Media Matters video.
Weather Underground stated that the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season ended up with below average activity. There were 8 named storms, 6 hurricanes, 2 intense hurricanes, and an Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) that was 63% of the 1981 – 2010 median.
Fox 12 Oregon states that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued their forecast back in May. They anticipated seven to 12 named storms, with three to six of those becoming strong enough to be classified as a hurricane.
Myfoxorlando.com stated that though the season was quiet, the National Hurricane Center was able to use new tools that could improve the track and intensity predictions.
Meanwhile, the eastern North Pacific hurricane season was its busiest since 1992, with 20 named storms.
At some point the U.S. media switched from using the term “global warming” to the term “climate change.” The was likely done to put the emphasis on the change in climate rather than an increase in temperature.
Global warming is very slow and it is about average temperatures. It doesn’t mean there is no fluctuation in temperatures. For example, the average winter temperature might go down one degree from last year – but the average summer temperature went up two degrees. You still have a net increase in average yearly temperature – even though the winter temperature was actually COLDER than last year! That’s because the summer was warmer than last year…
Scientists and science journalists like to say that one of the best ways to tell that climate change is real is to take a look at the changes we can already see: This year is on track to be the hottest ever recorded, and glaciers, corn, and even grizzly bears are responding to the warming.
However, all those changes won’t be enough to convince most conservative climate skeptics, a new study in Nature Climate Change finds.
A growing body of recent research suggests a person’s political ideology, economic philosophy, and religious beliefs cloud a person’s judgement about global warming. The study, which was released Monday, put that hypothesis to the test by analyzing Gallup polls taken just after the unusually warm winter of 2012.
It found that both Democrats’ and Republicans’ perceptions of the warmer weather in their state tracked fairly well with actual satellite temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
However, “for people who said their local winter was warming, the observed temperature anomalies had no effect on the tendency to attribute that to global warming,” says Aaron McCright, a sociologist at Michigan State University who authored the study.
In other words, the actual temperature had no bearing on whether people believed in climate change. Instead, McCright says, “one of the strongest predictors” is party affiliation: Republicans were far less likely to attribute the warming they felt to man-made climate change than were Democrats. Other variables, such as gender, age, and level of education, were far less reliable as predictors of a person’s global warming beliefs.”
In the U.S., the belief in climate change has faced several uphill battles:
First, many people don’t believe the weather is changing. Second, there are some who believe it is changing, but think the change is not due to science or man-made reasons, but rather believe it is because of Biblical End times. Others believe it is changing, but it is due to a natural cycle. Still others believe the weather is changing and it is for man-made, scientific reasons.
Apparently, a huge number of Americans believe the climate is changing because we are headed for the Biblical End Times.
Secular Talk video.
Kyle Kulinski tries to figure out what or who is behind the climate change “hoax.”
Secular Talk video.
Kyle Kulinski looks at Bill Maher’s interview with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on HBO’s Real Time.
Mahr told Paul that his vote — as an independent — is a possibility.
Kyle Kulinski video.
The incoming Chair of the Senate Environment Committee, James Inhofe (an Oklahoma Republican), is a climate change skeptic.
There are several conflicting arguments the right makes against regulating carbon emissions.
1. Global warming doesn’t exist.
2. The regulations would be too expensive for the U.S.
3. China isn’t reducing their emissions, so the U.S. would be at a competitive disadvantage if the U.S. reduced its own emissions.
However, if the first point is true, then the others shouldn’t matter, but Senator Inhofe seems to make all points at the same time.
The president also just signed a new climate treaty with China, possibly making the third point not valid.
Sam Seder video.
According to the Huffington Post, if anyone thought the announcement of a bilateral U.S.-China climate agreement on Wednesday might lead to a breakthrough on climate policy in Washington, Senate Republicans would like to inform them otherwise.
The presumptive Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he was “distressed” by the U.S.-China deal, arguing that it “requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states around the country.”
Does this mean that McConnell feels there should be more stringent regulations on China, or no regulations on his state? He failed to address that topic.
President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the agreement on Wednesday. Under the deal, the U.S. will aim to cut emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, and China will reach its peak emissions by 2030. This was heralded as a major breakthrough on the path to a global climate agreement.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chamber’s most vocal climate change denier and the likely new chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, took to the Senate floor Wednesday, criticizing the agreement for allowing China years before it begins to reduce emissions, and casting doubt that it ever would. “Even if they did agree to reducing emissions, we wouldn’t believe them,” said Inhofe. “They don’t end up doing what they say their going to do in these agreements.”
Oddly, Senator Inhofe is set to be the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Republicans also plan to take steps to gut the Environmental Protection Agency.
According to MSNBC, when asked the other day about his goals for the next Congress, McConnell (R-Ky.) said his top priority is “to try to do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in.”
Coral Davenport reported earlier this week that GOP leaders are united behind a vision intended to undermine EPA regulations:
“The new Republican Congress is headed for a clash with the White House over two ambitious Environmental Protection Agency regulations that are the heart of President Obama’s climate change agenda.
“At this point, Republicans do not have the votes to repeal the E.P.A. regulations, which will have far more impact on curbing carbon emissions than stopping the [Keystone] pipeline, but they say they will use their new powers to delay, defund and otherwise undermine them.”
Senator Inhofe is expected to open investigations into the E.P.A., call for cuts in its funding and delay the regulations as long as possible.
“Mr. McConnell signaled last week that he, too, wanted to cut the E.P.A.’s budget to keep it from enforcing environmental regulations. Republicans might also include provisions that would repeal the E.P.A. regulations in crucial spending bills – a tactic that could force a standoff between Mr. Obama and Mr. McConnell over funding the government.”
The United States and China, the world’s two largest polluters, have agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. President Obama unveiled the deal at a news conference with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.
The United States will double the pace of carbon emission reduction, the president said, to 26% to 28% of its 2005 level.
China intends to peak carbon dioxide emissions around 2030, and increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20% by 2030, said Obama, in what the White House called the first ever Chinese agreement to set a ceiling on its CO2 limits.
Republican Party criticism quickly followed, as Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the next majority leader, called it “unrealistic.”
President Obama: “Today I can also announce that the United States has set a new goal of reducing our net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. This is an ambitious goal, but it is an achievable goal. It will double the pace at which we’re reducing carbon pollution in the United States. It puts us on a path to achieving the deep emissions reductions by advanced economies that the scientific community says is necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.”
Right-wing media portrayed the achievable goal as an “avalanche,” “onslaught,” or “deluge” of “costly new” regulations.
A few months ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published an analysis of 2013 climate coverage by the three major American cable news networks. The networks were: CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.
UCS reviewed nearly 600 segments mentioning “global warming” or “climate change” across the networks’ most prominent evening and weekend programs during the 2013 calendar year.
The blue color signifies what UCS considers accurate information, the red color signifies misleading information. Of the three, clearly Fox News gave the most inaccurate information and MSNBC gave the most accurate information.