The models just keep looking worse and worse. And we are
spending trillions based on this???
(Thanks to Anythony Watts at www.wattsupwiththat.com):
Rest assured, they
are after the money:
climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during an interview at the
World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 22, 2014. AP
a news conference .. in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive
secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted
that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from
ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. Article on this.
Normal Climate --Would you prefer this?! ^
pause? or normal variation? ^ Past CO2 levels ^ Past Temp
according to Greenland Ice ^
Good Sea Level rise summary
CRU has Finally given up the hockey stick lie! graphs
(thanks to Steve McIntyre of www.climateaudit.org
It's the Sun,
Stupid! Look here and here...
Its the Supernovae, stupid... here
These are the only three graphs you need to see... electricity,
Even the IPCC knows the game is up 12-2012: look at graph
The liberal-academic-industrial complex - much like the complexes Eisenhower warned us about.
James Hansen finally admits climate won't kill us tomorrow
Climate Models cannot predict the climate
Warming Petition Project
to the welfare state
sober look at alternative energies
cars aren't always so green
Facts on Wind Power
Climate Money Story
Even Google says no hope for alternate energy
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry,
heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage
equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new
requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre,
neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are
made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive
energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on
would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean
even more vast renewables farms and even more materials and energy to
make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be
like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
.....analysis of article
Discussion of Climate Change Conspiracy
Sixing the 97% consensus argument
Great Argument showing AGW Failure
vehicles pollute as much as gas
Unbelievable... Att Gen Lynch on prosecuting
Climate Change "Deniers"
Roger pielke too true lament.
Scott Adams explains it all
Third Assessment Report, "The climate system is a coupled
non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of
future climate states is not possible"
NASA data tampering
William Connollley Tampering of wikipedia
80 temperature graphs
Planned Coal Stations. And the US has how many? Why is the world going nuts with CO@ when we have about 5000 planned ones????
Solar Panel Toxic Waste. Why aren't the greens concerned about things like this!!!!
Tesla Car manufacture creates more CO2 than driving one.
Acknowledgment of the pause, finally.
There are five official temperature data records. Three of these are
based on measurements taken on the Earth's surface, versions of which
are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction,
part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from
measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing
Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville
Here is a study which shows the corruption in the modification of the basic data.
Science is all about the continual testing of theories to ensure they
are still valid, which is why the global warming cult's tut-tutting
reply "The science is settled" is a
non-sequitur. Ed Driscoll
95% of all CO2 emitted each year is natural
- various sources. Hard to believe the 5% emitted by humans has
much effect. And "balance" -- what is that and what should
it be? CO2 has been higher and lower in the past.
There's too much authority and too little hard facts in much of science today.
Well, actually there always has been, but with grant money flowing only
to those who conform to the consensus it's really bad now. Jerry
Drax, Britain's biggest power station, received more than 450 million
in subsidies in 2015 for burning biomass, which was mostly American wood
the coal under the ground of course.] Curiously, there are over
200 trillion cubic feet of dead trees stored under Lancashire. They may
have been very very small trees, like algae sized, but nonetheless,
4,999 kilometers closer. Apparently when all the trees of Canada and
the US are used up, and the UK moves out of the Wood Age, it will have
some spare gas to heat UK homes for the next 1,200 years. Jo Nova 2-26-2017
"For more than a decade, climate scientist/activist James Hansen has
been clear on the daunting math of CO2 reduction. He first stated that
the world had ten years to reverse course on fossil-fuel reliance, a prediction made in 2006 in The New York Review of Books. When that prediction came due, Hansen floated the need to go emissions-negative. Wow! Then, just a couple of months later, he recanted
to say that we still have time to turn things around. (The ponderous
response of the climate system also means that we don't need to
instantaneously reduce GHG amounts.) Lots of confusion, to say the
least, from the father of climate alarmism." Robert Bradley WUWT 3-27-2017
"A deciding factor
was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs
regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate
science. Research and other professional activities are professionally
rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a
politicized academic establishment funding, ease of getting your
papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments
to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition,
etc. How young scientists are to navigate all this is
beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus
career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of
skeptical young scientists)." Judith Curry on her decision to
quite GATech and academia 2016
"Prepare for impassioned speeches
from a bunch of extremely scientific spokesdudes and spokesmodels on
how Trump hates water and air, and how spending $ Trillions with a T to
cool the earth by 0.1C in fifty years is a scientifically brilliant
plan supported by 97% of all true moral noble and upstanding humanoids
everywhere. Amen." Willis Eschenbach on WUWT 4-6-2017 concerning
the coming "March of Scientists" 2017
Censoriously asserting one's moral superiority and treating skeptics as
imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts, he adds. None of this is
to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences.
But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an
overweening scientism. They know as all environmentalists should
that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors
married to political power. Brett Stephens NYTimes 4-28-2017
As I’ve often said, I’m not a “Climate Change Denier”, but I am definitely a model denier: the current models can’t predict the past.
*A footnote: roughly half of all of the substances on Earth are carcinogenic. The
proportion is the same in natural and man-made substances. The
overwhelming majority of carcinogens that humans ingest come from beer,
wine, mushrooms and peanuts. This is not because of additives, etc.,
but rather because those foods are inherently carcinogenic. Any
carcinogens that we ingest via additives, preservatives, etc., are at
most a footnote. Does that mean that I have stopped drinking beer and
wine? Um….no. But I take it easy on the mushrooms. --John
Hindraker Powerline Blog 6-19-2017
Put Simply, cosmic rays cause clouds --Jerry Pournelle blog 6-6-2017
Heartland Institute about CC. Medium's Ethan Siegel response. Future response to Ethan.
Jo Nova 6-19-2017 So let's get
real data. Let's separate one state in Australia, run it on 42%
renewables and see what the price is .... Oh wait.
Experiment done: spot the renewable megasuccess in South Australia:
blackout costs 367m$, normal electricity twice the price. And Al Gore lauds SA as a leader! Certainly in cost of electricity.
Australia Power Costs Peta CredlinJune 18, 2017 12:00am WUWT 11-18-2017
biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think
we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.
And after they almost sleepwalked their way to defeat at the last
election, it would appear Coalition MPs have found their voices again
on the issue that has defined Australian political debate over the past
15 years or more.
There’s no doubt that any policy that lowers Australia’s CO2 emissions
will increase the cost of power and any move away from baseload
capacity will make our network more unreliable.
Forget the movie, this is the real “inconvenient truth” that climate
change zealots have never wanted to acknowledge. For too long, the
views of the Zeitgeist have dominated debate and anyone daring to
question any aspect of climate change was branded a sceptic. Scientific
fact or not, any issue that’s galvanised the Left to the point of
hysteria makes me sceptical that it’s more about the politics than
Right now, China’s emissions are 20 times those of Australia and even
if they meet their Paris Agreement commitments, by 2030, China’s
emissions will be 50-60 times ours. Seriously? We sell off industry and
jobs in a mistaken belief the world that is acting with similar intent
but it is clear they’re not, and won’t. Again, remember my refugee
example and you get what I mean.