Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in Communities Digital News, republished at WUWt by request of the author.
Business has been captured by Climatism, the belief that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Leading businesses announce plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, purchase renewable energy, use vehicle biofuels, and buy carbon credits. But there is no evidence that commercial policies to “fight” climate change have any measureable effect on global temperatures.
Apple and Google, the darling companies of the millennial generation, have spent billions trying to halt global warming. Apple has brought us the Mac personal computer, the I-Phone, the I-Pad, and other trend-setting electronic devices, becoming the world’s highest-valued company. Google has been called the most innovative technology company in the world, delivering the Google search engine that revolutionized use of the internet, Google Books, Google Maps, and now developing a self-driving car. But both of these leading companies have swallowed the misguided theory of human-caused climate change, hook, line, and sinker.
Apple’s 2015 Environmental Responsibility Report states, “We don’t want to debate climate change. We want to stop it.” Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson now heads up Apple’s environmental efforts. The firm boasts that it measures its carbon footprint “rigorously,” estimating it emitted 34 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in in 2014. But somehow Apple missed the fact that carbon dioxide is a gas emitted in huge volumes by nature. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, nature puts 25 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day as all of the world’s industries.
Apple is spending more than two billion dollars on renewable energy to power its data centers. In February, the company announced an investment of $848 million for electricity from the California Flats solar farm from electricity provider First Solar. Apple claims it now purchases 100 percent renewable energy for all of its US operations and 87 percent for worldwide operations. But the firm is paying a sizeable premium for solar electricity over the price of traditional energy.
Last year, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said, “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.” Google has reportedly committed more than $1.8 billion to renewable energy projects. But these renewable projects typically provide little actual electricity output at very high prices.
An example is the Ivanpah Solar Facility located in the California Mojave Desert, south of Las Vegas. Google invested $168 million in the Ivanpah project developed by Brightsource Energy, which began operations in January 2014. Ivanpah is a concentrating solar facility that has made headlines for its tendency to ignite birds in flight near its towers.
In addition to scorching more than 1,000 birds a year, Ivanpah is a poor electricity-generating station. During 2014, the Ivanpah facility delivered only about half of the electricity it was designed to deliver, which is only about one-tenth of the output of a typical gas-fired power plant. Ivanpah generates electricity at the whopping price of 16 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour, four times the California wholesale price of 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Ivanpah owners NRG and Google have asked for a federal grant of $539 million to pay off much of the $1.6 billion federal loan that was used to build the plant. US taxpayers and California electricity users are paying for the Ivanpah boondoggle.
In their rush to fight climate change, Apple, Google, and other engineering companies don’t seem to realize that the theory of global warming fails the first test of maintenance-of-the-line (MOL) product engineering. Many product engineers spend time in MOL engineering early in their career, handling field calls about the company’s product. When a customer calls to report a product failure, the first question an MOL engineer needs to answer is, “Is the product behaving normally, or is it performing abnormally?”
There is no evidence that Earth’s surface temperatures today are abnormally warm when compared to temperatures of history. Temperature proxy data from many sources shows that Earth’s temperatures have actually been declining for the past 8,000 years. Temperatures have been rising for the last century, but Earth experienced warmer times when the Romans conquered the Mediterranean 2,000 years ago and when the Vikings settled southwest Greenland 1,000 years ago.
Ever notice how actual climate results are never part of the claimed benefits of green energy? Measures of success are always carbon emissions reduced, houses powered, kilowatts generated, and carbon credits purchased. No one ever talks about actual reductions in temperature or about droughts, floods, or hurricanes to be averted by using renewable energy. Adoption of green policies is as hollow as building a hospital and never curing a patient or raising an army and never taking a hill.
In fact, changes in Earth’s climate are dominated by natural factors. Earth’s greenhouse effect is dominated by water vapor and natural emissions of carbon dioxide. History shows that hurricanes, floods, droughts, and heat waves are neither more numerous nor extreme than those of the past. There is no empirical evidence that human emissions have a measureable influence on Earth’s climate. All of the green measures by global business will have a negligible effect on global temperatures.
If Apple, Google, and other companies want to invest in renewable energy and fight climate change, they should place green initiatives in their public relations budget. Such programs don’t have any other effect.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
A little bit to pay as far as they’re concerned, just added to the rest of the marketing budget, got to keep the muppets buying the latest I-Whatever!
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said, “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.”
======================
so, by his own words, Schmidt is either pro climate change or he is opposed to climate change as is really hurting our children and grandchildren.
‘Climate Change’ (the UN definition) may only be fully mitigated by the complete absence of humanity and the ensuing cessation of direct and indirect anthropogenic influence on atmospheric composition and land usage. ‘Climate change’ (COD use of English) is a term that fails the principle of non-contradiction. Whether one opposes it or not, is irrelevant. It is the ‘sine qua non’ of a planet with an atmosphere.
It is therefore uncertain unless we ask Chairman Eric Schmidt, what he means and what indeed he is talking so vacuously about, an observation compounded all the more given his academic credentials. The Google Chairman may have overlooked that his words are ineradicable. His progeny may well have them framed for posterity as postmodern slap-schtick humour.
Whatever future generations encounter, and their challenges will doubtless be different though one hopes far less ideologically ravaged, the progeny of the Google Chairman should remain quite nicely insulated.
Or…
Everyone understands that poverty is occurring, and the people who don’t oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place right now.
And wasting resources on jam tomorrow is not opposing poverty.
I think those companies don’t have any choice, they would be castigated by the media if they defied the consensus and that would have a profound effect on the bottom line. As usual you need to follow the money.
I suspect that just one of those two companies breaking ranks and supporting it with the kind of money they are spending on unreliables would be enough to break the media stranglehold and break the scam. If both acted together, bye bye Paris, bye bye IPCC.
“Business has been captured by Climatism, the belief that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Leading businesses announce plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, purchase renewable energy, use vehicle biofuels, and buy carbon credits.”
Sound like Stockholm Syndrome to me at best or just a commercial gun to the head at worst. Either way, we will pay.
Well when every new born, after weaning, is taught to waste every waking minute playing with their finger toys, instead of trying to learn how to actually do something themselves.
I don’t know if I’m the only one who has noticed it, but now when I am stopped at a red light, about every one out of four occasions, I end up having to honk my horn, to get the driver at the front of the line to wake up, and get going, on the green.
Even the ladies putting on their makeup, get off the mark faster than these Ipad/ped/pid/pod/pud sters.
Me; I’m waiting till they come out with the I-ring.
I always wanted a 10 mm square bauble on my finger, like a class ring; and maybe when I get an i-ring, I will finally pay to watch Ronda Rousey punch out the Brazillian Bombshell, in 34 seconds flat.
I should be able to sell a whole lot of I-ring accessory add on optical magnifiers, or 12 inch I-ring wireless remote screens.
g
It appears all the muppets that bought an Apple I-Whatever have also contributed to Apple’s green fund, that did nothing to lower temperature but just gave Apple expensive feel-goodery.
How is it that Apple and Google claim they are going to be running their facilities on renewables simply because they pay a higher rate than other customers to be plugged into the grid that is overwhelmingly powered by traditional means Without the traditional power their plants would be subject to the brown and black outs that otherwise will come with “renewables”. It’s like some kid standing on the first step to the pool tethered to a life raft wearing water wings saying: “look Ma no hands”
“Ducey said the Apple projects will produce 70 megawatts of clean energy, enough to power more than 14,500 Arizona homes.”
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-to-convert-failed-arizona-sapphire-plant-into-a-data-center/
Ever notice how they always make an empty analogy rather than promise reliable electricity to precisely 14,500 homeowners 365/24/7 ?? (my bold)
Because, whenever one does the math on a global warming claim, it fails spectacularly.
Not that actual results matter to the global warming faithful.
I understand that Bubba but the issue is they need to be attached to the grid because “god forbid” the renewables fail their whole program falls apart. It will be interesting to see just how big and what type of back up generating capacity they are planning for the facility.
As long as they are subsidizing my rates in some way…. more power to them.
If they are getting subsidized to subsidize you why don’t we cut out the middle man and simply build economical electrical energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuel and reduce the price per kwh?
“We don’t want to debate climate change. We want to stop it.”
Good luck with that. The climate has been changing as long as there has been an atmosphere and oceans.
My ancestor Cnut could tell them how futile such an effort is.
@fret, And here I thought his name was Knut, dang now I have to check out my whole family tree again. (but I do agree with you!).
In old Norse… Knútr inn ríki (Cnut The Great)
Either way he got his feet wet
Cnut or Canute in Old English; Knut in Norse.
“Ríki” is cognate with German Reich, so “Knútr inn ríki” doesn’t literally mean Knut the Great or even King Cnut, but something like Knut in Power or of the Kingdom.
100% PR. Next.
If only, I suspect that many actually believe it, and jobs in that area will attract those that do.
Just think, if Google, Apple, etc. had invested the same amount into a Nuclear Power Plant they would have actually reduced CO2 emissions. The only possible benefit can be like Warren Buffett, they get massive tax breaks by spending the money this way. Buffett, at the last shareholders meeting, actually stated that the only reason he was investing in renewables is for the tax rebates.
What was that about paying their fair share? Nevermind.
Sure, who wouldn’t. To not take advantage would be like rejecting matching funds on your 401K. You would have to be a fool not to go for it. It’s free money!!!
Isn’t Buffet now buying up coal company shares at 10 cents on the dollar?
George Soros is. I can find the link if needed. Don’t know whether Warren Buffet is.
and oil shares!
Those are the temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. The warmest two consecutive decades using the same criteria were 1930 and 1940 according to Phil jones
However, having said that I have never understood why they should be considered a global proxy.
Perhaps someone can explain why.
Tonyb
Maybe not a bad proxy if polar amplification gives about 3 times the warming effect (at least in the Arctic). Virtually all of the heat in polar regions comes from the tropics, by air and water. In the admittedly screwed up temperature records you can see that, with a lag of about 5yrs, the Arctic temps follow the global temps. Warming of the 1990s gave warming in the arctic from 1995 to about 2005-6 and then it has been dipping down again:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
I noted some months ago the ‘rise’ above 60N was 0.323/decade but is now 0.318/decade (in Antarctic, it was -0.017/decade but is now -0.22/decade). Actually since 2005-6, the Arctic temp in the graphic has fallen (by eyeball estimate) about -0.2 C in the decade. An el nino may cause a stutter, so lets say -0.1 C/decade. Essentially we have both poles now cooling
Gary,
Some years ago it was 0.326/decade
It’s not only a poor global proxy, but it has nothing to say about the modern warm period. The last data point in Alley’s data is 95 years before present, and present means 1950. So it stops in 1855. Willis (and others) explained this long ago. But it won’t die.
Professor Humlum @ur momisugly climate4you discusses the graph:
‘The …. panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period ……. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3)’.
He also discusses the habit of extending smoothed graphs beyond their formal limits under “Data Smoothing”:
‘As the drawing of smoothed graphs beyond the cut-off points is not dictated by necessity within climate science, this unfortunate habit should consequently be avoided. A frequent, but invalid, argument for extending smoothed graphs beyond their formal limits is that it looks nice’.
http://www.climate4you.com/
Plenty of proxies have little or nothing to say about the modern warm period. Hence we have things like “hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature trick.”
Maybe you should join-arms and sound-off with Steve McIntyre on bringing proxies up-to-date?
Nick, are you looking at the TLT above 60N that is shown in the link? This with a lag of about 5 yrs looks pretty much like the global temp – say, HadCRut.
Chris Hanley
“The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here.”
Well, so it should. But the plot shown here has a green strip marked “modern warm period” with the graph ending right in the middle. That is, 1855 is in the middle of the modern period?? Furthermore, the green strip ends at 0BP, which is actually 1950. Some would say that is the start, not the end, of modern warming, at least GHG-based.
Gary Pearse,
I don’t know what link you are referring to, or what relevance it has. As Humlum said, this graph ends in 1855.
‘Some would say that is the start, not the end, of modern warming, at least GHG-based …’ Nick Stokes at 3:27 pm.
======================================
Two proxy reconstructions for the past 2000 years, one through to 2000, which will be familiar:
Ljungqvist 2010 (Black Line), Loehle 2008 (Blue Line)
Anyone who believes that carbon dioxide causes global warming should immediately stop breathing and exhaling so much of it. If the liberal communist freedom-hating socialist warmunists were all gone, it would be better for the planet, right?
This makes me curious, has anyone calculated the human emissions of co2 via breathing??
Gary M: To entertain myself, I performed such a calculation a few years ago. Based on an estimate I found (Population Reference Bureau) of the world’s population as being 6.1 billion in the year 2000, and an average exhalation of 0.85Kg of CO2 per person per day, I estimated that humans exhale 1.89 X 10^9 metric tonnes (1.89 gigatonnes) per annum.
Later, I found in Professor Ian Plimer’s book ‘Heaven and Earth’ a comment that each year 71 gigatonnes of CO2 is exhaled by animals (including humans) – see page 180 if you have the book.
Except that breathing does only add some CO2 that was captured weeks to months before by plants (or indirectly from plants via meat or fish), out of the same atmosphere where one is breathing in…
The whole biological carbon cycle is even slightly negative: 1 GtC/year more uptake than release. That includes (land and sea) plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals and that specific animal, humans…
The difference: coal, oil and gas were (mostly) formed out of the atmosphere millions of years ago when that was much higher in CO2 content. Now these add CO2 to the current atmosphere, while the natural biosphere cycle doesn’t, as that is mostly temporarily storage…
No Ferd, the mining of coal and other fossil fuels RETURNS carbon back into the shorter term carbon cycle…
….WHERE IT BELONGS.
If its a fossil fuel.. then it used to be in the carbon cycle and got accidentally sequestered.
Its release by ‘man’ is slowly bringing the proper carbon balance of 700ppm, or more, atmospheric CO2 back to the carbon cycle
So, Apple admits that it’s emitting 34 million metric tons of CO2. If they really cared about reducing emissions, then they should immediately stop all operations. This would reduce global emissions by 34 million metric tons.
When you have the most sophisticated tax avoidance strategy on the planet, I guess you can throw your money away on other things.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/26/how-google-and-apple-make-their-taxes-disappear-291571.html
The US tax system is at fault for that, not those companies. America is the only country in the world that taxes its corporations foreign earnings. Apple and Google would like to repatriate their foreign earnings, but they can’t without paying 35% for the privilege. So instead, they borrow at low rates, which should be unnecessary.
Corporations don’t pay taxes to anybody; but they do collect them for governments, from their employees (lower pay), their customers (higher prices) and their shareholders (lower dividends). The corporate tax is a scam to hide from the public what they really are paying in taxes.
g
Corporations are simply supporting the government policies and in return the government provides the regulations that inhibit competition. Call it Corporatism, Fascism, whatever, but that is the primary motive of our nations structure.
I doubt that Google, etc., actually believe in Global Warming.
Believe? No one with a fully functioning brain could, But self backslappers and holier-than-thou fruitloops + piggies with their snouts in the trough? Time for the Emperors New Clothes to be accepted by one and all as the fools fraud that is is – sigh……
It has occurred to me that monumental wastes of money are actually good for the long term survival of a culture. Cultures that build monuments have built fat into the system that can be cut when the manure impacts the oscillating air handling device. The Egyptians could stop building pyramids when famine struck. If we run at max efficiency all the time, we are more vulnerable to a B.O.O.B. (bolt out of the blue, not the president). Its the morons on the left that keep the idiots on the right from sinking the boat – or was it the other way around?
There are staggering amounts of inefficiency in most Western nations. ‘Global Warming’ being just one example.
But most of that inefficiency is in government, and that’s the last thing to be cut when famine strikes. They’ll let the economy burn before they cut pensions to Global Warming Advisors, or lay them off.
Does anyone know if Google and Apple get any tax credits for this nonsense? If so, they may well be making money as a result.
You must understand that business cannot afford enemies. They stock whatever anyone who walks in the door might want. They contribute to all political parties. They say what they think the greenies want to hear as long as they think there are enough greenies listening, and if they have money to waste they’ll put into whatever’s hip at the moment. Good for IPhone sales. That’s Capitalism for ya. I really hate to put this out there because I R one.
Everyone seems miss uses the term “capitalism”. Capitalism is the theory that the economy can be described by analyzing the flow of capital. Socialism is not a theory but a system based on a disproved theorem of capitalism. Socialist have distorted the meaning of the term in a deliberate attempt to confuse.
What you probably mean is free market capitalism. Corporatism//fascism is not capitalism in this sense. Corporatism is a system that absolutely depends on the power of state, and as such is much closer to socialism.
Yup, Pochas. . As VP Finance for a mid sized Canadian company sitting with other companies doing government work, we knew where our bread was buttered and we gave accordingly to each and every political party in the provinces and federally in order to have access to support if needed from whatever quarter. Recorded and legally done donations only but recognized nevertheless in the appropriate places. A Rachel Notley type program recenty proposed for Alberta. Her group is excellent at suggesting they don’t take political donations from coporstions, but they do, it’s just that they have had a convuloted way of doing it for the 35 plus years I was aware of it.
I am getting to the edge of dimentia at my age, but one of my most memorable moments as VP was having the bag man for a left wing provincial party in power show up in my office (1982?) after getting off his Harley I the company parking lot and coming into my office in full black stuffed leathers to explain how if I wanted to continue to do work for the government I should donate this much to the Federal Party, this much to Txxxxy Dxxxcs Hxxxe, and this much to the Provincial party through cheques issued from individual employees with a detailef explanation of the process to comply with the law and a timeline for completion of the transaction and deliver of all cheques to his office.
If I had any political idealism left in my 36 year old brain, it died that day. Being the BEST service company in the province meant you still only got work proportionate to your support. So for a while, our local companies’ share of government work declined while big multinationals gained market share. Care to wonder why? No need to. And when the government changed to a right wing version, it didn’t change a lot except local companies got a local preference premium. Some of it actually went into written procurement policy.
There were occasions I had the opportunity to sit and eat at the same dinner table with three provincial party leaders. They all understood the “game” and while they all appeared ready to tear each other’s throats out in the legislature, the evening at the dinner table was very pleasant and full of jocularity. Like duelling lawyers after court in the local bar. No hope for the human race. The politicians may hold certain principals dear, but they are mostly pragmatic and simply looking to the next election so they can carry on in the game.
Now, if only I were King …
The last 30 years of weather/climate on this planet have featured the best conditions for life, without question, since the Medieval Warm Period(warmer than this) 1,000 years ago.
http://www.ancientdestructions.com/greenland-once-a-viking-paradise/
Absurd that we are using so much and spending so much to fight “the best”.
We could better spend the resources and money to address the real pollution and wasting of natural resources instead of flushing it down the toilet.
Prove to me they are squandering THEIR money and are not squandering OUR tax money via green subsidies, load guarantees and grants.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanpah-solar-project-owners-delay-repaying-loans-documents-say-1411488730
Apple is spending 2 billion and Google 1.8 billion. Has anyone totaled up the total cost of the global warming fiasco?
Does anyone have any statistics on how much has been paid in green levies and subsidies so a proper analysis can be done. If it turns out we are spending trillions of $$ and it is having no effect on CO2 levels, then surely it is a complete waste of money ?
I am curious about the 10,000 year chart purporting to show Icelandic temperature. It is similar to, but different from, another chart shown at WUWT in 2009: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/01/inbetweeners-enjoy-the-warmth-while-it-lasts/.
Today’s chart has a vertical axis expressed in air temperature, the older chart’s vertical axis was in “oxygen isotopes.” Is one chart is derived from the other? Why does the older chart show similar “temperatures” for the Minoan and Roman periods, while the newer chart shows very different “temperatures” for those periods?
NeedleFactory,
The 18O/16O isotopic ratio in the water molecules of the ice is correlated to the temperature at the place where the precipitation is formed (mostly directly snow from water vapor), that is for the Greenland ice sheet also related to the temperature of the ice sheet. Thus with some theoretical assumptions, it is possible to convert the isotopic ratio in the ice to the temperature at the summit for the year the snow was disposed.
Of course, Greenland is not the whole world, but represents most of the North Atlantic ocean temperatures. One need more proxies of other continents / oceans to have a more complete picture, like similar ice cores in Antarctica…
In Paleoclimatology “… oxygen 18 depletion as a function of temperature …” is explained here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/
The source of the graph is shown below:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/images/Figure4.jpg
The dark line represents the smoothed data, the spikes indicate that the past climate has been highly variable.
I wonder what the error bars look like?
Solar Farm in the Desert
Driven past it on my to Vegas ,very impressive.
Small question even with sprinklers and automated wipers where do they get the fresh water from to keep the panels clean.
Over any given year in the past several decades, nature has removed more CO2 from the atmosphere than it added. The increase is manmade, because it occurs despite net sinking of CO2 from the atmosphere by nature.
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
The figure of nature adding 25 times as much CO2 as all industry does would mean that nature also removes something like 25.5 times as much as all industry adds.
Hey, we are greening the planet, does this not make you happy? And do you trust everything you’ve been told about CO2 in the atmosphere – about its even distribution, for one? The CO2 satellite that was launched with so much promise is collecting data that, for some reason in the run up to Paris they are not releasing. The first one they released showed the highest CO2 emissions to be in the Congo, Amazon and little from the big smokes of Europe and North America. And Hawaii…ermm…it is in one of the lowest CO2 concentrations on the planet.
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=C111CA662D20141029&p=Nasa+images+CO2+globally
Gary,
Donald is right: human emissions are one-way additions, natural emissions are two-way circulation, where the natural sinks are larger than the natural emissions.
The 1:25 ratio is a bad argument if you are debating the warmistas, as there is little doubt that humans are responsible for almost all of the increase. Better debate the effect of the increase: none in 18+ years…
CO2 is nicely distributed over the whole planet within 2% of the full scale. As the carbon cycle exchanges about 20% CO2 in and out of the atmosphere over the seasons, I call that well mixed.
The second picture from the OCO-2 satellite CO2 data is available somewhere and already shows a shift to the NH for the higher CO2 levels. Thus simply wait for a full year of data before jumping to conclusions of where the main sources and sinks are…
The hotspots in the pictures shown months ago were from areas that were seasonally sourcing CO2, and those areas sink CO2 at other times of the year.
Statement: Apple’s 2015 Environmental Responsibility Report states, “We don’t want to debate climate change. We want to stop it.”
Does Apple want to actually stop climate change? If so, how will they go about changing our entire global history and mechanism of constant (climate) change?
Statement: Last year, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said, “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.”
What is Schmidt saying? Are those opposing climate change (do such people really exist?) actually hurting future generations? Can someone help me understand what Schmidt’s statement means.
For a long time I have believed myself to have a reasonable command of the English language but I’m failing here as I can’t seem to find meaning or reason in either of these statements. What have I missed?
What is Schmidt saying? Are those opposing climate change (do such people really exist?)
==================
if Schmidt pro climate change – in other words, he wants the climate to change, or is he opposed to climate change – he doesn’t want climate to change? and if he opposed to climate change, then he has already given us his answer:
“the people who oppose it (climate change) are really hurting our children and grandchildren”
If Google and Apple were the good stewards of the planet they purport to be, they would spend those $Billions on bringing clean water, sewage treatment and electricity to 3rd world communities. The number of homes they could power (in fine print, for only part of the day, and for only a certain number of days per year) is a fraction of the lives they could save, if that was their actual goal.
That requires substantial effort that isn’t within their core competence. The British Commonwealth is a group of nations with some history behind it, and the British have shown competence in administering such relationships. In fact, might the British be willing to serve as a conduit for the support efforts of others such as the US for aid to countries in the British Commonwealth and any other countries that might wish to associate themselves? Just an idea. If they want aid let them talk to the British about membership, and the British can talk to us. I think they would do an excellent job.
Betting against Apple and Google. How has that worked in the past?
traf,
For once, we’re in agreement.
I’m going out to buy a lottery ticket…
Apple Newton? Apple Maps? Apple in the late 80’s? Google X? Google Video (its failure was the reason they bought YouTube)? Froogle? These companies get things wrong. They just have core businesses that are so solid they can make billion dollar mistakes and still be insanely profitable.
They get things wrong and they correct.
Newton evolved into a iPodTouch/iPhone. It was the unprofitable idea that with more led to a huge success. Doing things right means you need to find out how to do things wrong.
Apple Maps is great now, you use it? Use it all the time.
In 10 years will we be in Apple cars or Google cars? Or both? There will be mistakes. They will correct.
On AGW, they will correct when someone shows it wrong. So far, no one has.
On AGW, they will correct when someone shows it wrong. So far, no one has.
What has been shown is that AGW is simply too small to detect. No one has ever been able to measure it because its warming effect is so minuscule.
Readers who understand the concept of the climate Null Hypothesis know that if something does not make a measurable change in the system, then for all practical purposes it does not exist.
We have waited more than fifty years for someone to measure AGW. No one has benn able to quantify it. What is “wrong” is wasting any more public money on something that cannot even be measured because it is just too small.
Willis has pointed out that AGW is only a small, 3rd-Order forcing. It is swamped by all the 2nd-Order forcings — which in turn have been swamped by 1st-Order forcings. AGW simply does not matter. It is too tiny.
The climate scare is based on AGW. They were wrong, all of them, because AGW doesn’t matter. At all. So, at what point will you admit that you were wrong about the AGW scare? Or are you incapable of ever admitting it, just like lots of others who have turned the hoax into their own personal eco-religion?
“What has been shown is that AGW is simply too small to detect. No one has ever been able to measure it because its warming effect is so minuscule.”
It measurable in the past, it is not “too small to detect”, as you, db, know all too well. And it is predicted to do much more int he future. Unfortunately, the past isn’t the problem.
But…
It measurable in the past, it is not “too small to detect”…&blah, blah, etc.
This running argument can be resolved easily. Simply post a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total global warming.
If you can produce such a measurement ‘detecting’ AGW, you will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize. What’s more important, you will have shown for the first time that I was wrong.
But if you cannot produce such a measurement, then what I wrote above is correct, and you can move on to Scientology, astrology, or whatever.
The ball is back in your court…
Right, db’er. Why is the ball in my court?
It’s in the world court.
2015 is set to eclipse the last record hot year, which was in 2014.
You must be in your joker mode. Or just desperate…
Why is the ball in my court?
Because you made an assertion that you are unable to back up.
The key phrase is “climate change”, which is Greenie-speak for manmade climate change, a phrase so bogosity-filled that they may as well say “ManBearPig”.
Wait, I thought “climate change” was greenie-speak for “ka-ching!”
Paul Driessen and Chris Skates wrote:
In 2011, the company decided its RE<C project would not meet its goals. Google shut it down. In their article, Koningstein and Fork admit that the real result of all of their costly research was to reach the following conclusion: “green energy is simply not economically, viable and resources that we as a society waste in trying to make it so would be better used to improve the efficiencies in established energy technologies like coal.”
So are they such slaves to Agenda21 that they pretend "green"energy is a solution to anything?
Do they own the green companies? Are they paying themselves these billions of dollars? (in addition to garnering tax write-offs?)
“Ivanpah owners NRG and Google have asked for a federal grant of $539 million to pay off much of the $1.6 billion federal loan that was used to build the plant. ”
Nice. Asking for a federal grant to pay off a federal loan.