April Temperature Data Obtained by NASA Causes 'Climate Scientists' to Declare a "Climate Emergency"

[ScottL]

April was hottest on record, NASA says
By Shawn Price May 16, 2016 at 4:34 AM

WASHINGTON, May 15 (UPI) -- April 2016 was the hottest April on record on Earth and the seventh consecutive month of this year to be among the hottest on record.

New NASA data, released over the weekend, showed April broke the previous record for the month and increases the likelihood that 2016 will also be easily the hottest year on record.

The data also showed that April was the third month in a row that record temperatures were reached by the largest increases yet, in fact, it was the seventh consecutive month that was at least 1 full degree centigrade over the 1951 to 1980 mean for April.

Since February, climate scientists have begun referring to the trends as a "climate emergency," being given an extra boost by the current large El Nino system over the Pacific Ocean.

"The interesting thing is the scale at which we're breaking records," said Andy Pitman, director of Australia's ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales. "It's clearly all heading in the wrong direction. Climate scientists have been warning about this since at least the 1980s. And it's been bloody obvious since the 2000s. So where's the surprise?"

Meteorologist Body For Life said the increases mean all-time lows will be found this summer in sea ice, as well as greater bleaching of coral colonies, an often fatal event for colonies.

In 2014, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said there was clear evidence of human influence, the effects of which have been increasing since 1950 at unprecedented rates.

 

[vitterd]

Meteorologist Body For Life

 

[ScottL]

Just clowning with the BFL. The guy's real name was Eric something. The article itself is factual. As to whether the conclusions it draws are factual you can all take your usual sides. I'm sure after the thread gets to a certain number of posts it will become about Vitterd's Millions and Joe's Garden anyway.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Just clowning with the BFL. The guy's real name was Eric something. The article itself is factual. As to whether the conclusions it draws are factual you can all take your usual sides. I'm sure after the thread gets to a certain number of posts it will become about Vitterd's Millions and Joe's Garden anyway.

Not even close. I've met him.

 

[vitterd]

Not even close. I've met him.

Idiot.....I'm pretty sure his talking about the real name of the meteorologist.

 

[PatsFan1283]

Just clowning with the BFL. The guy's real name was Eric something. The article itself is factual. As to whether the conclusions it draws are factual you can all take your usual sides. I'm sure after the thread gets to a certain number of posts it will become about Vitterd's Millions and Joe's Garden anyway.

What do you think?

 

[hehateme82]

We might set a record for rain in the MD for May. Suicide watch weather. Just cancelled Preakness plans.

 

[The Guesser]

Idiot.....I'm pretty sure his talking about the real name of the meteorologist.

LMAO. Yes, The Terrorist supporting, Kid Touching Supporting POS IS Reallly that Dumb.

 

[Willie99]

What do you think?

very large El Nino is the cause, one of those natural events we simply can't control

climate change is a very significant issue, man made climate change not so much

climate been changing for 2 billion years, current warming cycle approximately 17,000 years old, combustion engine just over 100 years old

the combustion engine is but a needle in the haystack

 

[superbeets]

It is due to the heat emitted by decomposing bodies of ISIS fighters as their rotting corpses reach record numbers as the coalition cleanses the earth of the vile scum.

 

[superbeets]

Below are 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than radical Islamic terrorism.
In a January 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”
On January 26, 2009, Obama delivered remarks at the White House on the “dangers” of climate change:

These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.
​

In May 2010, the Obama White House released it’s national security strategy, which said, “At home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security.” The document declared climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”
On September 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.
On January 23, 2013, in an address before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry declared climate change among the top threats facing the United States.
February 16, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
In a June 2014 interview, Obama said:

When you start seeing how these shifts can displace people—entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that—that gets your attention. There’s a reason why the quadrennial defense review—which the secretary of defense and the Joints Chiefs of Staff work on—identified climate change as one of our most significant national security problems. It’s not just the actual disasters that might arise, it is the accumulating stresses that are placed on a lot of different countries and the possibility of war, conflict, refugees, displacement that arise from a changing climate.
​

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, Secretary of State John Kerry called Climate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.
On September 24 2014, the Obama USDA launched its Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. In a memo posted by Secretary of State John Kerry, among other Obama administration officials, read,“From India to the United States, climate change poses drastic risks to every facet of our lives.”
On October 29, 2014, in an address to the Washington Ideas Forum, Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said:

From my perspective, within the portfolio that I have responsibility for–security of this country–climate change presents security issues for us. There’s a security dynamic to that. As the oceans increase, it will affect our bases. It will affect islands. It will affect security across the world. Just from my narrow perspective, what I have responsibility for, that’s happening now.
​

During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”
In a February 2015 address to college students in Iowa, Vice President Joe Biden said“Global warming is the greatest threat to your generation of anything at all, across the board.”
On February 09, 2015, in an interview with Vox, Obama said he “absolutely” believes that the media “sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to “climate change.”
On February 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”
During his April 18, 2015 weekly address on climate change, Obama said, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a day to appreciate and protect this precious planet we call home. And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

In May 2015, the White House released a 1,300-page National Climate Assessment that declared climate change among the world’s foremost threats.
May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”
On July 13 2015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy and Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Kenneth F. Hackett wrote in a joint blog post on the EPA website, praising Pope Francis for dedicating his second encyclical to urging swift action on global warming.
McCarthy and Hackett wrote:

As public servants working in both domestic policy and diplomacy, we understand the urgent need for global action. Climate impacts like extreme droughts, floods, fires, heat waves, and storms threaten people in every country—and those who have the least suffer the most. No matter your beliefs or political views, we are all compelled to act on climate change to protect our health, our planet, and our fellow human beings.
​

An Obama Defense Department report released on July 29, 2015 says climate change puts U.S. security at risk and threatens the global order:

The report reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.
The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges.
​

In his August 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”
In a September address at the United Nations Climate Summit Obama said, “For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week–terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.”
During a September 28 address at the United Nations, President Obama said that ““We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”

 

[superbeets]

Coincidentally, in July 2008, Al Gore called climate change a more dangerous threat than terrorism. “I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced,” Gore told ABC News.

 

[superbeets]

Burns knew this was coming.



[h=1]A Red, Red Rose[/h]
1794

O my Luve's like a red, red rose, That's newly sprung in June: O my Luve's like the melodie, That's sweetly play'd in tune. As fair art thou, my bonie lass, So deep in luve am I; And I will luve thee still, my dear, Till a' the seas gang dry. Till a' the seas gang dry, my dear, And the rocks melt wi' the sun; And I will luve thee still, my dear, While the sands o' life shall run. And fare-thee-weel, my only Luve! And fare-thee-weel, a while! And I will come again, my Luve, Tho' 'twere ten thousand mile!

 

[superbeets]

Baking Britain

​

BASKING Brits sizzle in the sun​

 

[busterhyman]

is this that nice beach i keep reading about-oh wait that's in britain.

 

[Willie99]

Coincidentally, in July 2008, Al Gore called climate change a more dangerous threat than terrorism. “I think that the climate crisis is, by far, the most serious threat we have ever faced,” Gore told ABC News.

in 2005, Algore said every hurricane season was going to be has bad as or worse than it was in 2005 due to Republican policies enabling man made global warming

it's how they roll

 

[ScottL]

Who are the real deniers of science?

By Jonah Goldberg

Published May 20, 2016

Why do liberals hate science?

The left has long claimed that it has something of a monopoly on scientific expertise. For instance, long before Al Gore started making millions by claiming that anyone who disagreed with his apocalyptic prophecies was "anti-science," there were the "scientific socialists." "Social engineer" is now rightly seen as a term of scorn and derision, but it was once a label that progressive eggheads eagerly accepted.

Masking opinions in a white smock is a brilliant, albeit infuriating and shabby, rhetorical tactic. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Science is the language of facts, and when people pretend to be speaking it, they're not only claiming that their preferences are more than mere opinions, they're also insinuating that anyone who disagrees is a fool or a zealot for objecting to "settled science."

Put aside the fact that there is no such thing as settled science. Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does. All the great scientists of history are justly famous for overturning the assumptions of their fields. The real problem is that in politics, invocations of science are very often marketing techniques masquerading as appeals to irrefutable authority. In an increasingly secular society, having science on your side is better than having God on your side -- at least in an argument.

I'm not saying that you can't have science in your corner, or that lawmakers shouldn't look to science when making policy. (Legislation that rejects the existence of gravity makes for very silly laws indeed.) But the real intent behind so many claims to "settled science" is to avoid having to make your case. It's an undemocratic technique for delegitimizing opposing views and saying "shut up" to dissenters.

For example, even if the existence of global warming is "settled," the policies for how to best respond to it are not. But in the political debates about climate change, activists say that their climatological claims are irrefutable and so are their preferred remedies.

If climate change is the threat they claim, I'd rather spend billions on geoengineering to fix it than trillions on impoverishing economic policies that at best slightly delay it. It doesn't matter; I'm the Luddite buffoon for thinking ethanol subsidies and windmills are boondoggles.

Even more outrageous: If you dispute, say, the necessity of spending billions on windmills or on killing the coal industry, you are not merely wrong on climate change, you are "anti-science."

Intellectually, this is a monument of asininity so wide and tall, even the mind's eye cannot glimpse its horizon or peak.

For starters, why are liberalism's pet issues the lodestars of what constitutes scientific fact? Medical science informs us fetuses are human beings. The liberal response? "Who cares?" Genetically modified foods are safe, sayeth the scientists. "Shut up," reply the liberal activists. IQ is partly heritable, the neuroscientists tell us. "Shut up, bigot," the liberals shriek.

Which brings me to the raging hysteria over the plight of transgendered people who need to use the bathroom.

The New York Times recently reported about A.J. Jackson's travails in a Vermont high school. "There were practical issues," Anemona Hartocollis writes. "When he had his period, he wondered if he should revert to the girls' bathroom, because there was no place to throw away his used tampons."

Now, one can have sympathy for the transgendered -- I certainly do -- while simultaneously holding to the scientific fact that boys do not menstruate. This is a fact far more settled than the very best climate science. Perhaps it's rude to say so, but facts do not cease to be facts simply because they offend.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio is pushing to fine businesses that do not address customers by their "preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual's sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual's identification." The NYC Commission on Human Rights can penalize offenders up to $250,000.

Many liberals believe that "denying" climate science should be a criminal offense while also believing that denying biological science is a moral obligation.

In the law, truth is a defense against the charge of slander, but for liberals, inconvenient truth is no defense against the charge of bigotry.

 

[Willie99]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this guy went yard

 

[ScottL]

He usually does. Unfortunately for him he often gets confused with Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for The Atlantic.

 

[PatsFanatic]

It is due to the heat emitted by decomposing bodies of ISIS fighters as their rotting corpses reach record numbers as the coalition cleanses the earth of the vile scum.

wow....i kinda like that