White House turns up heat on climate alarm

By |2016-08-01T16:55:20+00:00August 1st, 2016|CFACT Insights|19 Comments

You have probably heard President Obama and other administration notables feverishly lament that 2015 was the hottest year “on record” following a previous one set in 2014.

Yes, but did you also hear any mention of by how much?

According to surface measurements, the 2015 El Nino year record amounted to only 29 hundredths of one degree warmer than global mean temperatures over the past 100 plus years, while 2014 was seven hundredths of a degree warmer.

Headlined media announcements of a warmest day, week, year, or even decade on record aren’t in the habit of telling us that those record-breaking events are teensy fractions of a degree Fahrenheit, when we are entirely accustomed daily temperature fluctuations of many degrees, and seasonal swings of 80 degrees or more. Nor do they mention that anything lasting less than 30 years is conventionally characterized as “weather” rather than “climate.”

In any case, more reliable satellite data reveal that 2015 was only the weatgherbalolothird warmest year since recordings first began in 1979. Other than major 2015 and 1998 El Nino ocean spikes, there has been no statistically significant warming in nearly two decades. Yet although weather balloon (radiosonde) measurements closely agree with satellites, no temperature monitoring systems were designed to measure such small changes over decades.

Nevertheless, a July 22 Washington Post feature breathlessly announced: “Inaction on climate change would cause billions, major EPA study finds.” The article quoted EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy saying: “The results are quite startling and very clear. Left unchecked, climate change affects our health, infrastructure, and outdoors we love. But more importantly the [EPA-sponsored] report shows that global action on climate will save lives.”

ginaMcCarthy previously admitted during a U.S. House hearing that anti-coal CO2 regulations attached to EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” wouldn’t have any measurable impact on global warming. She testified, “We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”

So what enormous benefits would this non-impacting regulatory check on climate change actually serve? According to McCarthy, local governments would avoid tens of billions of dollars in damage from floods and other severe-weather events, while farmers would save up to $11 billion a year in damage from a combination of drought, flooding, and destructive storms.

Tens of millions of forests would be preserved because of fewer wildfires.

McCarthy and the Post apparently neglected to notice that no UNipccbunk category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a more than century-long record lull since 1900. In fact, NOAA and even the UN’s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that there have been no increases in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades.

Incidentally, U.S. Midwest summer temperatures (June-August) have shown little change between 1900 and 2015 despite big upward shifts predicted by 42 theoretical models. The warmest U.S. temperatures in modern times very likely occurred in the 1930s when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were lower.

co2impactAs for that CO2 “pollution,” there is some other good unreported news for farmers, families, and forest creatures. Satellite images reveal a widespread increase of CO2-fertilized greening over 25% to 50% of the “global vegetated area” over the past 35 years.

Plants apparently love the stuff. They generally prefer long, warm growing seasons, too.

But now that global warming alarm has been rebranded as “climate change,” what about a warning posted by Office of Science and Technology Director on the White House website that global warming will cause cold winters to happen with greater regularity?

A May 9th ruling by U.S. District of Columbia Judge Amit Mehta determined that the Obama Administration had engaged in “bad faith” for stonewalling repeated Freedom of Information Requests issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute seeking any such scientific evidence.

They’re still waiting.

Yes, climate really does change. It was likely just as warm during the greenlandRoman warm period 2,000 years ago . . . followed by the Medieval warm period 1,000 years later. Global mean temperatures have since been rising in fits and starts since the little ice age ended about 150 years ago. Overall, this amounts to about 1.5º F since the mid-1800s —averaging about 0.1º F per decade. Recent increases have been less than half of the rate predicted by more than 100 IPCC computer models.

Such failed projections should come as no great surprise. As the IPCC’s own 2001 Assessment Report concludes: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

There is one linear chaotic climate state, however, that all can predictably count on. Don’t expect any good news so long as many billions of taxpayer dollars reward agenda-driven political science fear mongering.

This article first appeared at NewsMax


  1. Immortal600 August 1, 2016 at 3:11 PM

    Humans cannot stop the climate from changing. Anyone with half a brain realizes that basic fact.

    • Dano2 August 1, 2016 at 4:12 PM

      …and yet, humans are changing the climate now.




      • Brin Jenkins August 2, 2016 at 2:05 AM


        • Dano2 August 2, 2016 at 9:17 AM

          ~2 centuries of scientific results are propaganda, everyone.



          • Brin Jenkins August 3, 2016 at 10:22 AM

            Then all you need to do proving your standpoint is giv a viable explanation of the C02 mechanism. This you have not yet achieved

            • Dano2 August 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM

              Little one note continues blowing its one note on its little shiny trumpet, in hopes its one note becomes a symphony. Or a Miles tune.




              • Brin Jenkins August 3, 2016 at 3:03 PM

                Look if I was to agree with you, all I would do is join a group who are unable to explain why they are believers. That makes it a religion relying upon your mis placed faith. That’s what rational people would call sad.

        • Immortal600 August 2, 2016 at 1:23 PM

          You are right, Brin! It is propaganda and the idiot that keeps responding to you and me has no clue. What a moron.
          Scientific results?????? B S

          • Dano2 August 2, 2016 at 1:37 PM

            Commenter who was exposed in multiple falsehoods makes false accusations in a vain attempt to discredit the person who exposed its multiple falsehoods.

            Transparent play that wouldn’t fool a 10-year old.



        • Immortal600 August 2, 2016 at 2:09 PM

          He is the king of disinformation. It is hilarious to see his stupidity in action. ‘Best’???? LOL

          • Dano2 August 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM

            You’ve never – ever, not once, including for over a year under a different sockpuppet name – shown that one byte of anything I’ve typed is disinformation.




      • Brin Jenkins August 3, 2016 at 5:35 AM

        No, all that is shown is association and not causation, the C02 theory is both esoteric and illogical.

        Its raining, so we look outside and see the rain falling and folk with brollies erected. This happens every time it rains, so the erecting of brollies is proclaimed to be the man made cause of rain?

  2. Dano2 August 2, 2016 at 12:35 AM

    Poor hapless Larry haplesses: more reliable satellite data

    Not according to the satellite people.

    The satellite people call out this dishonesty: there has been no statistically significant warming in nearly two decades.

    weather balloon (radiosonde) measurements closely agree with satellites

    Until they don’t:

    More fibs: the UN’s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that there have been no increases in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades.




  3. Brin Jenkins August 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM

    Grapes were grown extensively in Britian for wine production as far North as York 2000 years ago by the Romans, having been promised Global warming I tried with olives and grapes. The six olive trees are now five, and although the survivors are growing after 11years have yet to produce an olive. Similary the vines produce no sweet grapes only small and bitter fruit, we were lied too and temperatures are much lower than we get in Italy today. Observation has not met the predictions, investigation suggests that the vaunted C02 cause of Global Warming is unproven and unlikely as it’s also illogical.

  4. Immortal600 August 2, 2016 at 2:41 PM

    The climate kook is getting desperate. LOL

    • Dano2 August 2, 2016 at 2:52 PM

      Instead of showing how them thar Klimit Kook Dano is wrong and LOLO can, in fact, show that anything I’ve typed is disinformation (proving that its assertion is correct and Dano is wrong), LOLO runs away and calls names.

      LOLO chose to run away and point from afar instead of supporting its claims.




  5. Immortal600 August 2, 2016 at 2:53 PM

    The troll is a paranoid fool. He has to respond to everything I post. I am in his attled-brain rent-free. LOL

    BTW, he can’t explain how CO2 drives climate change. Simply stating that CO2, one of many variables and a trace gas at that, reflects IR is not enough to explain how it drives climate. AGW is the kook’s religion so trying to reason with the moron is futile.

  6. Lincoln August 3, 2016 at 11:42 AM


    Hollywood sci-fi filmmakers tapped to dramatize fictional climate change to scare everybody into voting for climate totalitarians. So-called “climate change” — previously known as “global warming” but renamed after the data revealed no warming trend at all — is entirely rooted in false mythologies, official narratives and creative storytelling.


Comments are closed.