Bouncy, Bouncy

Warmist: ‘As weather bounces between record extremes, what say the climate-change deniers?’

In 2011, the experts were saying that the Texas drought might become permanent. In 2015, they are blaming CO2 for the flooding they weren’t expecting. But climate science has advanced since 2011. Now, whatever extreme weather event should show up is due to too much CO2 in the air because we burn fossil fuels.

If the warmist would stop and think for a bit he could probably come up with the skeptic's argument all by himself.

Does it not occur to the warmist to check history for similar periods of bouncy, bouncy?

What would he find? Has the 2015 Texas reversal never happened in the past?

Same Weather As 1957 Proves Climate Change | Real Science

Drought To Flood Is Normal Weather In Texas

In other words the skeptic will research the data to see if similar instances of a quick end to a drought has ever happened in Texas before 2015. The answer is yes and this relieves the current flooding of any unprecedented claim to fame.

How else could ex-governor Rick Perry expect that the rains would return?

“We’ll be fine,” Perry said in mid-August. “As my dad [a retired cotton farmer] says, ‘It’ll rain. It always does.’”

The Oriny of Royal Dutch Shell

In a comment at the bottom of this article which pointed out the irony of Californians who put plastic balls into a reservoir to try and reduce evaporation during the drought, reader Ian5 proceeded to point out the irony of Royal Dutch Shell which supports a carbon pricing scheme.

Ironic too that the oil platform pictured is owned by Royal Dutch Shell – a company that openly acknowledges that CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change…and also publicly supports an international carbon pricing framework. Ironic too that you never hear the climate change-denying Craig Drucker criticize the petroleum industry when it agrees with the science of climate change.

Perhaps Shell realizes that such a scheme will not work and that governments are stupid but go along with them because they believe it will be less detrimental to their business than an open confrontation with the legislative powers that could enact regulations with far more wealth destroying edicts.

The EU carbon market scam        

All sorts of ridiculous arguments are put forward to disguise the fact that carbon trading doesn’t — and won’t — lead to emissions reductions.

Perhaps Shell is going along to get along not because they actually believe the scheme will reduce CO2 emissions but because they realize that governments don’t know what they are talking about and it is less costly to their business to play along to get along. If Shell assesses the political culture and realizes that they are going to do something no matter how inconsequential to CO2 emissions why wouldn’t they go along with the least expensive scheme? It is just smart business.  

What Royal Dutch Shell says publicly does not change the irony of anti-oil protesters using oil-derived kayaks to protest an oil rig leaving for the Arctic or global warming alarmists using oil-derived plastic balls to reduce evaporation from their global warming induced drought.

The disparity is delicious.