![Snow-Israel-Massive-Storm-Jerusalem-2-DM[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/snow-israel-massive-storm-jerusalem-2-dm1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Remember all the recent press about the mild winter, how the bears were waking up early, flowers blooming in December, all a sign of the coming global warming apocalypse?
Now that winter has turned cold and snowy, this is also being seen in some quarters, as irrefutable proof of our unnatural tampering with the balance of nature.
Sorry! Winter Storm Jonas doesn’t make climate change a liberal hoax
Good news, folks! It turns out that climate change is a big ol’ liberal hoax after all. Need proof? Just look out your window: If you’re anywhere east of Tupelo, you’re probably seeing a bunch of white stuff falling from the sky, compliments of Winter Storm Jonas. We call that “snow,” and it proves once and for all that “global warming” is a conspiracy dreamed up by known communist Al Gore to bring down the world economy. Guess we can just pack up our desks and go home.
…
But what is the connection between climate change and snow storms? First, it’s important to remember that weather and climate are two different things: Weather is the rain falling on your head as you walk to work; climate is the very long-term forecast. NASA puts it this way: “An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.”
And, according to actual scientists and not conspiracy-addled politicians, climate change could actually make snow storms worse. ThinkProgress spoke to Michael Mann, the nation’s preeminent climatologist, about Winter Storm Jonas, which is currently blanketing the eastern seaboard in feet of snow. He said this is not a fluke. “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easter,” according to Mann. This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now.
…
Read more: http://grist.org/article/sorry-winter-storm-jonas-doesnt-make-climate-change-a-liberal-hoax/
When you have a theory which covers anything from 1.5c to 4.5c (or more!) temperature rise per doubling of CO2, and when you can claim with a straight face, that the utter failure of your theory, on terms which you yourself defined, doesn’t invalidate it, when you have to massively adjust the data to get the result you want, your faith in the climate religion is not going to be troubled by the odd flurry of snow.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the perfect pre-industrial world temperatures never varied from the pre-determined norm by more than 2C. It never snowed early or late. It always rained at night just to keep the plants happy. Any variance from that MUST be caused by nasty humans burning fossil fuels.
you forgot the constant mean sea level.
I have yet to see them show any concrete proof of sea level rise. You would think they could show all kinds of examples at shorelines and ports by now.
Humans were not burning many ‘fossil fuels’ in the pre-industrial world Stuart, so it can’t be blamed on that. It was in/after the Industrial Revolution that humans used ff’s as the primary source. Post, not pre industrial.
This is a clear example of the likes of D. Appell who do not recognise there ARE trained, experienced and qualified people in this world who can disprove aCO2 driven climate change. Well done!
Did I take the bait, hook, line and sinker?
Seems appropriate again…http://youtube.com/watch?v=B9hjOOkzvtE
Note we don’t get a list of this ‘suggestive’ coulda’ woulda’ might-be science.
So this ‘warming climate’ refuses to warm the ‘cold air’. No, it ignores that, and only generates ‘increased moisture’?
That’s right. The heat is hiding in the snow. And as soon as it melts, the heat will come roaring back with a vengeance. ( I should put a sarc here… )
By this logic, Antarctica is the warmest place on earth.
Interesting sentence:
This is because a warming climate means increased moisture in the atmosphere, and when cold air meets moisture — surprise! — it snows. Sometimes a lot, like we’re seeing right now.
At first read, it seems like Dr Mann’s words. But the sentence isn’t in quotes. So what did he actually say? Well the Grist article actually refers to a Think Progress article and appears to be a paraphrase of what Dr Mann actually said. Here is the Think Progress version, bold mine:
Mann, Director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, explained: “There is peer-reviewed science that now suggests that climate change will lead to more of these intense, blizzard-producing nor’easters, for precisely the reason we’re seeing this massive storm — unusually warm Atlantic ocean surface temperatures (temperatures are in the 70s off the coast of Virginia).”
When you mix extra moisture with “a cold Arctic outbreak (something we’ll continue to get even as global warming proceeds),” as Mann points out, “you get huge amounts of energy and moisture, and monster snowfalls, like we’re about to see here.”
Well Dr Mann, what happened to arctic amplification? The claim was, and continues to be, that the arctic will warm much faster than the rest of the earth. So, does it not follow that although we’ll still get arctic blasts, they’ll not be as cold as they once were? And, those blasts being driven by temperature gradients that have been reduced, will they not be weaker and less frequent, just like we have seen with hurricanes and tornadoes? Further, since both the cold air mass and the warm air mass are expected to be warmer than before, does that not result in precipitation that would otherwise have fallen as snow showing up as rain instead? Meaning less snow storms but more rain?
C’mon Dr Mann, we know you read this blog. Just jump in and explain it to me please.
Dr. Mann will probably say that when the Arctic warms, it forms colder arctic blasts.
Now, when I say that, it makes absolutely no sense, but when Mann says it, it will rapidly circulate around the “Alarmist-sphere” driven MSM as the truth.
And so it goes…
This is the problem with the useful idiots of the MSM . You could totally explain it like that and they’d believe it. Try this: Michael Mann said that what happens is the warm air from global warming flows up north (remember that heat rises). The warm air then melts the ice. This causes the sea levels to rise and the polar bears to die (just look at the pictures on the internet). BUT, all that warm air that rises to the north then forces the cold air down to the south. Since the cold air comes south it makes it snow. So remember that if the temperature in the USA ever starts to get colder, it’s because the North Pole is getting warmer from Global Warming and forcing the cold air south. But if the temperature in the USA gets warmer, it’s because of Global Warming because the warm air is everywhere. And remember that warm is bad because you can only live on the surface of the sun for a few seconds.
davidmhoffer:
“Well Dr Mann, what happened to arctic amplification? The claim was, and continues to be, that the arctic will warm much faster than the rest of the earth. So, does it not follow that although we’ll still get arctic blasts, they’ll not be as cold as they once were? And, those blasts being driven by temperature gradients that have been reduced, will they not be weaker and less frequent, just like we have seen with hurricanes and tornadoes? Further, since both the cold air mass and the warm air mass are expected to be warmer than before, does that not result in precipitation that would otherwise have fallen as snow showing up as rain instead? Meaning less snow storms but more rain?
C’mon Dr Mann, we know you read this blog. Just jump in and explain it to me please.”
If Dr Mann doesn’t mind – I’ll explain it in his absence.
Yes indeed the Arctic is warming faster – however you need to understand at what levels in the troposphere this is primarily happening via radiative means alone.
In the winter it is the lowermost part – by that I mean 10’s of feet or metres.
Why?
Because of lapse rates (LR). In winter it is stable air (cooled from below), with often a marked invertion.
It is, well, f**ng cold – CO2 or not – and always will be (unless we go Venus’s way).
Yes, GHG’s may raise the surface temp (spacially averaged, say 3C as compared to the globes 1C) … but that hardly impacts on the average temp of the winter-time arctic airmass of ~-40C/F (-37C is still f***ng cold).
No, it does not follow – as a result of both the above and also the fact that when winter-time arctic air travels south over Canada it most is often over snowfields that continue to radiate to space. Arctic air actually cools further at the surface (if that can be separated from mixing to measure it).
The reduced temperature gradients that you mention are there BUT at jet-stream levels (pressure levels of 300-200mb generally).
The deltaT that creates this Polar jet is impacted during the NH summer, when Arctic warming can mix vertically to thos levels – unstable air, warmed from below (Vis open waters and lower albedo/greater LH release aloft).
This indeed does then weaken the JS, make it “wavier” and results in greater meridional flow (Arctic outbreaks).
So the cold air-mass is relatively unaffected in winter (at the present stage of AGW) BUT the warm airmass *may* have had more precipitable WV available to fall as snow.
The Polar air (denser) digs under the warm and, aloft, at the frontal zone boundary between the 2 air-masses it never falls below 0C. In that zone – furthest to the south – that may happen, but could result in freezing rain instead, which is arguably worse.
When Dr Mann is prepared to answer questions posed to him, I will wake up and pay attention. You answering for him doesn’t cut it, particularly when you get several rather complex issues wrong.
davidmhoffer:
“particularly when you get several rather complex issues wrong.”.
Would you care to elucidate?
And then I can correct your misconceptions more clearly.
Would you care to elucidate?
And then I can correct your misconceptions more clearly.
My questions were directed to Dr Mann. If you can bring him to the table, by all means. I’m not interested what you think his responses would be.
Geez Hoffer, when we mere mortals want to know what a scientist thinks, we read his or her published literature.
Jeez Brandon, when someone makes an assertion to the public media, we should not be asking what he meant by that? We should read his papers instead? If that were the case, he should never had made the statement in the first place, he should have referred the reporter to his papers.
Do you really think one guy has time to answer everyone in the world’s questions on demand? Contrary to unpopular belief, Michael Mann is not the only person in the world doing climatology. Read some papers. Then post a reasonable note to realclimate. If he doesn’t pick it up, Stefan, Gavin or one of the other crew might give you a reasonable answer. Sheesh.
[Sheesh yourself, RealClimate does not allow dissenting views, period. Pull your head out of your posterior -mod]
davidmhoffer;
Assuming that you were not expecting a reply from Dr Mann to your question, I gave the the exact same explanation that Dr Mann would do.
It is quite basic meteorology radiative/thermodynamical physics when it comes down to it and you will find my/his answer in the text books or in papers that are viewable online.
Brandon Gates
Seriously? You want me to read some papers? Who was it that got poleward energy transport via air and ocean current completely bass ackwards just recently? And who pointed it out to you and even told you what author to look for to find it? Then you have the arrogance to come here a few days later and lecture ME on reading papers? As for RealClimate, those bozos committed the sin of altering one of my questions so as to change the meaning of it and then ridiculed me for it. I haven’t been back since as they confirmed what I was already suspicious of is that the site was constructed for political not science purposes.
ToneB
You are anonymous. When you post under your own name and provide links to the papers that you claim support you, I might pay more attention. But the point is that Dr Mann is happy to make all sorts of prognostications to MSM, but he doesn’t have the balls to enter into a public debate forum.
Toneb,
David Hoffer is right, for all we know you’re Pee Wee Herman.
davidmhoffer,
When I want to understand something better, that’s what I do.
Ding ding ding, survey says: what I got wrong was ignorantly stating that the oceans transported more heat poleward than the atmosphere.
You did, for which I thanked you and apologized for getting it wrong, and wrongly assuming I knew what I was talking about. Harsh lesson for me, quite embarrassing, but lesson nonetheless.
I think it’s curious that reading papers is something I should be doing more of, whereas you are somehow entitled to a one-on-one audience with Dr. Mann about a question any number of his colleagues could answer in literature, and failing that, by asking a reasonably well-informed question at RealClimate.
And sure, I’ll cop to being an arrogant SOB when my blood’s up. You?
Cool story bro., I’m so happy for you that the conspiracy is still alive and well inside your head. I’m getting the feeling you don’t really want an answer to what I think is actually a perfectly good and valid question. Pity. But you know, that’s just because I’m a fraud and liar like all the rest, amirite? I’m right.
Both of you, Brandon and David Hoffer, take a time out for 12 hours. When you return, do not resume this personal squabble.
dbstealey:
“David Hoffer is right, for all we know you’re Pee Wee Herman.”
Can I ask you to count the number of posters on this thread that are also “anonymous”?
(no surnames)
It was easier for me to count the ones who are not.
I make it ~31 – out of 256 posts.
Yes, I know there are several posts from some people …. but.
I therefore rather think you talk to anonymous posters all the time.
This goes back a bit to mcourtney’s objection to catiecatie in a recent thread – where he/she became “objectionable” and earned a “warning” just because he/she was sticking to his/her guns.
You obviously do not agree with either his/hers, Brandon’s or my opinion but as I said back in that instance
you could have a pure echo-chamber here …. but what is the point?
To me it (anonymity) smacks of an excuse to end the “discussion”.
And so no, I’m not going to be anything but anonymous on here unless and until you and or Anthony ask it of “sceptics” posting here.
I think that’s quite fair and equitable.
Oh, BTW: Who’s Pee Wee Herman?
I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. And I’m not saying you or anyone else has to show their identity. But the ones who use their real name have more credibility. That’s just how I see it.
As for Pee Wee, there’s an easy way to find out…
subscription required:
24 Jan: WSJ: Patrick J. Michaels: The Climate Snow Job
A blizzard! The hottest year ever! More signs that global warming and its extreme effects are beyond debate, right? Not even close.
An East Coast blizzard howling, global temperatures peaking, the desert Southwest flooding, drought-stricken California drying up—surely there’s a common thread tying together this “extreme” weather. There is. But it has little to do with what recent headlines have been saying about the hottest year ever. It is called business as usual…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-snow-job-1453664732
found more of the article at junkscience:
24 Jan: Junkscience: The Climate Snow Job
http://junkscience.com/2016/01/the-climate-snow-job/
ROFL! The savior has spoken! Hallelujah!
And the snow storms gathered. Repent! For it is a sign that the earth is warming….
“Thou shalt not increase carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour or anything that is considered by thy neighbour to be an
IR-active gas in the atmosphere.emission that could be profitably taxed and lead to a competitive advantage for me, if it was.”Green is not the end. Corporate lazioness & greed, and political power is the end. Green is just the means…
So this storm which was and is widely reported as record breaking and extreme event had the second highest Central Park snowfall on record, since….wait for it…Feb 2006.
“Officials say the total of 26.8 inches that fell in Central Park during the storm is the second-most since officials began keeping snowfall records in 1869. That narrowly misses tying the previous record of 26.9 inches from February 2006.”
http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/blizzard-2016-new-york-city-single-day-record-of-26-6-inches-of-snow-set-nws-says-1.11377452
So because it didn’t break the total accumulation record then as only the USA can and does, they make it the single one day record.
Having lived in Philadelphia for 2 years from 2002 -2004 I thought all this hype about this storm sounded all too familiar to the Presidents day storm in Feb 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_2003
We were snowed in for 4 days.
Also note when most of these big snow fall events occur…..in the second half of winter. As a Meteorologist, this is not unusual or unexpected at this time of year and the fact it was close to record snowfalls is also not surprising as there are only a limited number of these types of storms in history so in other words records are almost expected to be broken given the lack of events.
It broke the one day record in Harrisburg, but the past record was back in in 1983. Funny how this “extreme” weather isn’t as frequent as the Global Bullshitters claim it to be.
@ur momisugly pbweather, 12: 57 am Jan 25: “Also note when most of these big snow fall events occur…..in the second half of winter. As a Meteorologist, this is not unusual or unexpected at this time of year ”
As some one that has worked outside for decades that is a well know fact. I presume it is natural sequence as the planet cools of in the early part of winter ( but still has latent heat in soil and water) in the last half of the season it is only normal for winter precip. to be in the form of snow. A lot of ski resorts promote the Feb through April as the best time to enjoy fresh new snow.
Where is Dr Robert Brown these days ?
Rare cold and snow in Asia.
” Taipei, Jan. 24 (CNA) Snow, which is rarely seen in Taiwan, an Asia-Pacific island crossed by the Tropic of Cancer, wowed people around the island Sunday with the appearance of the white stuff, from the capital Taipei in the north to Pingtung County in the south.
Under the influence of a strong cold air mass, many places around Taiwan — even those located at an altitude of only 400 to 500 meters — received a covering of snow or soft hail overnight, exciting the locals, who likely have never seen a silver world in real life since they were born. ”
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/afav/201601240014.aspx
” Japan’s Meteorological Agency confirmed that Nago city on the tropical island of Okinawa saw snow for the first time in recorded history since 1966, while the island of Amami Ohshima had its first snowfall in 115 years. ”
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/25/asia/asia-cold-weather-travel-disruption/
Global Warming, climate change, global cooling or just weather ?
kokoda,
He’s not wasting his time with me . . and I wish he’d spend a bit more to make it less vague in my ignorant head ; )
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
I told them they’d get “payback”. 🙂
For those that were complaining about the warm December weather: “Are you happy now?”
Btw, someone should check to see if Al Gore was on the East coast recently.
Solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle has been interrupted as opposed to a slowdown in the solar cycle.
The cult of CAGW are and can continue to ignore the signs of an imminent significant drop in planetary climate. The entire scientific basis of CAGW and even AGW was incorrect. The warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes, not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. If that assertion is correct global warming is reversible.
The cult of CAGW will not be able to spin away a significant year by year drop in planetary temperature. The public will demand an explain as to why planetary temperature is dropping year after year and will need reassurance as to when the drop in planetary temperature will end.
A guide as what to expect is in the paleo record. The North Atlantic ocean was as much as 10C colder in regions than current in the last 150 years. The planetary cooling will be caused by increase low level cloud cover 40 to 60 degrees due to reduce solar wind bursts and increased GCR, colder tropical ocean temperature due to an increase in cloud cover due to reduce coronal hole wind bursts, and increased wind speed 40 to 60 degrees, and a reduction in cirrus cloud cover (the high altitude wispy cirrus clouds warm the planet by the greenhouse affect particularly in the winter in high latitude regions) – all ultimately due to the solar cycle interruption.
There will in the very near future be tens of feet of snow every winter in the UK and along the US east coast when planetary temperature drops.
This year.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397763
Last year.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1856489/coldest-february-on-record-in-quebec/
This is the 4th largest amount of global warming to be dumped on Washington DC with the largest amount on record in 1922.
ICE AGE Returns bring on the Coal. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35397763
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35397763
“A cold snap sweeping across East Asia has killed at least 85 people in Taiwan and stranded 60,000 tourists in South Korea. Taiwanese media reported deaths from hypothermia and cardiac disease following a sudden drop in temperature over the weekend. Meanwhile heavy snow forced the closure of the airport on the Korean holiday island of Jeju, cancelling flights.
The cold spell has also hit Hong Kong, southern China and Japan.”
I bet this is global warming as well
At least they acknowledge it as a “Liberal Hoax”, that’s a start.
Team of weather observers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport lose snow measuring device ???
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/measuring-mix-up-leaves-dc-with-underreported-snow-total.html?intcmp=hpbt2
The entire city is dysfunctional !! LOL
Looks like 1888 still takes the cake for worst brute of a US blizzard, but winter is still young and some real shockers have occurred much later than Jan.
One other candidate would have to the 1717 Great Snow. Even the Indians said neither they nor their remembered forebears had seen the like. I suppose all this stuff would be of great interest in times of interest in actual climate. But these are the days of dogma, so it’s down the memory hole with 1717 and 1888. Pity.
This is the 120th anniversary of what may well be settled Australia’s worst month for heat. When I look through the records of different parts of NSW, and take into account the official death rate from heat alone, Jan 1896 was staggering in its severity and persistence. A reading taken from three very carefully placed and observed “glasses” on a western station came in at 130C! It may seem like an aberration or error, but other readings and the average max for Jan in places as far apart as Bourke, Dubbo and Sydney (highest in all three to this day) indicate that it was a hell of summer. Contemporary news reports are hair-raising, what with all the deaths and evacuations.
Of course, in the Age of Dogma this sort of information and reflection is about as welcome as a belch in a crowded lift.
130C?
Maybe you mean 130F, and then even that sounds dubious.
Sorry, force of decimal habit. It was 130F, of course. The reason to believe is that the month was so extreme in so many parts and that the Mara readings were tripled up and done with care. Not saying it was so, of course, but…
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/44153166
If the three readings were accurate, you’d have to think that the heat was very localised. I’d call it possible but not likely.
Death Valley’s world record from 1913 is 134 while Australia’s official highest is the 123.3 from 1960 at Oodnadatta. Cloncurry still stands by its long accepted 127.58 reading from 1859. I think we need to accept that the chances of the hottest max occurring where there happens to be an official or even unofficial weather station are pretty slim. On the other hand, what you can’t prove you can’t prove. The main thing about 1896 is that there were so many extreme temps, not on the same day or in the same cluster of days, all over the large state of NSW in Jan of 1896. It was also the beginning of the Federation Drought, which I guess is more important than an individual max reading on a remote station. It’s the ensemble of bad conditions that needs emphasis.
1896 was the year of NY’s lethal Big Heat, by the way.
Wait long enough and it all comes around again.The true horror of NE USA AGW induced snowstorms. Don’t look, Mikey Mann, it’s horrific.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/29/frequency-of-big-snows-northeast-u-s-and-colorado/
And so what happened to the man made part of this story and everyone’s comments. As I keep drumming into everyone I discus this topic with “man made” is the qualifying statement, without it you may as well simply be pushing the proverbial up hill trying to change peoples thinking.
Man made, man made, man made, never forget that that is what this whole garbage is about.
Headline typo : “its climate”
Thinkstupid spoke the Michael Moron the world’s preeminent die expert.
“Well, you see dice have six sides, and we can show that historically dice were averaging a consistent result of 3.5 per roll. And that average trend appears to have been flat since the invention of dice.
But that doesn’t happen any more.
We were initially expecting to find that the modern dice were throwing out high results.
But, now we can see that we are getting those expected highs like 4, 5 or 6. But also extreme lows like 3, 2 or 1. In fact, we never see that historical average of 3.5 anymore.
Those extremes above and below 3.5 seem to be the new normal, as predicted by people such as myself, Hansen, Suzuki, Gore and that newcomer Oreskes.
That’s why we have renamed the phenomenon – dice change.
And yet the skeptics still refuse to see this and tell me that the entire phenomenon is an artifact generated by the statistical effect of averaging out the past and comparing it with specific events in the present.”
(warning spoof quotation.)
+ 100
Indefatigablefrog Montreal temps fluctuates between 5 and 10 C daily Yesterday am was –15c this am –6c Also there little or no change in the frequency of major snow storms over the past 30 to 55 years, at least in the Northeast of Canada and U.S. https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Canada/Quebec/Places/montreal-temperatures-by-month-average.php
Russell: When I lived in Montreal we would see temperatures as low as -40 (F or C) in the winter (with wind chill factor) and as high as 36C (or 99F) in the summer (with 99% humidity sometimes!
It is hard to relate to catastrophic temperature increases in the hundredths of a degree.
I am so disappointed at this mere +100.
I admit – there was a glaringly obvious “the” in the first sentence which should have been “to”.
So I didn’t really deserve much more.
I was really depending on at least a +500.
I’m assuming that I can exchange these gifted credits at one-to-one in bitcoin!! 🙂
+ 1
The good news, now you are averaging + 50.5 per “+” comment.
Well on your way to + 500.
@ur momisugly frog, + 1100, +100 = 1200/2 = + 600 (and then JohnWho had to bugger it up with only one + ) now I have to recalculate the whole thing! so I’ll give you + 10,000 :).
“your faith in the climate religion ”
Forgive me my scepticism, incredulity, belief in rationality and the strange notion that words actually mean something but isn’t it sort of basic to a religion that its adherents believe in some sort of deity? Where’s the belief in a deity in the idea of CAGW? I think that the word that you might be struggling to discover is ideology. But that word is maybe less attractive than ‘religion’ because while some people like making sweeping criticisms of ‘religion’ they are a bit wary of doing the same for ‘ideology’ precisely because they have one and don’t wish all ideologies to be given sweeping condemnations. For the present I can’t see any other explanation for the constant, inappropriate use of the term ‘religion’. However, some people seem to enjoy wallowing in the Humpty Dumpty syndrome. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’” Lewis Carroll had a marvellous ability to prick people’s pompousness.
Way I believe Climate Change is a Religion ; The Government relies on the masses to thrust them with question . https://www.quora.com/What-is-good-or-bad-about-blind-faith
@ur momisugly Russell, “what is good about Blind Faith”? I really liked their first album.:)
Alba: Dogma might be a better choice of words.
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
The Planet is their God. CO2 is their Satan. Fossil fuels, eating meat, capitalism and overpopulation are their Sins. Venus is their Hell. A wind turbine is their holy symbol. Their Paradise is a vegan commune powered by solar cells and driving electric cars.