ipswich) is a British businessman, academic, a member of the UK’s Financial Policy Committee, and was Chairman of the Financial Services Authority until its abolition in March 2013.
    He is the former Chairman of the Pensions Commission and the Committee on Climate Change…
    His career with BP started in 1979 and he worked for Chase Manhattan Bank from 1979-82. He became a director of McKinsey & Co in 1994 after joining in 1982…
    In 2008 he was appointed Chairman of the UK Government’s nascent Committee on Climate Change. He stepped down from this position in Spring 2012…
    In April 2013, it was announced that Lord Turner would be joining George Soros’ economic think tank (Institute for New Economic Thinking) as a senior research fellow in its London offices.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adair_Turner,_Baron_Turner_of_Ecchinswell

    • That is one scary piece of diatribe from the “baron”. How in heck do these people get where they are at? These people are truly frightening and the underlying theme of “what’s good for me ain’t good for you” and ” do as I tell you not as I do” is even scarier seeing as to what is happening the past few months.

    • Maybe this holiday season we should wish for a miracle. Absent that, we should commit to leaving most fossil fuels forever in the ground.

      Maybe the ‘baron turner’ should extract his head from his nether orifice….. but I doubt even hydraulic fracking could effectively achieve that.

  21. “The “pause” in global warming is now old enough to vote or to serve in the military.”

    Which branch of the armed forces would Mr. Pause choose to serve in? Maybe CCC; the new Climate Change Corps. It is trendy, it is fashionable, it can provide quick promotion. Best of all, it is a “cushy billet”, a comfortable service. War is a huge consumer of energy with equivalent co2-emissions. The mission of CCC is to avoid all this by staying put, doing as little as possible, preferably in a comfy bunk. A similar force which is being planned in the UK may include mandatory reading of the Guardian while on bunk-duty.

    Fighting climate change demands a whole new attitude towards military thinking, it is a passive defence, a “corps in being”, to paraphrase the old naval expression. But it is not completely inactive. Regular drills include temperature adjustments according to the present tactical climate situation, and a comprehensive production of climate sit-rep documents. This is done in close cooperation with the UN International CC Brigade.

    Weaponry, though scarce, will be in accordance with the CCC doctrine. All tanks and trucks, as well as the rather small air force, will be exclusively fuelled by solar power, limiting operations to sunny, clear days, thus underlining the focus on warfare-in-comfort.

    Enemy forces will be defeated by consensus.

    CCC is the service of the future. It has a uniqe appeal to the idealogically-minded and lazy-bodied new generation. Our motto is: “Obese, at ease!”

    Join up, Mr. Pause!

    • Do not give them any ideas. But then again aren’t they trying to make “clean” energy using sh.t? And boy could you ever write a Sci-Fi using your post. I like the part about staying put in your bunk, reading the guardian,… oh wait that’s not SF.

  22. Steve, good post and further to your opening comment “The year 2014 was another year of futility in the fight against climate change” I recently strayed into the “ClimateChange” area of Linked In. If I’m reading it correctly they claim 934 Groups and 331,482 people results.So this is an indication of the size of the warmist “army”. But what on earth do they all talk about within those 934 groups. It sounds like a real talking heads paradise..

  23. But the concurrent drop in US gasoline prices to two dollars per gallon is not welcomed by man-made global warming believers. Former Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said in 2008, “So we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” English journalist George Monbiot has lamented, “We were wrong about peak oil: there’s enough in the ground to deep-fry the planet.”

    Over my long life I have seen that the collectivists hate cheap energy as it is energy that allows us to create wealth in the industrialized world. By that I mean feed, clothe, and house our large populations. Take away cheap energy and you will have people dieing off by the millions — which may well be the objective of the “world savers”.

    Over my long life I have seen the so-called “greens” seek to vilify the very industrialization that they themselves love to use. Al Gore did not decided to buy a small two bedroom bungalow and drive an old Versa car. Al Gore wants you to economize but not himself. Why? He sees himself as part of an elite that will save the world by population reduction on a massive scale.

    The CO2 causes global warming meme is the dominate idea in the world today. Even most of the skeptical side believes this is true — they just argue that the amount of warming has been overestimated, that warming is good, or both.

    I am afraid that we will not take an honest look at what CO2 really does in my lifetime. We will not look at what Maxwell and so many other greats said about what makes the atmospheric effect work until this present meme is put to rest. When will that be? I have no idea as the truth seems to have darn little effect in this debate.

    A good post from a while back by the “Scottish Sceptic” talks about how good physics can be lost if the PR is bad. It is a good, short read. I like to say that the truth is ill served if you don’t know how to present it properly. http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/04/skydragons-good-physics-appalling-pr/

    Never forget, we are not just discussing science here — we are engaged in a major political war with those who would destroy our modern, industrialized civilization.

    • ” we are engaged in a major political war with those who would destroy our modern, industrialized civilization.” It’s statements like this that make it apparent the poster has no interest in science, but eschews facts in order to promote a preconceived, inflexible (and in this case, spectacularly inaccurate) ideological worldview.

      The fact is that even if AGW were nonexistent, the fossil fuels are the buggy whip industry of the 21st century; outdated,inefficient, expensive and only being kept alive because powerful people have trillions of dollars invested in infrastructure and reserves. And the inevitable shift or collapse in the energy business will not only not destroy industrial civilization, it will allow it to reach new heights thanks to reduced cost and vastly greater efficiency. The real risk is that the West will fall behind as Asia jumps ahead in adopting the next generation of technology.

      • I see Sir Harry Flashman is totally educated in the field of economics as well as history.

        At one point in time Mr. Flashman would have told us that whale oil was going to run out and we would all perish because of that. Some, like Flashman, have never heard of innovation.

      • Thanks for making my point. There was no disaster when we ran out of whale oil, and there will be no disaster when we stop using fossil fuels. The technological alternatives already exist.

      • the fossil fuels are the buggy whip industry of the 21st century; outdated,inefficient, expensive

        Well I am mystified. Could you explain what energy sources are more efficient and less expensive than fossil fuels? In your answer, don’t forget to differentiate between generation of electricity and transportation as they are different root problems, and the bulk of fossil fuel use is actually the latter.

      • Sir Harry Flashman;
        There was no disaster when we ran out of whale oil, and there will be no disaster when we stop using fossil fuels. The technological alternatives already exist.

        We didn’t run out of whale oil. It became uncompetitive in comparison to other options which emerged in the market, so we stopped collecting the stuff. We’ll stop using fossil fuels when something more cost effective comes along to replace them. If you think there is some secret cabal preventing us from doing that, then you are free to do so. The more you screech that there IS such a secret cabal, the more I have to wonder why the cabal continues to let you screech on and doesn’t protect itself by doing something about you.

      • No, post US Civil War there was a whale oil shortage which accelerated the move to petroleum. Google it.

        As far as more efficient, there have been numerous studies done recently showing renewables are now competitive with coal and even natural gas in most markets ( here’s one article, there are many, many more http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0). There will continue to be a need for other forms of power generation until storage technology catches up, but that will probably be within a decade. And we’re certainly not going to convert our transportation infrastructure to electrics in the next 20 years or more. But it will happen.

        I think there is a cabal, but it’s not secret by any means. What they want to do, quite understandably, is hold off on the new technologies until a) they can own them and b) they’ve used up all the reserves they can dig up for burning. Unfortunately this effort is of no value to parts of the world that haven’t got expensive centralized power grids already built out, who will jump directly into cheap distributed power. Ultimately, anyway who doesn’t get on this bandwagon is going to be uncompetitive.

        Also, burning all the reserves will destroy human civilization via climate change, so there’s that.

      • Sir Harry;
        As far as more efficient, there have been numerous studies done recently showing renewables are now competitive with coal and even natural gas in most markets

        LOL. If that were true, then power utilities would be flocking to them. China and India would not be building on the order of 2 coal fired power plants per month (each!), they’d be building the more efficient options instead. If that were true, there would be no reason for the World Bank to refuse loans to countries that want to build coal fired power plants since they would be asking for loans for the cheaper alternatives instead.

        I think there is a cabal, but it’s not secret by any means.

        Go into the kitchen. Go through the drawers and cupboards until you find the one with those long thin boxes with rolls of various different materials in them. You’ll want the one with the shiny stuff on one side…

      • http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/19/china-aiming-install-1300-mw-new-renewable-energy-capacity-week/
        “China’s renewable energy ambitions are starting to become more clear thanks to a number of recent announcements — perhaps the most important takeaway of this new clarity is the revelation that the government there is aiming to install roughly 1300 MW of new renewable energy capacity a week, in order to meet the country’s goal of getting 20% of its electricity via renewables by 2030.

        The main thing to keep in mind when thinking about those figures is that that’s roughly the same amount of new generating capacity as provided by the coal power plants that China has been installing rapidly over the last few years. ”

        http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/09/india-eyes-100-billion-investment-renewable-energy/

        That said, given the growth trajectories of these economies, coal will be a big part of the mix for a while. Unless renewables get even cheaper as the technology continues to evolve. Which it will.

        The idea that fossil fuel companies want to preserve their profits and will work against renewables to do so isn’t so much tin foil hat as common sense, You or I would likely do the same thing.

      • “Fossil Fuels?” I guess you have not heard of the newer theories on the origins of Petroleum? While I’m skeptical about Russia’s “Abiotic Oil” theories, the “Deep Biosphere” theory has a much more realistic base. IOW, we are not running out of oil, as it’s still being produced, constantly.

        As to your “outdated,inefficient, expensive and only being kept alive because powerful people have trillions of dollars invested in infrastructure and reserves” statement; what do you suggest we replace this outdated product with? Rainbow-voltaic cells and Unicorn treadmills?

      • Sir Harry Flashman

        You write: “ What they want to do, quite understandably, is hold off on the new technologies until a) they can own them and . . .; and then you write: “The idea that fossil fuel companies want to preserve their profits and will work against renewables to do so . . .

        Pardon my saying so, but I don’t think you are up to speed on the subjects you write about.

        A company once known as British Petroleum renamed itself as BP.
        Then it branded itself as “Beyond Petroleum” and invested $8 Billion between 2005 and 2013 on alternative energy projects. BP has 7 wholly owned wind farms, shares in 9 more, and operates 14 of the 16.
        I could go on.
        HAPPY NEW YEAR

      • Quite right – as I say these businesses are not stupid – they can see what’s coming, and they want to own the new technologies. However, they also want to turn a profit from the old technology until the last possible drop of fossil fuels have been extracted and burned. Which is where our interests diverge.

    • Sir Harry Tin Foil Flashman
      http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/19/china-aiming-install-1300-mw-new-renewable-energy-capacity-week/

      From your own link:

      The 1300 MW a week (averaged out) figure comes to us via the recent “climate deal” between China and the US —

      You really have to understand the difference between a purely political announcement and actual facts on the ground.

      The idea that fossil fuel companies want to preserve their profits and will work against renewables to do so isn’t so much tin foil hat as common sense,

      And what, exactly, is preventing power utilities from choosing these lower cost alternatives? You can’t claim regulation, because regulation is the thing that is keeping them from building more coal fired power plants in the first place. Coercion? Do you think the fossil fuel companies are blackmailing their customers into buying higher cost systems? Bribery perhaps? What? What exactly compels multi-billion dollar organizations from making low profit / high cost choices when high profit / low cost choices are available to them?

      Tighten up the tin foil before you answer.

      • Dave, you’re kind of a patronizing prick, but you make essentially rational arguments,which on this site I appreciate.

        Major change occurs in stops and starts, and is paradoxically often most vehemently rejected by those who have the most reason to understand and embrace it. The British navy kept sailing ships in service for decades after steam had become the predominant means of nautical propulsion; an internal memo from Western Union in 1876 said “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”

        Renewable energy will be the greatest transformation since the Industrial Revolution, and equally beneficial to humanity. Ironically the oil and gas proponents, the innovators who powered that change, are the Luddites of this one.

        Beyond that, there are myriad reasons why renewables aren’t chosen by everyone everywhere – inertia, limited understanding, fixed vs variable cost requirements, suitability for the required task, political pressure, tax breaks, availability of the technology, personal connections (“guangxi” being particularly important in China), time to market etc etc. It’s certainly not a clearcut choice at this point, but I suspect in ten years it will be.

      • Sir Harry Flashman December 31, 2014 at 6:19 am
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        Yeah sure. Want more examples? The quartz movement was invented by a Swiss engineer, who couldn’t get a single watch company in Switzerland, which totally dominated the watch industry at the time, to consider it. So he sold the idea to Seiko and Japan now dominates the watch industry and has made billions from it. Xerox invented computing as we know it today, but concluded that it was impossible to sell things like a GUI and a mouse and ethernet, so they shut down the projects and essentially gave away the technologies to companies like Apple, digital and 3Com who made billions from them. There was a guy at 3M who invented yellow stickies but had the project cancelled because the executive couldn’t see a use for them. There was a revolt among the executive assistants when the samples ran out and they found out that their bosses had cancelled the project. The project got refunded and turned into one of 3M’s greatest success stories.

        I make my living showing companies how to transition from old technologies to new ones, I have many stories like these. But the bottom line is that inventions that provide a competitive advantage are adopted not by what’s called “early adopters” to gain an advantage over “late adopters”. The “late adopters” are resistant to change, a problem that will either cost them market share or drive them to bankruptcy when disruptive new technologies emerge.

        Your problem is that you have bought in to the hype of “renewables” being cost effective. They simply aren’t. They are unreliable, expensive, inefficient, and they have to be backed up by conventional means to solve their inherent problems, and the conventional back up systems cost as much to have around as the renewables they are backing up. That’s why the only companies using these as sources of power are in fact “late adopters” who have been persuaded to do so by regulatory fiat or tax incentives. There are now early adopters appearing in the market of their own volition. Even Google, the quintessential early adopter, spent a fortune trying to build their own energy infrastructure from renewables, and failed.

        But back to your very first example. When steamships showed up, it took the traditional sailing ships a long time to die off, just as you said. But sailing ships simply could not compete with fossil fuel driven steam ships on reliability, speed, cost effectiveness (even with wind as free fuel!) and other factors, so sailing ships disappeared along with wind mills for pumping water and grinding grain and other applications.

        Yet here you are theorizing that perhaps wind and other renewables can make a comeback on the myth that putting a power generation station in between the wind and the motor changes anything in a meaningful way.

        It doesn’t.

  24. “In October, climate skeptics reported the eighteenth straight year of flat global temperatures. Satellite data shows no temperature increase since 1997. The “pause” in global warming is now old enough to vote or to serve in the military.”
    This bothers me somewhat. I’m an ‘oldie’ aged 66, with a scientific and technical education and career behind me.
    We have a generation of young people raised under the influence of all the alarmist nonsense propaganda, who are probably convinced that the global climate has changed and that this is the result of the evil gas CO2.
    Or are they? Has traditional youthful scepticism of what adults tell them won out?
    Would any youngsters reading this site care to comment?

  25. 2014 is on track to be the warmest on record, and sea surface temperatures are at a record high. Weather in the northern hemisphere is getting more extreme, with hurricanes tracking farther north (with some locations seeing record low pressures), due to Arctic amplification — the Arctic warming faster than the tropics and mid-latitudes.

    • Bingo. The WUWT-ers can cherry-pick data and use it to draw all the cutesy graphs all they want, but the warming that’s going on up north is obvious, dramatic and undeniable.

      • You’ve cherry-picked your data sets in order to arrive at a supposed projected “warmest on record”. Unfortunately, the projected warmest would only be by a few hundredths of a degree. Since the margin for error on these type of calculations is a tenth of a degree, your “warmest” is really statistically insignificant from the previously warmest year.
        The temperature record is only 150 years old, which is “the blink of a young girls eye” in terms of geologic time. Recorded temperatures have all occurred while the earth was warming from the Little Ice Age. The Midieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming & Holocene Warming all occurred before records began. The Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic & Cretaceous were all significantly warmer than today.
        Technically, we are in an interglacial period of the Quaternary glaciation which is also known as the current ice age.
        Within this context your claim of a projected, biased, statistically insignificant “warmest on record” seems pretty lame.

    • Like this warming: The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two
      decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the 20th century. During the peak
      period 1930-1940 the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°N-90°N
      amounted to some 1.7°C.
      http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_345.pdf

      “Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” – IPCC AR5 Chapter 10

    • It’s so warm that global sea ice is expanding just in time for those exotic tropical drinks we enjoy! Three Cheers for Mai Tais!!

  26. The article listed some unusual weather events in 2014.
    They didn’t happen in 2013.
    That means the climate changed from 2013 to 2014.
    Proof that climate change is real.
    .
    In 2015, I expect the computer gamers will announce every climate change
    from 2013 to 2014 was caused by humans, and they know that “for sure” which they
    will call a 105% confidence level (formerly 95% confidence, and since the confidence level,
    whatever that means, is in a long term rising trend, I have estimated 105% confidence for 2015,
    and 110% confidence for 2016 (+/1 three percentage points).
    based on my computer confidence level model (I didn’t just make up these numbers,
    or copy them from the back of Art Laffer’s napkin)).

  27. Attention Mr.Modi, Global leaders and UNFCCC: To conserve about 40% of fuel & thereby reduce carbon emissions, to control climate change and global warming, to prevent road crash deaths and save millions of people from pollution related diseases and to reduce 80% of traffic jams, to uplift the downtrodden and reduce economic inequalities etc. for the first time in the world, I POSSESS A WIPO APPROVED, NO-NONSENCE MIRACLE INVENTION. But, is there anybody in India and the world who can help me to dedicate this PANACEA to humankind? Please Mail to: *vthoorun.rcrv@gmail.com *

    • I think there’s a Prince in Lagos that is more than willing to help you in this regard. All he will need is your bank routing number…

  28. “Meanwhile, farmers continued to ignore the warnings of the IPCC. According to the US Department of Agriculture, world agricultural production set all-time records for all three major cereal crops in 2014,” Apparently farmers have had the audacity to produce record yields despite warnings of impending doom from the IPCC. What are they supposed to do, refuse to plant and sit in sackcloth and ashes because some clown with a computer model says that successful agriculture is bad for the environment?

  29. Professional climatologists habitually avoid the possibility of gaps between public warnings and actual events through avoidance of identification of these events. Thus, for example, their models issue non-falsifiable “projections” rather than falsifiable “predictions.”

Comments are closed.