This posting is a reblog of Dr Roy Spencer’s posting “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming“. It is part a pitch for his new book that is a “putdown” to those the would-be prophets of global doom.
September 18th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.
In it I review the many fascinating examples of major hurricane landfalls in the United States, even going back to colonial times.
For example, two major hurricane strikes endured by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1635 and in 1675, have yet to be rivaled in more modern times. Major hurricane Maria, now approaching a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:Dominica and Guadeloupe, is probably no match for the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean, which had estimated winds of 200 mph and killed 20,000 people.
I also address the reasons why Hurricane Harvey and its flooding cannot be blamed on climate change. Regarding Hurricane Irma which recently terrorized Florida, you might be surprised to learn that it is consistent with a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:
Polar bears are disappearing from the warmer’s publications (including Al Gore’s new movie). Why? Well, because the polar bear population is growing, not declining as the warmers had forecast.
The following video was produced by GWPFTV and narrated by Susan Crockford. PhD.
Over the years, Al Gore’s Nashville house has been a topic of discussion because of the enormous amount of electricity it uses. Frequently it is mentioned as evidence when calling Mr. Gore a hypocrite. According to a posting on TheLid.com titled “How Al Gore Fooled The World Into Paying For His Giant Carbon Footprint” new data shows little has changed over the years.
The new data about his Nashville house includes:
- The past year, Gore’s home energy use averaged 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh) every month, compared to the U.S. household average of 901 kWh per month.
- Gore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.
- In September of 2016, Gore’s home consumed 30,993 kWh in just one month – as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.
- During the last 12 months, Gore devoured 66,159 kWh of electricity just heating his pool. That is enough energy to power six average U.S. households for a year.
- From August 2016 through July 2017, Gore spent almost $22,000 on electricity bills.
For appearance’s sake, the former VP with an unreleased chakra paid an estimated $60,000 to install 33 solar panels. Those solar panels produce an average of 1,092 kWh per month, only 5.7% of Gore’s typical monthly energy consumption. So, Gore is using tons of fossil fuels–by himself.
Al Gore owned 4 homes but since his divorce, one of them may now belong to his ex-wife.
The posting on TheLid.com goes on to discuss how much money Gore has amassed since his term as the Veep was over.
Gore and all the Hollywood types that tell us how to live in order to save the planet, have a motto, “do as I say, not as I do”.
Al Gore’s new documentary titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opened on July 28 with a limited engagement. Beginning in August, the documentary will be opening in many theaters. I don’t know how many, as it has not been getting great reviews, but it will be in many more than the initial 4 theaters.
The critics being mostly being quite liberal tend to give this kind of movie a big “thumbs up”. Science has little to do with their ratings of a movie like this, because they are sure if Al Gore produced it, it must all be true. However, the liberal website, VOX said, “Even An Inconvenient Sequel seems a little light on facts at times.” Many of the movie reviewers said it was, in effect, boring. Maybe that was reflected in the boxofficemojo data published on Sunday, 30 July. That they said ticket sales for the first day were $61,000, the second day were $43,000 and today (the third day) were $26,000 might reflect the boring viewpoint.
But Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his first film, didn’t he? Yes, he did. However, it was the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that presented the award to the newly elected Barrack Obama before he got into office. They awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat of the PLO, too. That Committee has a very transparent political agenda. It has very little to do with peace.
But never fear gentle reader, Al Gore will not let you down.
Bjorn Lomborg’s comments on just a few of Al Gore’s many prediction misses in his posting “Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses A Few Inconvenient Facts”:
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, CO2, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Paris Agreement, President Trump, radical environmentalists, Sea Ice, Sea Level
Who made the following statement?
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there is a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening an audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” (I added the emphasis in bold. cbdakota)
None other than Al Gore. There’s no reason to waste a perfectly good crisis, even if you have to invent one to make a strong argument for it. As Al Gore told Grist Magazine in May, 2006
The quote and the source are from a posting on Newsmax titled “Decades of Climate Hysteria Unsupported by Data,”
Things have been very busy here at home. That is my excuse for writing so little recently. I am working on some thoughts why the global temperature is likely to begin to cool—a case of natural forces. But in the mean time, the warmers have allowed Bill Nye and Al Gore (and on occasion, Di Caprio) to be the face of their catastrophic religion. The real warmer scientists have tried the debate arena and have consistently underperformed. So better to leave it to their apostles, Nye and Gore.
If you haven’t seen” Bill Nye Saves the World” on Netflix, please do. If he and his minions don’t turn you off, you must be a warmer. The ratings are generally dismal. The Google Users rated it 29%.
See this You tube video that reviews what Nye’s show.
Algore has a new movie, an update of his “An Inconvient Truth”. I have seen the Promos version of this movie and it will probably be as full of errors and exaggerations as was his original one. The first one was the one that James Hansen (god-father of the current US catastrophic warming theory) said—well, ya, there are a lot of mistakes in it but its message is good. That is the kind of science that the warmers (consensus method) use along with coercion.
The polar bear became the symbol of the catastrophic effect of “global warming” in 2005. “Photo shopped” scenes of bears starving and floating away on an ice floe were ubiquitous. It was said the bears were on the brink of extinction.
But the warmers were wrong. Though the Arctic Sea Ice coverage has diminished over the recent years, it has not meant the demise of the polar bears. The polar bear population has increased by 33% since 2005. The YouTube video explains why the warmers were wrong.
Several years ago, a very prominent polar bear spotter and scientist, recognized that the polar bear numbers were growing, was disinvited to a UN sponsored meeting to discuss this topic. They did not want any facts get in their way, so the narrative of the bears nearing extinction was unabated. Now most of the authorities agree that the bears are not on the verge of extinction.