Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

July 12, 2014 - 12:43 pm

Senator Marco Rubio is being called “an idiot” by the mayor of South Miami because he has differing views on climate change than the hysterics.

“Rubio is an idiot,” South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard said, as quoted by The Guardian. “He says he is not a scientist so he doesn’t have a view about climate change and sea-level rise and so won’t do anything about it.”

Rubio, a potential 2016 presidential contender, has said that he doesn’t agree with the notion of man-made climate change.

“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said in a May interview on ABC’s “This Week.” “That’s what I do not — and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy.”

Stoddard, who is also a biology professor, contrasted Rubio with his Democratic counterpart Sen. Bill Nelson, who Stoddard said has been holding field hearings where scientists can explain the significance of the data on sea-level rise and climate change to people.

In the Guardian, a geology professor paints a dire picture of Miami’s future:

“There has been a rise of about 10 inches in sea levels since the 19th century – brought about by humanity’s heating of the planet through its industrial practices – and that is now bringing chaos to Miami Beach by regularly flooding places like Alton Road,” says Harold Wanless, a geology professor at the University of Miami. “And it is going to get worse. By the end of this century we could easily have a rise of six feet, possibly 10 feet. Nothing much will survive that. Most of the land here is less than 10 feet above sea level.”

Note that the good professor actually believes in the boiling frog scenario — that city residents will sit there and watch as the waters rise above their head and they all die a horrible death (killed by global warming) without doing anything to save themselves. Most of Holland is 13 feet below sea level, but thanks to a series of dykes and dams, they’ve been able to thrive as a civilization for more than a thousand years. But Miami residents aren’t smart enough to protect themselves if it comes to that?

Note also the extreme range of sea level rise suggested by the professor — 6 to 10 feet. That’s a monumental difference in the scheme of things since a rise of 6 feet is far more manageable than 10 feet.

Also, the professor fails to inform us how much of that 10 inch rise in sea level was in the 19th century when there was a miniscule amount of industrial activity compared to today. Any rise in sea levels in the 19th century would not be due to humans so why include that time period except to make the rise seem more dramatic?

Any “solution” offered by climate hysterics is not going to lower greenhouse gas emissions by one single molecule as long as China is constructing dozens of coal fired electric plants every year.

If all they’ve got is name calling, their case for catastrophic global warming must be weak indeed.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The greenhouse effect is based upon light from the sun going through the glass to warm the interior of a glass enclosed hut. The glass reflects infrared radiation emanating from the light heated interior, thus raising the hut's temperature. The hut loses heat mainly only through conduction. Atmospheric effects are quite different. First, there is no fixed barier like the glass, hence heat loss is by conduction, convection, and radiation. Second, CO2 is not the primary "greenhouse" gas. That would be water vapor but nature makes this primary greenhouse agent self-regulating; more heat means more water vapor, means more cloud cover, means less sunlight, means lower temperature. All the climate models used today to "predict" global warming are simplistic garbage. Note that the "majority of scientists" claiming we will all die if we don't stop CO2, are social scientists, not physical scientists. As for those who think we have the technology to control the climate, here's some advice: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
― Richard P. Feynman
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The significant hallmark of a good Hypothesis is it's ability to accurately predict future events; if it does so, you know that you're on the right track. When it isn't doing so, you discard it, rethink it and begin anew, not rig the numbers to make it all appear to work.

In a great deal of "Climate Science," what they do is not predict an event, but instead they're finding events that occurred that they did not predict, but applying their Hypothesis to as if it had, post-facto.

Charlatans, the lot of them. Even with only an Undergrad background in this science, their manipulations and obfuscations are glaring to me.

(I get a bit turgid if I write longer polemics, so I'll just say 'nuff said)
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (15)
All Comments   (15)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
we had a similar situation in sarasota-they updated the drainage system downtown,no more problem-miami's infrastructure probably hasn't been updated ever
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
AGW is the vehicle for one-world socialism, period. Because AGW is fundamentally a fraud, attempts to understand AGW through the lens of cost-benefit or rationality result in confusion.

It's best just to call it what it is...communism.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The greenhouse effect is based upon light from the sun going through the glass to warm the interior of a glass enclosed hut. The glass reflects infrared radiation emanating from the light heated interior, thus raising the hut's temperature. The hut loses heat mainly only through conduction. Atmospheric effects are quite different. First, there is no fixed barier like the glass, hence heat loss is by conduction, convection, and radiation. Second, CO2 is not the primary "greenhouse" gas. That would be water vapor but nature makes this primary greenhouse agent self-regulating; more heat means more water vapor, means more cloud cover, means less sunlight, means lower temperature. All the climate models used today to "predict" global warming are simplistic garbage. Note that the "majority of scientists" claiming we will all die if we don't stop CO2, are social scientists, not physical scientists. As for those who think we have the technology to control the climate, here's some advice: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
― Richard P. Feynman
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
From the article: "...but thanks to a series of dykes and dams...".

"Dykes"? Lesbians have helped to save Holland? [insert smiley face here]
--
For what it's worth, I've been commenting as "Dikehopper" for many years. It means that I am of Dutch/Holland descent.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
From the article: "The effect is calamitous. Shops and houses are inundated; city life is paralysed; cars are ruined by the corrosive seawater that immerses them. During one recent high spring tide, laundromat owner Eliseo Toussaint watched as slimy green saltwater bubbled up from the gutters. It rapidly filled the street and then blocked his front door. "This never used to happen," Toussaint told reporters. "I've owned this place eight years and now it's all the time.""

Is this Toussaint guy in on it too? Did the scientists buy this laundrymat and then pump saltwater into his business? Does anyone here know what a storm surge or high tide is? How six feet of water behind 30 - 40mph doesn't say six feet? How the bedrock under the Netherlands is not porous limestone which allows the water to travel under dykes and levies?

Did anyone even read the damned article? Seriously, Rick, are you that lost in the weeds?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Did you *think* about the article? That's a predicted 6 feet in the future.The total gain so far is much smaller. And it hasn't changed an inch in the last eight years. If there's water there now that wan't there eight years ago, he should call his plumber.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Although some regions have recently experienced much greater rates of sea level rise, such as the Arctic (3.6 mm/yr) and Antarctic (4.1 mm/yr), with the mid-1980s even exhibiting a rate of 5.3 mm/yr (Holgate, 2007), this newest analysis of the most comprehensive data set available suggests that there has been no dramatic increase – or any increase, for that matter – in the mean rate of global sea level rise due to the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.[Therefore, there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels]"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/20/new-study-finds-sea-levels-rising-only-7-in-per-century-with-no-acceleration/
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I want an explanation for how the climate changed from ice ages and back again for the known history of the earth, before I will entertain even the thought of a man made cause. Hubris? Or hucksters trying to cage a dime?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The guys at Powerline do a phenomenal job of exposing this nonsense for what it is.

The IPCC is on record saying that the redistribution of wealth is the primary objective, no matter how many of the "models" come crashing back to reality.

The Marxists have done everything in a dishonest and fraudulent manner.

However, hurling the epithet at those who call the intentional acts of totalitarians..."hysterics" goes well with the moral equivalency crowd.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I too have been called an idiot in discussions about climate change because I couldn't see how obvious it is that humans are causing the climate to drastically change.

It would be easier to accept the "obvious man-caused climate changes" if something you could actually see was changing.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The significant hallmark of a good Hypothesis is it's ability to accurately predict future events; if it does so, you know that you're on the right track. When it isn't doing so, you discard it, rethink it and begin anew, not rig the numbers to make it all appear to work.

In a great deal of "Climate Science," what they do is not predict an event, but instead they're finding events that occurred that they did not predict, but applying their Hypothesis to as if it had, post-facto.

Charlatans, the lot of them. Even with only an Undergrad background in this science, their manipulations and obfuscations are glaring to me.

(I get a bit turgid if I write longer polemics, so I'll just say 'nuff said)
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “The Stupidity of Climate Hysterics”