Bill McKibben, writing for The New York Times has published an attack on President Obama, accusing him of “climate denial”.
According to McKibben;
MIDDLEBURY, Vt. — THE Obama administration’s decision to give Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic shows why we may never win the fight against climate change. Even in this most extreme circumstance, no one seems able to stand up to the power of the fossil fuel industry. No one ever says no.
By “extreme” I don’t just mean that Shell will be drilling for oil in places where there’s no hope of cleaning up the inevitable spills (remember the ineptness of BP in the balmy, accessible Gulf of Mexico, and now transpose it 40 degrees of latitude north, into some of the harshest seas on the planet).
…
Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines? No. Instead, it applies to be first in line to drill for yet more oil in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Siberia. Wash, rinse, repeat. Talk about salting wounds and adding insult to injury: It’s as if the tobacco companies were applying for permission to put cigarette machines in cancer wards.
And the White House gave Shell the license. In his first term, President Obama mostly ignored climate change, and he ran for re-election barely mentioning the subject until Hurricane Sandy made it unavoidable in the closing days of the campaign.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/opinion/obamas-catastrophic-climate-change-denial.html
Is President Obama really a climate “denier”? I believe President Obama is in denial, about evidence which contradicts the narrative he is being fed by alarmists. However, surely by any rational measure, President Obama is the greenest president ever.
The fact that greens can call someone like President Obama a climate “denier” with a straight face, in my opinion once again demonstrates that you cannot appease intolerant extremists. The most fanatical greens, in my opinion, have no intention of accepting any form of industrial activity whatsoever. They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.
Next step is to drill in ANWR. This was initially set aside as an oil reserve, not an elk reserve.
Wait, there are elk in ANWR? That seems a bit too far north for the Wapiti. Caribou and musk ox certainly, but not elk.
What about musk elk?
“What about musk elk?”
Extinct. Probably due to climate change.
But then is will not be the tourist trap it has become.
<How many people visit the Refuge each year?
Most visitors to the Arctic Refuge plan their trips for the short summer season of June, July and August. Visitor numbers have remained relatively stable over the past 20 years, ranging between approximately 1,200 and 1,500 each year. In 2008, 87 commercially guided hunters, 259 commercially transported but unguided hunters, 446 commercially guided recreational visitors, and 233 commercially transported but unguided recreational visitors spent time in the Refuge, for a total of 1013
+
Because of the vast size of the Refuge and the unlimited number of entry points, it is difficult to estimate the number of independent visitors who come into the Refuge using their own planes, boats, or on foot, but we believe this ranges from approximately 200 to 500 individuals each year.
More made up numbers to keep a job.
This is ANWR:
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1105/youre-not-supposed-to-see-this-anwr-oil-exploration-energy-p-political-poster-1304292158.jpg
[click in it if image doesn’t appear.]
The oil producing area in ANWR is only 2,000 acres (the tiny red square). It holds at least 10 billion barrels of easily-recoverable oil. But the enviro-nazis have repeatedly stopped Americans from benefitting from the oil:
http://www.candidity.org/images/ANWR.jpg
Oh dear. Obama is a moderate compared to McKibben. But that’s viewing the world through a macro lense.
Activists are always on the look-out for any hint of apostasy among their own. It is such fun.
I think our education system needs perhaps to add some basic science and physics related to climate change since it has become such a popular topic. Maybe its too late to find any way to educate the green journalists that are already out there spouting ignorant science, but maybe we can help the next generation of journalists.
Firstly, it seems there is a basic misconception that ice melts in a direct linear relationship with temperature. Ice begins to melt when it reaches its freezing point, about 32 F. The core of an ice mass that is in a 150 F environment and changes temperature from 10 F to 20 F will not melt. The core of an Ice mass that is in a 40 F environment that changes from 30 F to 32 F will start to melt. Ice masses that were well below the freezing point in the ice age may take thousands of years to get to the point where the bulk of the ice has risen up to the point where it will start to melt. And ice does not need temperatures that are increasing to melt, ice can melt in dropping temperatures. To say that an increasing melt rate of the arctic can only happen if the temperature in the arctic is [rising now] is ignorant or perhaps just propaganda intended for the ignorant.
In his first term, President Obama mostly ignored climate change, and he ran for re-election barely mentioning the subject until Hurricane Sandy made it unavoidable in the closing days of the campaign”
Yeah right, that cat. 1 hurricane in late Oct. 2012, that merged with a cold pattern -NAO/-AO upper level trough/low(similar to what caused this Winters snowstorms in the Northeast) and stalled out over high population areas.
Unprecedented?
Hardly………….except for attention and fraudulently being used as evidence of climate change.
This is actually a pattern we would see more often during global cooling. Take for instance 1954(during global cooling).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season
In that same general region, there were 3, cat. 3 hurricanes……………..in 3 months.
The last one, Hazel was very similar to Sandy…………but it was a cat. 3 when making landfall. Since it was a later season hurricane, in October the pattern allowed it to get picked up by and merge with the northern stream which is much less likely to be a factor earlier in the season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
We had also been hearing about climate change causing the drought of 2012 for numerous months from this president as well as others.
Unprecedented?
Hardly………….except for attention and fraudulently being used as evidence of climate change.
Yes, it was the first widespread, severe drought in the key growing region of the US Cornbelt………since 1988. Somehow, the 24 years in between(a record-in the last century- for consecutive years without a drought of this magnitude for that area), the best growing conditions since we’ve been able to monitor them, did not qualify as climate change but the 1 drought did.
Also of interest during the 1954 hurricane season, was the occurrence of a Hurricane Alice on December 30th, which persisted into the next year, 1955, another active one for the East Coast……during global cooling. That would be unprecedented for the only Atlantic Hurricane to persist from one calendar year to the next.
Might there be a natural cycle effecting the Atlantic basin hurricanes and East Coast, while also effecting global temperatures? Of course there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Atlantic_hurricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alice_%28December_1954%29
Doesn’t the fool McKibben realize the Russians are going into the Artic big-time on oil and gas drilling?
Perhaps that’s why he wants the US to leave it all alone. More for the Russians.
Rockefeller – who funds 350.org – currently has more acres licensed for drilling in Russia than in USA.
The Cult of CAWG Bill needs to prepare for how to spin a significant drop in planetary temperature and a significant drop in atmospheric CO2.
I am curious how the media, public, and politicians will react to in your face evidence that the entire IPCC scientific premise was incorrect and that the green scams are scams.
1) Logic to Support Dropping Planetary Temperature
The majority of the warming in the last 100 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. This does not match the signature of CO2 forcing. If CO2 was the cause of the recent warming the majority of the observed warming would have been in the tropics rather than in high latitude regions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
There are cycles of high latitude warming in the paleo record, all of which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. I can provide peer reviewed evidence to support this assertion and can provide evidence to support the assertion that there was been an active temperature gate campaign and an active solar gate campaign to try to hide that fact.
The high latitude warming in the past and currently was caused by a reduction in low level clouds and a reduction in cirrus clouds (the high wispy clouds). A reduction in low level clouds causes the planet to warm as there is less short wave radiation reflected off into space and a reduction in the high wispy cirrus clouds also causes the planet to warm, as cirrus clouds warm the planet due to the greenhouse effect.
Now as there has been a sudden interruption to the solar magnetic cycle there is now significant cooling of the planet both poles (total sea ice is on track to set a 30 year record) which explains why Cryosphere today is no longer providing any data on polar sea ice coverage.
Based on what has happened before when there was an abrupt change to the sun and what is currently happening to the sun there will be roughly a 0.5C cooling over two to four years.
2) Logic to Support the assertion the drop in planetary temperature is going to be immediately followed by a drop in atmospheric CO2.
Salby calculated using two independent calculation methods that no more than 33% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. The remaining increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural sources. Salby also found that the increase in atmosphere CO2 tracks the integral of the temperature anomaly. There if the temperature anomalies becomes negative and stays negative atmospheric CO2 will drop.
The following is additional analysis from other scientists that supports Salby’s assertion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
“Vorhees, can you tell what metal that is ?”
“I’ll need some tools”.
“Barnes, bring some tools”.
A one world government and as many dead poor people as possible is the UN goal.
Bill must believe that he and his family will be taken care of when they finally destroy capitalism.
If the past is any guide, the useful idiots will be the first ones disposed of.
Hi guys… hey I know this is off topic but just looking for information to disprove a warmist. I tried talking to him but I ended up just being called a conspiracy nut. He atleast agreed to look at three areas provided I give him the evidence for my anti global warming stance. So if you could give me the best articles on this site for these three issues it would go a long way to proving we are the actual rational people in this debate. Thanks.
1st: That global temperatures have been flat or slightly declining since the late 90s. He refuses to believe this is true.
2nd: That the so called 97% figure is actually not accurate and includes a lot of non scientists and hence science doesn’t exist on consensus but actual evidence.
3rd: He believes that the warming models have been accurate, I informed him that they haven’t and at best have been accurate at extreme low range estimates. He doesn’t believe me.
Sorry to ask for this information upfront but he is a graduate scientist, I am not, and is asking me to prove my points quickly and so I am asking for your help. Thanks
Give him this in suppository form:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
Actually, it should be he that is proving his point, so when it’s his turn to go, ask him for any and all real scientific evidence that shows any measurable change in ANY global climate parameter that can be definitively shown to have been caused by CO2 levels going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
His answer is right here:
ermmmm ?
ooooh err ?
well
ermmmm?
Arrhenius
Venus, gotcha
I’m not doing your homework for you.
Are you a Republican?
A sentence with 97% in it ….
Useless link to Skumbagscience.com
… and so on and so forth
Oooops, almost forgot:
Bill McKibben says so, and Bill Nye does too.
…. and with Brandon Gates not around here any more to remind me (what happened to him?)
Define “definitively”
He was infesting another article with his dozens of vaguely relevant charts just yesterday.
@ur momisugly ModernExchange
“That global temperatures have been flat…He refuses to believe this is true.”
Then point out the multitude of peer reviewed and published papers on the reasons for the Pause, are they all wrong? But beware, ALL have to pay homage to AGW in the abstract.
“That the so called 97% figure is actually not accurate”
As near as I can tell, there are 4 or 5 different “studies” or surveys that show the ole’ 97%er meme.
My fav is to point out the Doran & Zimmerman. In a nutshell, they asked ~10,000 Earth scientists, they weeded that down to 70 or so climate scientists, and 97% of those thought that human activity was a significant factor. Not much to hang your hat on in my mind.
“He believes that the warming models have been accurate”
Then why are there so many of them? Why didn’t they predict the Pause?
Or, if you’re feeling mean, you can use the skeptical words of Ms. Naomi Oreskes.
From her peer reviewed and published paper titled “Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences” The abstract starts with; “Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible….” Is she wrong?
“but he is a graduate scientist”
meh, young? It’s either going to get hotter or colder, state your case and wait it out.
I worked up a little review of #2 – the 97% – as foillows.
As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth).
This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey
With 3146 individuals completing.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes
to question 2.
the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.” Questions –
So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
Answeres and qustions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contriubuting and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?
Do these questions really provide the answer that man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more] which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?
ModernExchange,
Unfortunately, you are likely to find that, in spite of his request, he will be inordinately and stubbornly immune to facts.
Anyone who is a scientist and believes the things you just said has no ability to discern fact fro fancy.
Obama has come a long way from his energy policy speech Tuesday Jun. 25 2013 at Georgetown University when he said he lacked “patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real.”
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.”
Obama mentioned more than 20 times “Carbon pollution”. In his weekly radio address the following Saturday he mentioned it again, without specifying what he means by “carbon pollution”. He also likened it to Mercury and Arsenic pollution.
The Flat Earth Society: Still going strong.
Obama the spokesman, so what can go wrong?
All his “Carbon pollution”
is a Marxist collusion.
It’s food for the hungry, so let’s get along.
http://lenbilen.com/2013/08/05/obama-the-real-flat-earth-society-spokesman/
This has nothing to do with environmentalism or global warming or anything of the like. President Obama is a politician like all the other politicians. Politicians will be interested in environmentalism or global warming or sea level rise or sea level fall or the ozone layer as long as there is an opportunity and the political justification for more state regulation, more state regulators and more state control of the economy. As long as President Obama or any other politician or bureaucrat has the near panicked backing of a bunch of soccer moms and the lame stream media can use whatever emergency, contrived or not, they’ll be all in. If nobody cares they won’t care.
My son who lives in London thinks only electric vehicles in the City is a good thing. I say but all the industrial garbage is shifted somewhere else unseen. ” Yes, that is good “.
“thinks only electric vehicles in the City is a good thing”
only EV? A mix certainly could be a good thing in a small dense city, as a second car, where the commute is less than 1/2 the battery range. Assuming the power is created in a modern power plant, the pollution levels are acceptable. As for economics, I have no clue about costs over there (I’m US), but figure about 300 Whrs per mile. Also cold & hot weather increase consumption, for cabin comfort.
We are beginning to to see the inevitable LBO Phenomenon (Looking Beyond Obama) that will surge in O’s final months. Whether it is the Afghani government, the Saudi Royalty, the editors at the NY TImes, or green whacko’s all over America, people and organizations will be positioning themselves to thrive in Post-Obama America. This will either be ugly or hilarious to watch, depending on your perspective.
Comment to Bill McKibben:
” and now transpose it 40 degrees of latitude north, into some of the harshest seas on the planet).
…
Now, having watched the Arctic melt, does Shell take that experience and conclude that it’s in fact time to invest heavily in solar panels and wind turbines ”
Mr. McKibben,
Let’s see you build solar panels and wind turbines 40 degrees further north and produce all the energy you need to survive.
(insert Ad Hominem here)
Obama a denier? Oh, yes.
He is a denier of Muslim jihad violence and murder, labeling the Fort Hood murders as being ‘workplace violence’. Yeah, riiigght, someone screaming Allahu Akbar is only indulging in ‘worplace violence’.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting
He is a denier of many things that are happening in the wider world, but there are too many to list here. In fact, one gets the impression he is subordinate to and working for, another authority altogether……..
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-bowed.jpg
Who’s the Asiatic looking guy in the top right corner? Is that Ban Ki-Moon? I think I can hear him saying ‘What the hell?’ to the suit on his right.:)
It’s not Steven Chu, is it?
Could be. I think the “suit on the right” is Dominique Strauss-Kahn maybe ?
Note the bemusement from all as Our President *shudder* bows…BOWS…to a king.
*insert Lurch groan here*
The President denies that the science is not settled. The President denies that talk of climate catastrophe is over hyped. The President denies that skeptics have an excellent case and that self-interest has led many climate fear promoters to over state risk.
And of course denying Bill McKibben is both a liar and kook is a form of denial as well.
So I guess he could be a denier.
“They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.”
Well except those in the “Capital”.
” It only stands to reason that where there’s
sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”–Ayn Rand
The sad part is not that Mr. McKibben comes out with such nonsense , but that he is doing on the taxpayers dime . It is like paying someone to punch you in the face , or more accurately having someone pick your pocket to pay someone to punch you in the face and then be expected to say thanks afterwards.
Excuse me, but there’s an 8% surtax if you hire someone to pick your pocket, so they can pay the guy to punch you in the face. It’s a necessary cost for proper oversight, we can’t have just any irresponsible person punching you in the face.
Pretty harsh, Weepy Bill calling Shell inept. Good grief, there’s a black pot and kettle for you. BP did a marvellous job (which was criticised at the time) getting dispersants into the oil as it emerged – new approach that worked really well. The cleanup turned out to be a small fraction of what was supposed to have been much worse than the Exxon Valdez. So much for alarmism.
And why not rather mention PEMEX and their much larger spill in that same Gulf that ran for a year and a half? It was far larger. Nature cleaned it up. Turns out there are oil eating microbes in the oil-rich Caribbean (who’d-a-thought).
Yes, sir. There are natural seeps all through the Gulf.
And stuff that eats them. Not gonna hear that from the lamestream media though, are we?
Would Obama survive the backlash if Royal Dutch Shell were owned by the Koch brothers
Once the wheels finally come off the Carbon Cult bandwagon, perhaps the Nobel committee will point back to this NYT article as reason to retroactively issue Obama another Nobel prize for his strong leadership as a scientific realist.
How did these Eco-Loons go from frying their brains at Woodstock to having these high perches from which to squawk?
richardscourtney says:
“There is no possibility of wind and solar power providing sufficient economical energy to operate an industrialised society whatever foreseeable technology is developed. That would require magic to concentrate the diffuse energy.
In other words, what you say seems “self evident” to you is impossible according to the laws of physics. And your only argument is an inappropriate analogy.”
Precisely. I am not a scientist here, but it seems to me that Bill McKibben’s major malfunction seems to be his inability to understand and unwillingness to accept what the physical limitations of renewable energy are (primarily wind and solar) and that physics does not permit the development or technological advancement of renewable energy beyond those physical limitations (diffuse nature, low density, intermittent). THAT is what is evident here to me anyway.
This what causes the concept of renewables to morph into a fictional belief system and a religion.
Articles like this one aint helpin’ neither:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
Fun fact:
There is a racehorse named “Climate Change” that has been running at Gulfstream Park this spring.
It had two races last year, but was well beaten.
In her first race on 2/26 this year the consensus was that she had no chance, so the consensus let her go at odds of 22 to 1. She proved them wrong by winning the race
In her second start of the year on 4/22 the consensus made her the favorite to win.
She proved them right by winning at odds of 1.3 to 1.
Then about an hour ago the consensus set the odds at 1.6 to 1.
She didn’t let them down.
I was torn between betting her to win or betting against her (today)…..seeing as this was the first time I even noticed she was alive.
I took the chance and made a small (62%) profit on my $2 bet.
“Climate Change…Gulfstream Park…consensus…made her the favorite to win”
Is this a real horse?
Absolutely.
“sustainability” just won also.
I kid you not !!!
Here are the results of the races, look at the 4th race.
( I fear you don’t know much about horse racing, yet here it is).
http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/GP051315USA.pdf
Mods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve hit the link to the PDF I posted and it won’t let you back out, remove it ?????????
Thanks U.K., It had all of the buzzwords of an AGW alarmist press release.
BTW, your fear have come true, totally clueless.
@ur momisugly Paul,
It was all true (I bet the horses and the money was added to my betting account).
That link shows the results of the races, but won’t let you back out of the PDF.
I just didn’t want to inconvenience anyone.
I shoulda just stuck to the script.
“Here are the results of the races, look at the 4th race.”
That shows that Climate Change is unstoppable.
Now we can stop paying the Danegeld. Because it’s pointless.
I was wrong, u.k.(us). You do have a sense of humour. Got a good chuckle. Thanks.
@ur momisugly David Ball,
I was winning races, don’t be so quick to change your opinion 🙂