Sam Leaong must fight back! Dotard got fucked badly by world for talking cock about the weather!

[Ang4MohTrump]

https://www.rt.com/usa/449315-trump-global-warming-snow-tweet/




Twitter mobilizes meme army after Trump suggests snowstorms disprove global warming
Published time: 21 Jan, 2019 10:24
Get short URL

FILE PHOTO: Snow piles up on the ground near a picture of U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump displayed outside a house in West Des Moines, Iowa, February 3, 2016. © Reuters / Scott Morgan

• 226
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

A meme-wielding internet mob has descended on Donald Trump’s Twitter account after the US president quipped that perhaps global warming could help alleviate harsh winter weather across the country.
Trump unfurled one of his infamous Twitter zingers while encouraging Americans to stay indoors to avoid large snow storms and freezing temperatures.
“Be careful and try staying in your house. Large parts of the Country are suffering from tremendous amounts of snow and near record setting cold. Amazing how big this system is. Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!” the president wrote.

The punchline wasn’t particularly well received, with Twitter users queuing up to take a swipe at the president.
“He’s an all around science genius! He knows more about science than anyone. Remember the brilliance he showed looking at the solar eclipse? Pure genius!” one netizen wrote, sharing a video which shows Trump trying to gaze up at a solar eclipse without proper eye protection.

Another Twitter user joked: “President Dunning–Kruger does not know the difference between weather, global warming and climate change,” apparently in reference to the Dunning–Kruger effect – a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly overestimate their cognitive abilities.

Others were slightly less subtle with their criticism.


Like this story? Share it with a friend!

 

[Ang4MohTrump]

See a video today from Putin's citizen returning home from buying beer outside. This will help to understand climate Days of continuous snow fall nearly totally buried the whole front door.

http://englishrussia.com/2019/01/21/a-siberian-beer-shopping-video/





0
Posted on January 21, 2019 by tim






Russian people in Siberia have to pass a real quest so that buy a beer in stores (or some other type of food). It’s of course not every day, but some days can be like this:



Here is video to watch:



Can it be in your town too?

 

[Leongsam]

I agree with Trump all this climate change lunacy is nothing but a hoax.

Climates are always changing and have been doing so since the dawn of time.

Mean temperatures are never static they're either falling or rising. The idea that paying a carbon tax will save the world is a man made scheme to make money. What else is new.

 

[Leongsam]

by Cal Thomas Tue, 3/13/2018 | Tribune Content Agency, LLC
Apocalypse now?
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency

Since the beginning of recorded history there have been end of the world predictions. In recent years we have had radio preachers, politicians and scientists declare with certainty that the world would soon end, either because of our decadent lifestyle, or because of “global warming,” now known as “climate change.”

Responses to these Chicken Little declarations have ranged from people hiding in caves to the most recent announcement by Costco that it has a doomsday meal kit for sale. The cost is $6,000. The online listing says the kit contains 36,000 servings of food that will feed a family of four for one year.
Marc Morano’s new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” (Regnery Publishing) is just in time to refute the argument that “climate change” will destroy all life on Earth. It is a mark of Morano’s dark humor that he features as an “endorsement” of the book a comment by the liberal Daily Kos, which calls Morano “evil personified.”

The book is a point-by-point takedown of the predictions of disaster made by the climate change movement, none of which have materialized, but when one is part of a cult, facts don’t matter.

In the book’s foreword, the late John Coleman, who was a meteorologist, TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel, writes: “We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the ‘climate change’ establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future.”

Coleman then gets to the heart of the issue: “Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics. So today anybody who defies the prevailing ‘climate change’ scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger.”

Among the facts revealed in Morano’s book are these: The world spends $1 billion a day to “prevent” global warming; A UN scientist says the “97 percent consensus” on global warming was “pulled from thin air,” presumably hot air from many politicians; scientific organizations claim climate change ‘consensus,’ but have not polled their members; climate policies are not helping, but “crushing the world’s poor”; The Paris climate accord theoretically postpones global warming by just four years, but will cost $100 trillion if fully implemented; climate change has been blamed for prostitution, barroom brawls, airplane turbulence and war; one climate activist is quoted as saying we should “protect our kids by not having them”; recent “hottest year” claims are based on statistically meaningless year-to-year differences; Antarctica is actually gaining, not losing ice; carbon dioxide levels today are 10 times lower than in some past Ice Ages.

Morano argues that the debate over climate change is not settled, as many claim. Science is never settled and apparently neither is the politics of climate change, which is being advanced by people who want more control over every aspect of our lives.

Real scientists who specialize in climate and related fields are quoted in the book. These are voices we rarely, if ever, see mentioned in the mainstream media because the media are part of the collusion.

Read this book and you will become an informed climate change denier, armed with arguments and facts to counter the propaganda being pushed by climate change fanatics. It will also save you $6,000 the next time you visit Costco.

(Readers may email Cal Thomas at [email protected].)
(c) 2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

 

[Leongsam]

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.



My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.

 

[Leongsam]

Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax
by ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in News, Opinion


By Elmer Beauregard

The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.

I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.

1. Record Ice

In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.

2. Record Snow

2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.

3. Record Cold

In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”

4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted

Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.

5. Polar Bears Are Thriving

You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.

6. Moose Are Making A Comeback

A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.

7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.

9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.

If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.

10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players

One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.

 

[Leongsam]

 

[Leongsam]

For those who are actually interested in the nitty gritty read the attached pdf.

 

[Leongsam]

 

[Leongsam]

Four Weeks Left Until The Maldives Drown
On September 26, 1988, climate experts said all 1,196 Maldives Islands would drown in 30 years. That is only four weeks away.

26 Sep 1988 – Threat to islands

So far, they are batting 0.000 with their forecast. This is what the Maldives looks like this morning.

Live Cam Kuredu Island Resort
In 1997, the President of the Maldives pleaded for help. He said Island countries were about to disappear under the seas.

25 Jun 1997, Page 1 – Standard-Speaker at Newspapers.com
Ten years ago, The Guardian said the Maldives were packing up and moving out.

Maldives seek to buy a new homeland | Environment | The Guardian
Now the Guardian says the Maldives is the moral leader on climate change and is adapting by taking in tens of billions of dollars of big oil money to expand their resorts to bring in millions of more tourists.

‘We need development’: Maldives switches focus from climate threat to mass tourism | Environment | The Guardian
It takes moral courage to survive expanding islands.

Low-lying Pacific islands ‘growing not sinking’ – BBC News
In climate science, islands expand as the disappear under the sea.

‘Sinking’ Pacific nation is getting bigger: study
The Guardian says if you don’t believe the Maldives will be gone in four weeks, you are evil and must be silenced.

Climate change is not a matter for debate. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it | Letters | Environment | The Guardian
It is unfortunate the Guardian didn’t take their stance on silencing skeptics 180 years ago, when CO2 was 280 PPM and Maldives Islands actually were disappearing.

17 Feb 1837 – ACCOUNT OF THE MALDIVES
Read more at Real Climate Science

 

[Leongsam]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ace-mass-tourism-sparks-criticism-and-outrage

Climate change
'We need development': Maldives switches focus from climate threat to mass tourism
The new government plans to relocate residents to larger atolls – leaving small islands ripe for development. It says these super resorts, not solar power, will create the money needed to adapt to climate change
John Vidal in Malé
Fri 3 Mar 2017 14.27 GMTLast modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 17.02 GMT
Shares
952


The government plans to increase tourism from 1.3 million people a year to more than seven million within 10 years. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

When Mohamed Nasheed, the young, first democratically elected president of the Maldives, said in 2008 that he was seeking to buy a new homeland to save his people from being inundated by rising sea levels, it made the country of 1,200 coral islands the moral leader in the UN climate talks and helped persuade rich countries to act.

This week the Maldives, under new president Abdulla Yameen, apparently changed environmental tack, saying that mass tourism and mega-developments rather than solar power and carbon neutrality would enable it to adapt itself to climate change and give its young population hope for the future.

As rumours abound that Yameen has been negotiating to sell an entire atoll with 19 coral islands and dozens of reefs and lagoons to the Saudi royal family for $10bn (£8bn), his ministers outlined plans to geo-engineer artificial islands, relocate populations and attract millions more tourists by creating 50 more resorts.

In a sign of the new times, Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz is expected to sign a deal to buy or lease Faafu atoll in the north of the archipelago when he arrives in the Maldives next week with an entourage of 1,000 people. Yameen denied he was planning to sell the islands but praised the development deal. “What is about to happen [to Faafu atoll] is something that would feature the Maldives on the world chart more boldly than anything else,” he said.
Plans for the barely touched paradise could mean Faafu becomes a Riviera-style super-resort with sea sports, six star hotels, high-end housing and several new airports.




FacebookTwitterPinterest

The plans could see islands currently occupied by fishermen being handed over to developers. Photograph: Jenny Bates/Jenny Bates for the Guardian
But what happens there may be only the start of the Maldives’ transformation from an Indian ocean backwater with green political ideals to what politicians hope will be a “smart” country with a new capital city, high-tech centres, economic free zones and foreign universities to attract the global elite.

Nearly one in three of the country’s 185 inhabited islands may have to be abandoned with thousands of people relocated to larger islands which can offer schools and health clinics as well as fresh water and waste facilities, said housing minister Mohamed Muizzu.

‘[Development of Faafu] is not selling sovereignty. We hope it is a big investment. We don’t want to move slowly. We want transformational change. We want to bring better living conditions to the whole country over a small period of time,” said Muizzu.

“Relocated families will be offered free houses on larger islands,” he said. “We need a lot of investment to provide all facilities to all islands. It is not sustainable to do this. Some islands have just a few hundred people. It is not feasible to keep them there. A lot of small islands face erosion and ground water contamination. They need sewerage networks and new harbours. The priority will be the capitals of atolls,” he said.

Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories


Read more
But in place of local fishermen living modestly on the palm-fringed coral islands, Muizzi said the newly deserted coral islands could be handed to developers. “Why not use them for tourism?” he said.

Plans to increase tourism from 1.3 million people a year to more than seven million within 10 years were backed by Shiham Adam, director of the government’s Marine Research Centre. “Tourism and resorts may be the saviour of the Maldives. People are investing massive amounts of money. They are not idiots. You can build an island in four weeks with suction dredgers, and put boulders around it in a few more.

“The Maldives needs money to survive. Resorts are very positive for the environment. They offer better protection than community islands because they must protect at least 700m all around them. They become mini marine reserves,” he said.

Fears of immediate sea level rise, which scientists said in the latest IPCC report was accelerating and could mean 75% of the Maldives being under water by 2100, were unfounded, Adam said. “It is not going to happen next year. We have immediate needs. Development must go on, jobs are needed, we have the same aspirations as people in the US or Europe.”

“Climate change is happening but we are not leaving the Maldives to the waves,” said environment minister Thoriq Ibrahim. “We are going nowhere. The dream [of making the Maldives carbon neutral] is over. We are looking to be a low-carbon country.”

“We are seeing weather patterns change. The dry season is longer, there are rainwater shortages. Now we are getting higher winds and waves. There is more salt water intrusion. Farming and fishing is affected.

“But climate change is just one problem we face. The most pressing issues are water and sanitation, waste and coastal protection. Only 31 of the Maldives’ inhabited islands have a proper sewerage system. Only six have a waste system. Now is the time for action, not promises and empty words,” he said.

The government accepts that its plans will increase climate emissions, even without counting the thousands of extra flights that will be needed each year to bring the hoped-for millions of tourists. But it argues that the Maldives only produces 0.003% of global emissions and has the right to develop.
“We want renewable energy but we do not have the physical space for solar. We can go to 30% but above that we need storage. With international help we can reduce our emissions 30% by 2030, but without climate aid only 10%. We must be realistic,” he said.

The plans have outraged the political opposition. The Maldives Democratic Party (MDP), led by former president Rasheed who is now in exile in London, said Yameen was acting without consultation.

“There is outrage. No information on the proposed project has been shared with the public. The plans would allow a foreign power to control one of the country’s 26 atolls. It amounts to creeping colonisation,” it said in a statement.

But the government dismissed the opposition. “A responsible opposition would always support what is good for people,” said Muizzi. “With Nasheed it was a dream. We do not need cabinet meetings under water. We do not need to go anywhere. We need development,” said Ibrahim.

As 2019 begins…
… we’re asking readers to make a new year contribution in support of The Guardian’s independent journalism. More people are reading our independent, investigative reporting than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our reporting as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help.

The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

Please make a new year contribution today to help us deliver the independent journalism the world needs for 2019 and beyond. Support The Guardian from as little as £1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

 

[Leongsam]

 

[Leongsam]

24,212 viewsSep 24, 2013, 08:00am
Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims



Larry BellContributor
I write about aerospace, environment, energy, Second Amendment policy

• 
  
• 
  

Modelled maximum extent of the Antarctic ice sheet 21,000 years before present (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I have asked my very good friend Dr. Fred Singer to comment about the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers report with particular regard to their most recent sea level rise projections. Dr. Singer is an expert in remote sensing measurements, having served as founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, vice chair of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, deputy assistant administrator for policy at the EPA, and as a reviewer for several of the IPCC reports. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Fred is a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and directs the Science & Environment Policy Project which has produced a series of scientific Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NICPP) report studies which often take issue with IPCC conclusions. NICPP’s new publication “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” is available at no cost on-line.
Fred, it’s obvious that the IPCC has got lots of ‘splainin’ to do about how their previous global warming doomsday predictions based upon hypothetical computer models they claimed to have confidence in got it so wrong . That won’t be easy. Political operatives at their upcoming damage-control meeting in Stockholm this week will have to figure out how to spin evidence of a 17 year “pause” in global temperature rise and the expanding Arctic ice mass despite what they love to describe as “record high” atmospheric CO2 concentrations.



Few would care about any of these climate crisis capers at all, were it not for the epic climate science budget bonanza rising ocean scare. The simplified, dumbed-down story packaged and distributed for the public goes like this:

• Evil carbon dioxide from human fossil burning is heating the climate to unprecedented levels.
• This is causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise at an accelerating and disastrous rate.
• The salvation of our planet depends upon an immediate transition to wind and solar energy, electric cars and bicycles, and less consumption-oriented lifestyles.

Is everything really that simple?
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE



Larry, no, reality is a good deal more complex than that. First of all, the accelerated warming that was forecast to produce catastrophic sea level rise flooding Bangladesh and Pacific islands causing hundreds of millions of refugees to flee coastal regions hasn’t occurred. This isn’t to say either that the planet hasn’t been warming, or that sea levels haven’t risen. Of course they have, although these are hardly new developments. I can also make an argument that rising sea levels and warming periods may be somewhat disconnected matters.
Let’s understand that the world’s mean temperatures have been rising at a pretty constant rate of about one degree Fahrenheit (0.6oC) over the past 100 years, and is likely to continue , although with both warmer and cooler fluctuations, for many hundreds of years into the future. Over each of the past several centuries, including the last one, sea levels rose by about 7 inches (18 cm).
Accordingly, neither the overall warming trend or sea level rise began with the fossil-burning Industrial Revolution… nor have they changed in any detectable way due to human influences. And we can’t even really know that the second follows the first. Sea levels rose during the Little Ice Age from about 1400-1859 AD… a period which was considerably colder than now.
Incidentally, do you remember when presidential candidate Obama declared during his June 8, 2008 victory speech as Democratic Party nominee that his presidency will be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”? Well although some tidal gauge data does show deceleration, since it started in 1960, the year he was conceived, he probably can’t take full credit for that.
There are proxy records, including organic and ocean sediment data, that provide a picture of past temperatures. But how can we really know the history of sea level changes dating back hundreds of years, or even during recent times?
Larry, tidal station gauges have been in existence for a century now, and as I mentioned earlier, the measured rate of sea level rise has been quite constant, about 18 cm per century. We can also get some picture of temperature and sea level changes over past millennia by looking at melting shrinkage rates of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This can be determined by noting how much its “grounding line”, the points where it makes contact with the underlying land mass, has receded. Unlike floating sea ice which doesn’t influence sea level when it melts, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is part of the land mass. When it melts, it adds to sea level just as melting glaciers do.
The end of the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago caused the sea level to rise by a huge amount…about 400 feet. This change happened rapidly at first, caused primarily by the melting of huge ice sheets covering North America and Eurasian land masses which disappeared about 8000-5000 years ago.
The West Antarctic Ice sheet began to melt at that time also, but at a much slower rate, and that melting continues today. We might expect this melting to continue until it is gone in another 7,000 years or so… or until the next Ice Age, whichever comes first. Other smaller ice sheets that once existed in the Antarctic are already gone. The oceans will continue to rise, despite anything President Obama may attempt in order to stop them.
Fred, you said earlier that we can’t necessarily correlate warmer temperatures with sea level rise…yet you did just attribute continued melting since the last Ice Age to dramatic ocean rise. Isn’t this inconsistent?
Larry, it would be if it was all really that simple. However much depends upon other influences and the time scales involved. It’s one thing if warmer temperatures persist for millennia. In that case, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melting rate will increase, and so will the sea level increase rate. On the other hand, short term warming fluctuations lasting decades or less are a different matter.
This is where some other influences come into play. One big one involves changes in Antarctic ice accumulation which actually comes about due to warming and other causes that lower sea level by transferring water from the ocean to land mass. Another is thermal expansion of oceans due to warming. Still another involves changes in coastal and subsea land surface elevations that influence and complicate reliable sea level measurements.
Then on top of all that, there are erratic and unpredictable glacier changes that are influenced by a host of different natural factors. A study reported in the May 2012 issue of Science examined 200 of them across the Greenland continent between 2000-2010 using radar data collected from synthetic aperture satellites. It found that their individual flow rates varied both in location and time.
Glaciers with growth rates that were accelerating during a few years, decelerated in others. Some accelerating glaciers were in proximity to others that were decelerating. Their individual behaviors were thought to be influenced by a variety of factors, including: fjord, glacier, and bed geometry; local climate; and small-scale ocean water flow and terminus sea ice conditions. Overall, melting speed-ups were much lower than IPCC models projected.
Again, regarding temperature influences upon sea levels, consider, for example, what happened when the global climate sharply warmed between 1920 and 1940. Data shows that the sea level actually rose during that period, and then accelerated after temperatures cooled. How can this happen? One important clue is that a warming ocean evaporates more water, and a lot of it rains out in polar regions, transferring that water to the ice caps. This produces a net sea level lowering influence, counteracting the rising influences of glacier melts and ocean thermal expansion.
The Antarctic continent has been gaining ice accumulation. This might well suggest that between 1920 and 1940, ocean water thermal expansion and mountain glacier melting were less important to sea level than ice accumulation on the Antarctic continent. Unfortunately, the science is not advanced enough to be certain, and reliable data on ice accumulation over the whole Antarctic continent have not been available.
Fred, what about sea level data? How accurate is that?
There are some considerable problems and uncertainties regarding the ways we collect that data. To do this we use two different methods, tidal gauges and satellite measurements. Much of my particular expertise involves the latter.
There are about two dozen tidal gauge stations in the world, with data going back to the early 1900s which have been used by international tidal gauge network in Liverpool, England. These stations measure relative sea level with respect to coastal land surface. A big problem is that ever since the melting of glacial ice cover from northern continents over several millennia, the land surface has rebounded in some places…a process called “isostatic adjustment”. This is like what a mattress does when you get out of bed, only a whole lot slower. At the same time, many tidal stations have been sinking due to coastal subsidence caused by depletion of groundwater...yes, by humans… that has led to compaction of sediments.
Sea level satellite observations date back only to 1993, which is a very short time to draw trend conclusions. Whereas tidal stations measure the sea level relative to coastal land surface, satellites measure “absolute” sea level independent of vertical coastal surface changes. In this regard, satellites have an inherent advantage over tidal stations, but the figures don’t match up.
So then, how does IPCC arrive at its alarmist conclusions?
When in doubt, and they always are, they just make them up based upon hypothetical models that have yet to comply with observed conditions. And as for those models, it’s important to realize that no overall sea level change theory encompassing thermal expansion of oceans, melting of mountain glaciers, and changes, both positive and negative, of Greenland and Antarctic sheets even exists.
A leading researcher, Bruce Douglas, termed all of this a “puzzle”, while famed Scripps Institute oceanographer Walter Munk calls it an “enigma”. Perhaps it’s like Churchill’s description of Soviet Russia, “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”.
In any case, let’s review what IPCC has projected in their Summary for Policymakers reports crafted for prime time media audiences:

• The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. That’s some range!
• The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
• The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
• The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft…then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.

The good news here, if there really is any, is that each of the successive summary report maximum estimates decreased, all being much smaller than the 600 cm sea level rise trumpeted by former NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science activist James Hansen and climate multi-millionaire Gore.
A draft of the IPCC’s 5th report that was leaked to the press now projects a sea level rise by 2100 of 45-110 cm (16-40 inches) …about double of what they showed six years ago. What is particularly remarkable about this is that the report shows zero sea rise values before 1880, while the coral data and coastal sediments do.
Tidal gauge data show no acceleration during strong warming between 1920-40 (a period when CO2 concentrations were lower)…with levels continuing to rise during slight cooling of 1940-75, and also during a recent 17-year warming “pause”. Yet IPCC-2013 shows increasing values (acceleration) throughout the entire period. It appears that this record may have been falsified.
How did IPCC arrive at their projections?
They compiled the 1996 data from three sources:

• Thermal expansion of warming oceans was assumed to contribute about 4 cm.
• Melting of continental glaciers was credited for about 3.5 cm.
• Polar region ice accumulations (a net lowering from water transfer from oceans) was also estimated.

Altogether, these three contributions would only account for about 20 percent of the observed 18 cm rise since 1900…so what is missing? If it is surmised from the absence of observed acceleration during 1920-40, then ice accumulation roughly balances thermal expansion and contributions from melting glaciers. On that basis, why is the sea level rising at all?
So Fred, what is the answer? If global warming actually lowers the sea level that some are so worried about, and we can help that along by burning more coal and other fossils, should we start doing so right away to save Venice residents and tourists from drowning?
No Larry. That’s really not my point here. I only wish to offer a modest appeal for the public and politicians to take note that better, more honest and objective science is needed, to be wary about motives and claims of U.N. climate treaty negotiators, and to understand that draconian regulatory limits upon energy use will not quell rising tides.
Having said this, there are many serious issues that do warrant a great deal more study. Included are regional and local effects and adaptations associated with isostatic changes, land subsidence, ocean currents, wind patterns and other factors. More efforts are also needed to harmonize conflicting data from tidal gauges and direct measurements of ocean surface by satellites.
Thanks Fred. In other words, let’s keep our heads above the water line and not get too feverish about what we hear from IPCC. After all, even Al Gore seems to have changed his mind about the threat. In his An Inconvenient Truth film, didn’t he feature an animation depicting a sudden global-warming-induced break-up of the Antarctic Peninsula’s Larson-B ice shelf in 2002, suggesting that the entire Greenland Ice Sheet might suffer the same fate during this century?
But if he was still really worried, why would he risk making an underwater investment in a big $9 million ocean-view villa in Montecito, California?

 

[Leongsam]

Enough "fight back" for the time being to allow those who are really interested to digest the content.

Science is never settled. It is always evolving as new discoveries are made.

 

[Leongsam]

Sorry... one more... the basics.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

GW 101

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.
Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.
Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)
Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)
BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.
Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.
Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.