Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
214 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
January 28, 2024 2:07 am
Where’s Waldo?
“”Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.”” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/27/greta-thunberg-joins-protest-against-expansion-of-hampshire-airport
“”Greta Thunberg briefly detained at coal protest in Germany”” – same rag
etc
Are they discussing the Farnborough Aerodrome, now Airport? Home of the 2nd largest, world-famous, Farnborough Airshow? The event that brings in thousands and thousands of aircraft enthusiasts from all around the world and has become a very lucrative business for all concerned? A business so lucrative, in fact, that successive UK governments (Conservative and Labour) have overturned every decision made against Farnborough by the local council and given Farnborough what they wanted at nearly every occasion. Yep – Greta does know how to pick a hopeless case.
The operative word here is “aging.” Everything wears out eventually — even mountains. The important point is that they didn’t fail immediately, which is implied by your claim,
What is expensive is building glorified windmills that only work when the wind blows within certain wind speeds and either don’t work if there’s not enough wind or have to be shut down when it’s too windy.
In the UK, we have installed 30GW of wind power and 6.5GW of nuclear.
Last year wind managed to supply 8.81GW of electricity and nuclear 4.6GW* (see image)
And you think nuclear doesn’t work! What planet are you on?
*Nuclear could easily provide constant, reliable electricity if allowed.
Mylittlepony appears to be stuck in some fantasy world where leftists never lie, are never wrong and nuclear really doesn’t work. Is Tinkerbell the world president in your fantasy, mylittlepony?
2 Virginia plants, 2 reactors each, one Surrey, has already been and the second North Anna will soon be licensed form 80 years of operation. Initial expenses paid for and now onto producing reliable dispatchable power.
These are late 70s era reactors that will probably be extended to over 100 years life cycle. You know, what will require 6 to 8 rebuilds for bird choppers that cannot provide dispatchable output.
Have you volunteered for YOUR smart meter to shut off ALL of your electricity when wind is not producing enough power?
Do you just go out and shut off your main breaker when you get a notice the you should curtail usage, since you want others to suffer from high electricity prices, do you make sure you help them when “power” is short?
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022 https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table
Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.
Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
IF then US did the Manhattan project type program and used Highly Enriched uranium for fuel allowing operation for 25 years or more without refueling and the US Navy’s new carriers do, the quick production of hundreds of reactor cores COULD actually provide substantial electricity more quickly.
BUT libs will be libs and will do whatever they can to harm the US, see Keystone XL pipeline, blocked by Obama then Brandon. US diesel fuel prices would be much lower if the Heavy crude from Canada was traveling by pipeline at much higher daily quantities than currently by trains enriching Buffett, the Dem Crony Capitalist.
BTW, the A1B reactors in a Ford carrier has a thermal output of 700 KW. There are two in each carrier, each able to supply all needs. So about 50% of the electrical output of a typical civilian nuke plant each. And the reactor vessels are made in Ontario and shipped to Newport News for installation, so portable. and not required to be completed in situ.
The A1B is rated for 700MWth. This would be good for about 230MWe, so you would need 5 of these reactors to match the output of a single unit of the Palo Verde plant in Arizona.
Refueling in a nuclear generating station isn’t that big of a deal, large LWR’s can be refueled every 18 months, which gives time for maintenance of the balance of plant.
So every 18 months or so, they refuel, and need transport the new fuel in and store the removed fuel, always on site since there is no storage facility in the US.
This takes approximately a month.
During this time they also do any repairs, replacement or upgrade of the related 0generating and steam cycle equipment.
With a 25 year fuel cycle, no transport or storage of fuel for 25 years.
Now shutdowns for repair and maintenance will be ALWAYS needed, but not timed for fuel replacement.
Just look at the crap Duke Energy does for a refueling, starting 3 YEARS before, even when they refuel every 18 to 24 months. I wonder how much the government regulations have to do with that.
“Is the US finally coming into the 21st century in terms of transportation?” You are talking a privately built Las Vegas – Los Angeles line. They are hiring construction workers. Compare it to a state built Bakersfield-Merced line (you can find both terminal cities on a good map). Go Gavin Newsom!
Privately built but with 3 Billion IRA green new deal taxpayer funds.
As I mentioned before, my daughter rode Brightline in Florida to/from Orlando/Miami and really liked it a LOT. She said it was smooth and quieter than an airplane and restrooms were large and clean. She was delayed for 2 hours by a Darwin Award winner who went around a crossing barrier and got hit by a different train. She said the same crossing had another Darwin Award winner a week or so before her trip. All those liberals from NY, NJ and Chicago moving to Florida, I guess, culling their own herd.
Now this is not REALLY high speed, like a hyperloop is meant to be, but way better than driving if you can avoid I15 from Vegas to Barstow and beyond, and Cali gas prices.
I haven’t traveled to Cali in years since the grandkids got older and we stopped going for the theme parks (bought the whole family Disney annual passes one year and we went 6 times for multiple days each time) so no impetus to go there now. We will probably go to that coast again sometime in the future so we may just use the train. I guess you can see, we are in no hurry.
Ron Long
January 28, 2024 2:36 am
Title of news short making the rounds on TV ins Chile and Argentina (Spanish): En menos de diez años, Mendoza perdera su playa en el Pacifico (In less than ten years, Mendoza lose their beach in the Pacific). This was generated for the people in Mendoza, Argentina (where I live) because the Chile coastal town of Reñaca is a favorite summer vacation spot. I was just there and offer the following review (as a Geologist): The entire west coast of North and South America is a converging plate boundary, with subduction of the Pacific Plate under the various Americas Plates producing abundant volcanism, a part of the Ring of Fire. Although the subduction has generally became oblique, and the resulting volcanism has slowed down some, the process continues. So, both due to the Plate Convergence and the Thermal Inflation of the plate margin, the entire Pacific Ocean Americas Plate margin is EMERGING (going up)! Locally, as at Reñaca, the geology is dominated by older granite masses, and their constant erosion produces a mixture of quartz and feldspar sands, which appear to be in great abundance (personal observation, girls in thong bikinis had no trouble walking along the beaches).
This is talking point nonsense! The beaches along the entire Americas west coast may have intermittent issues with the emerging coastline, but quickly re-establish themselves. The East Coasts are another matter. This is a blatant lie, and of the type that is the new normal for the masses, who are empowered by their government’s support all over the globe.
If we could all use your version of “personal observation” to practice Geology, every red-blooded bloke here would have a PhD in that admired discipline.
🙂
sherro01
January 28, 2024 3:19 am
Here is an image (with Natural Intelligence) of how the Australian economy tanked in 2008.
See how electricity prices to the consumer rocketed above the basket of pther items in 2008?
See how since then, desperate times called for desperate measures that distorted the market something horrible. Those temporary dips are taxpayer money returned to the voters as “concessions” in case they think politicians are stupid and do things to raise the price of electricity.
Geoff S
It would help prove your point if you superimposed an unemployment rate graph, as well as those for the stock exchange, deficit, balance of payments and such, for comparison. As shown, the price increases up to Nov2008 don’t look that bad on that graph with that scale – however the increases just before Dec2009 look awful!
What happened in spring/summer 2000? Seems like the CPI indexes, especially for electricity, took a major hit.
In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga volcano, located close to the Solomon Islands, exploded,
The eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano did more than just launch a destructive tsunami and shoot a plume of ash, gas and pulverized rock 55 kilometers (34 miles) into the sky.
It also injected 146 megatonnes (161 megatons) of water vapor into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere) Satellite measurements showed, in July 2023, the temperature of the lower-atmosphere increased from
0.38 C to 0.64 C = 0.26 C above the 1991-2020 mean.
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
.
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f, where h is 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, is wavelength, and c = 3 x 10^8 meter, is the speed of light in a vacuum.
If photon wavelength is 15 micrometers, the photon energy is 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule . CO2
CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers.
CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, per Image 11A
CO2 molecules absorbs IR photons at these finger print frequencies, which is only about 8% of the available IR energy reflected by the earth and lower-atmosphere.
The other 92% is absorbed by water vapor, except for the blue part, which escapes to space through the atmospheric window, per Image 11A
As that 8% of all IR photons is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second).
That heat is distributed, by means of ‘mass transfer of energy, and phase transitions (conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation), to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% Argon; those three have no IR windows.
That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons, i.e., that 99.9% gets heated and cooled by conduction and convection
After some time, that heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere. . H2O
H2O molecules, as water vapor, on worldwide average, are at least 9.54 times more prevalent in the air than CO2 molecules, about 21.3 times, in temperate zones and 70.5 times in the tropics
Water vapor has a much more effective fingerprint spectrum than CO2
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers are mostly absorbed by H2O, which has:
1) at least a three times wider spectrum than CO2, and
2) absorbs more IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, which have more energy, per Image 11A and E = h x f equation. . It is obviously dishonest to officially claim water vapor does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, when H2O molecules, on worldwide average, absorb at least 9.54 x 3 = 28.6 times more IR photons, with many energies, than CO2 molecules; at least 21.3 x 3 = 63.9 times more, in temperate zones and at least 70.5 x 3 = 211.5 times in the tropics.
This means water vapor absorbing IR photons will totally swamp whatever CO2 does.
I am glad you wrote this. Just the other day, I was talking with the new owner of my store, a woman in her 40’s. The weather has been nice and warm the last few days here in Florida so she remarked about the “blanket” covering the Earth. I was telling her about CO2 and water vapor and such and I was getting a blank look. So I made it simple for her, I asked her why deserts are hot in the day and cold at night, something that the “blanket” should prevent. And why Florida summer nights are warm and muggy? Water vapor, or the lack of …. she got it. Now, whether or not is totally technically right, the point I want to make is that most people have no ability to understand what you wrote nor do they want to understand it. They need simple explanations that they can relate to rather than scientific explanations that are way over their heads. That is why the “blanket” analogy resonates with them. So in order to get through to the majority, we must present simple, everyday explanations they can understand.
Deserts also lack night clouds and sand releases heat faster than dirt or foliage.
Water vapor is the primary
element of the greenhouse effect but climate CHANGE from an increased greenhouse effect can not be directly caused by water vapor. WV is a dependent variable that can only increase if SMETHING ELSE causes the troposphere to war,. WV is a climate feedback.
What causes the greenhouse effect (Water vapor, clouds and CO2) and what DIRECTLY causes the greenhouse effect to increase (more CO2 and more clouds) are TWO different subjects.
As I said, not totally technically 100% correct but a simple example that can be understood by the majority of people to debunk the “blanket” analogy. How much CO2 increases any greenhouse effect is another argument altogether.
My comment indicates CO2 plays practically no role regarding global warming.
In the tropics, water vapor absorbs photons 211.5 times as much as CO2
Without the heat from the Tropics, the world would be a very cold place.
The Earth already has a blanket or parka if you will, the current make up of the atmosphere that keeps temperatures above freezing. How much of a difference would you feel if you put a thin tee-shirt over that?
WV is a dependent variable that can only increase if SOMETHING ELSE causes the troposphere to warm. WV is a climate feedback.
And also:
Tonga temporarily increased the tiny amount of water vapor in the stratosphere by about 10% which had no observed effect on the climate.
Clearly these statements cannot both be true.
Either WV (Water Vapour) can increase from seismic activity without the troposphere having warmed or the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere did not increase by about 10%.
And for that matter, were the primary element of the greenhouse effect changeable from causes other than temperature changes, then the greenhouse effect must be constrained. Otherwise, the world would have accelerated away to Venus conditions millennia ago. Which it didn’t.
Unfortunately, this does not disprove AGW as we have already disproved Richard Green’s inconsistent premises.
Water vapor and clouds are the only greenhouse components. CO2 has a direct cooling forcing which is offset by additional absorption at the edges of the 15 micron bands.
There is also the issue of the effectiveness of potential nuclei. Early experiments in cloud seeding expected that if the potential nuclei had the same crystal symmetry as ice (hexagonal) it would work better. That is why silver iodide was chosen. Unfortunately, there isn’t good statistical evidence to support the claims of cloud seeding. This is another example of how little we know about atmospheric processes. So, it isn’t just the quantity of particles, but size, solubility, and crystal symmetry may all be important parameters.
“but climate CHANGE from an increased greenhouse effect can not be directly caused by water vapor.”
Who proved that there was an increased greenhouse effect?? No one has proven anything – not when the temperature data is swamped with UHI and bad statistics, not when the world is still colder than about 1000 and 2000 years just based on agricultural data – in spite of our greater tech, our ancestors were growing things more northerly and at higher elevations than we can.
And to turn your argument back at you – lots of human activity causes increased water evaporation compared to the natural world: dams, irrigation, jet flights, even people watering their lawns and filling their swimming pools in the normally dry summer – what if that increase in water vapour is what ’caused’ the increase in temps ‘seem’ in various temperature series?
What if it’s the dramatic reduction in dirty coal use, and increased pollution controls that have cleared the air since the ’70s – right when we went from expecting an ice age to seeing temperatures rise.
Why did they stop rising after the 1997/98 El Nino, and for about a decade after in spite of the developing going through fossil fuels as fast as they could?
Greenhouse effect due to changes in CO2 on the macro scale, from 300-420ppm, re: a 1-2°C rise over the past century, is not proven. It’s a factor, a bit player in the climate but it’s not the control knob. And as the concentration continues to increase, each ppm does even less than before.
The last data shows ECS is now only about 0.7°C, whereas most non-government alarmist scientists had thought around 1° and the IPCC something like 2 to 4° (sorry if I don’t remember the exact range correctly except that the range got larger as time went on in spite of all the money spent). That’s based on current data, so 0.7°C for doubling CO2 – up to 424 from 212, though it’s normally stated as for future CO2 growth, say up to 848 ppm – which would take over a century easily. Which will probably never be reached because the world population is leveling off and we’re using energy more efficiently too.
Why should humanity worry about 0.7°C, or 1, or even 5 degrees over more than a century, and spending trillions to tackle fake monsters and enrich special interest and insider billionaires, instead of increasing prosperity and quality of life.
You may have a ‘bee-in-your-bonnet’ about a CO2 caused greenhouse effect, but realize when someone on this site says there is no effect, for the most part they mean no PRACTICAL effect, no net effect, etc. They are not denying that CO2 molecules can absorb an IR photon and re-emit it, sometimes right back at Earth, slowing that bit of energy’s trip to outer space.
No use arguing about CO2 trivia when lives, livelihoods and trillions are at stake.
“WV is a dependent variable that can only increase if SMETHING ELSE causes the troposphere to war,. WV is a climate feedback.”
Volcanoes blasting water into the atmosphere is just one example of how water vapour is not just a feedback depending on warmth.
Stop stating axioms that don’t exist – climate science is still in diapers – and making lots of foul green-black poo, by the way, so way too early to pretend we know the system that well.
The more I think about it the more I see water vapour has to remain an independent variable, or at least not dependent on temperature.
Another example: because of a change in prevailing winds in the Southern Ocean, the ice extent was less than normal recently, even though it was a very cold year the wind was keeping the ice closer to shore than it would normally. It was, however thicker than normal too, but the climate alarmists couldn’t stop panicking long enough to notice that.
That change in winds would also blow more vapour laden air into the heart of the freeze box, never to be seen again. And that drying of the air wasn’t dependent on temperature, just a change in wind patterns, which someone smarter than me will probably reply that were dependent on the El Nino, or the PDO or even AMO, or some other collection of letters of the alphabet.
However, make sure that in the process of dumbing it down that it is still correct. If someone can show that your claims are wrong, then you lose credibility and have not only wasted your time, but done damage to the skeptical position.
Agree, but keep in mind that the fear mongers never worry about how correct their position is, they know fear will overcome reason. So keeping it accurate but as simple as can be is the counter tactic.
That’s true – and the simplest argument for me is when I look at the latest graph from Dr. Spencer (though it applies to NASA et al as well) and I see the temperature range on the left axis on the time range on the bottom – and the weather forecast for tomorrow and I say “so what!?” It’s barely a good start, nevermind doomsday!
It should be reassuring to most people that in spite of the huge amount in fossil fuel use since China, India and the rest of the world decided they didn’t want to be poor anymore (roughly since 2000), there hasn’t been any sharp increase in temperature and not even a sharp increase in the CO2 uptick every year, still roughly 2-3ppm/yr.
One can look at a century+ long temperature series and see things warming since about 1910 up to now with the same slope – with a long break between 1940-ish until 1975-ish when the natural world didn’t seem to care about all that CO2 expended in the post-WWii rebuilding and the huge expansion of consumerism in the 60s and early 70s; seems like that CO2 wasn’t as magical as the current CO2.
Tonga had no observed effect on the global average temperature.
The warming starting in June 2023 was from an El Nino, with zero relationship to a January 15, 2022 volcano
Tonga temporarily increased the tiny amount of water vapor in the stratosphere by about 10% which had no observed effect on the climate. The strongest effect would have been in the two months after the eruption, not 18 months later.
Ah Richard, I suppose that you consider calling someone a ‘nitwit’ to be an effective way to persuade others?
It really causes me to wonder what your motivation is. It certainly doesn’t look like it could be to convince as many people as possible that there’s NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Those people who will only read a few words of what I write, due to confirmation bias, will get a quick summary with one word aimed at the author: nitwit.
Someone has to say it, or else this becomes a conservative echo chamber.
You can not refute the climate emergency hoax by making up alternative one – off bizarre climate theories.
The right approach is to give credit to the hoaxers for the little science they get right: There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 makes it stronger.
If you can’t admit that, then you are saying almost 100% of scientists are wrong, even the “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE?
Real science says more CO2 causes a little warming, and centuries of anecdotes tell us people like warming. And science tells us plants like more CO2.
You can’t refute predictions of climate doom by claiming CO2 Does Nothing … and 100% of what the government says is wrong … and leftists lie about everything. Those beliefs destroy credibility.
You can’t refute predictions of climate doom by claiming CO2 Does Nothing
You can’t refute them by ignoring all the science. That is what you are doing. It’s not that CO2 does nothing, CO2 increases cause BOTH warming and cooling effects. You want to ignore the cooling effect. In my view, that makes you the “nitwit”.
Richard, I agree with most of what you said there. Where we differ and for the most part the only time I ‘insult’ you with my ‘science-free’ comments is when you do not attempt to persuade but rather just attack OTHER SKEPTICS.
Now I do not live up to any ideal of being perfectly respectful of every interlocutor. But that is not my goal. My goal is to persuade as many people as possible that there is no climate emergency. I reserve ridicule for those who have a proven track record of being invincibly ignorant like griff/Lusername or the Rusty Nail. What you perceive as insults from me is in reality tough love.
I have also rebuked bnice2000 for the same reasons. The revised Reagan Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow skeptic.
That does not mean that respectful reasoned arguments in disagreement with another skeptic must be avoided. But it is just as counterproductive to alienate a potential ally over a scientific dispute by ridiculing them as it is to allow their nonsensical pseudoscience to go unchallenged.
bnice,
My definition of a skeptic must differ from yours. I count everyone who agrees with the statement “THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY”.
I don’t care if 99% of what else they believe is batshit crazy. I hardly even want to discuss a lot of it in many cases. I guess you’d categorize me is lukewarmist with an open mind toward views that say natural effects explain most of the modern warm period. I’m also happy to ally with all the people who say that CO2 emissions eventually need to be constrained but mostly we should just adapt and expand nuclear power.
The urgent priority is to derail the program to destroy the economies of the western countries. If there’s a socialist atheist lesbian vegan who doesn’t think Nut Zero makes sense, I’m with her. If there’s a libertarian survivalist fundamentalist preacher gun nut who doesn’t think the Inflation Creation Act is a good idea, I’m with him too.
If you don’t think there’s an enhanced greenhouse effect or a greenhouse effect at all, if you think all the CO2 is coming from the ocean, if you think any number of things about the climate that in my judgment don’t make sense, that no more disqualifies you to be my ally than I would refuse to talk to you because you don’t share my religious beliefs.
Rich. A lukewarmist is just a name for someone who supports an unproven hypothesis. There is no scientific imperative to support an unproven hypothesis. Therefore, a ”lukewarmist” is a ”believer and unscientific. You place yourself in the same category as Greene.
dickie-boy has never been able to produce any, no matter how many times he has been asked to, just rants on, avoiding the issue.
dickie is totally unable to consider any other, more rational, explanations for the tiny amount of highly beneficial warming… childishly referring to people who put them forward as “nutters”
He is “locked-in” to the CO2 warming farce.
That makes him a died-in-the-wool AGW cultist, a true believer.
No, I don’t ’believe’ in AGW. I judge that there is some evidence that human emissions may affect the climate, if for no other reason than the apparent correlation between modest warming and CO2. But I also conclude that it’s irrelevant because after decades of observation, it’s still debatable and there is no evidence of anything but a net benefit from whatever it is that has warmed the climate modestly.
As I’ve said many times, the climate system is incredibly complex and there are many factors that have a real effect but many of those are not significant.
If you don’t worry about the harm that climate policy is having on western economies, you probably don’t live in California or the northeast, let alone the UK, Germany, or Australia. It’s good to be an optimist but I hope you won’t have to regret your naivety.
I agree. There is no empirical evidence and hence, there should be no argument concerning human co2 and modern warming. It is simply belief based and not science based.
Why do you care so much about that? If CO2 emissions warm the climate a little or they don’t, either way the ‘cure’ is far worse than the imagined ‘disease’.
We need to focus on opposing the policies that threaten our way of life.
It’s the foundation of the entire argument. If we concede that all scientific principles are for sale, all is lost. As for threatening our way of life, I have serious doubts. No one will accept going back to the caves. In the end the argument will switch to ”we can’t stop it so we will need to adjust”
How is an esoteric scientific hypothesis worth even thinking about? The empirical evidence shows that whether the greenhouse effect is enhanced by our emissions or a myriad of negative feedbacks negate most or all of it, it just doesn’t matter! 1.5-2°C of warming from a further doubling of CO2 would be a boon to humanity, not a harm.
The only thing we have to fear about climate change is the irrational policies reacting to the fear of climate change.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether there is or isn’t an enhanced greenhouse effect. As long as you agree that there’s NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, and vote in line with that, I could care less what else you want to obsess on.
So if someone says human co2 is causing warming, I should say ”maybe, but there is no crisis”
Is that it? That’s not going to happen, That leads to useful idiots like Greene who perpetuate the bullshit unnecessarily. Let there be no confusion. The ”science” of human caused global warming should not be conceded. You can argue about the weather as much as you want.
What does this add to the discussion? In fact climate was changing significantly in those years and it clearly was natural change, just as most likely today’s change is.
Well, Mike, I suppose that you understand my view. It’s hard for me to grasp why it’s more important to you to oppose a hypothesis than to oppose palpably harmful policies.
If you’re voting for politicians who oppose bad climate policy then like it or not, we’re allies.
”There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 makes it stronger.”
Yet another repetition of this impotent and meaningless statement
Real science says more CO2 causes a little warming,
Yet another repetition of this impotent and meaningless statement
Those beliefs destroy credibility
What more than belief do you have of human co2 emissions causing warming of any consequence? You really seem incapable of the slightest hint of critical thinking. And your self-awareness is nowhere to be seen.
If I understand you correctly you say WV that is on average 10X more ppm than CO2 and is GHG has no effect on climate when increased by 10%. But a 130 ppm in CO2 (a weaker GHG) which is about equal to a 3% increase in WV does. Hmmmm!
One doesn’t ‘easily.’
But, assuming a 6ft paddling pool, one Olympic sized swimming pool would be roughly equivalent to 2663 paddling pools of water.
So about 154.5 million paddling pools in total.
Hunga Tonga, while a powerful eruption, turned out to be nothing more than a pimple on the butt of an elephant. This brings into question assumptions about the cooling effects of aerosols that have been inferred by climate scientists in their models of future warming since Pinatubo. They use this aerosol correction to explain a rather large discrepancy in their “too big” warming predictions.
The climate crisis (CAGW) is a 44 year old fairy tale. On that we agree. But there is AGW and it has been good news: Mainy warmer winters in colder climates since 1975.
dickie is so scientifically illiterate that he mistakes LOCAL URBAN warming, being smeared all over the world, as meaning “global”
Yes, the mal-manipulation of data and the homogenising, infilling, and smearing of urban affected data, over vast areas where it doesn’t belong, does make URBAN WARMING into “global warming” in the surface fabrications….
In the United States a conservative would be someone who favors the smallest government possible, that can get the job done.
A conservative would want to pay the lowest taxes possible, while still funding necessary government activities..
A conservative would want as little restriction and regulation from government as possible.
A conservative would be in favor of a strong national defense, including a secure border.
A conservative would support individual rights and freedom.
My question is: Why aren’t all people conservatives? What’s not to like?
Let’s compare “Conservative” to “Far Right” and to those on the Left of the political spectrum.
What separates “conservative” from “far right”? Of course, the Left doesn’t think there is any separation, but that’s just their political propaganda. “Far Right” is a very small minority of delusional thinkers.
Does the Left have any redeeming qualities with their political positions? What are their political positions?
Their worst political position is that government should control every aspect of our lives.
Who wants that? Why would any rational person be a leftwinger?
Leftists are driven by a lust for power and control. They believe they are experts on every subject.
While they actually know nothing about everything.
Leftist leaders use their intelligence to gain more power through planned emotional appeal for their useful idiots. This is a Saul Alinsky / Cloward Piven political science for them. And it’s working well. Look how they handled the 2020 election. That’s not emotion — it was a devious well executed plan.
I don’t care
I don’t vote on other’;s posts and if people vote on my posts, maybe that proves they read them? Ot for bNasty2000, someone read my post to him.
So you say. You wouldn’t be posting if you didn’t want to have your ideas well-received and hopefully convince readers that you know how to wear a hard hat properly. If you ignore the down votes and critical comments, it strongly suggests a degree of detachment from reality.
As mentioned above, the rational voice is speaking for Richard today.
You are correct. Draining the SPR to lower fuel prices, forgiving student loans to get the tween (20s) vote and really pushing abortion “rights” to get the young women (and men) to vote, along with ballot harvesting really worked.
BTW: Ballot harvesting negates the “sanctity of the ballot box” that is “the secret ballot”, by allowing operatives to go into peoples houses and “help” them cast their votes, collect the ballot and submit it. Why is no one talking about that?
Leftist leaders use their intelligence to gain more power through planned emotional appeal for their useful idiots. …
Irrefutably true statement. And yet, by repeating a literally unsupportable Greenpeace-sourced accusation against Dr Willie Soon — designed to appeal entirely to leftists’ emotional outrage over CAGW being caused by big nasty corporations — over in this other WUWT comment section, the “Richard Greene” over there has every appearance of being the exact ‘useful idiot’ described in the above quote.
Question is, do we have two “Richard Greene”s indistinguishable from each other commenting here at WUWT, or one “Richard Greene” whose login was hacked in that prior set of comment diatribes against Dr Willie Soon?
One more thing possibly indicating the “Richard Greene” account(s) here at WUWT may not be what they appear to be: in the Jan 10 WUWT comment section about the Tucker Carlson interview of Dr Willie Soon, the “Richard Greene” commenter declared, as a means of defending himself about my basic statement of what the hallmarks of far-leftists are,
… I publish a blog that has had 693,000 page views for the sole purpose of recommending articles by conservative authors. ….
Implying it should be something like Marc Morano’s ClimateDepot, containing useful info we all could use. If I remember correctly, it was either at his specific defensive comment there or one of the others where his name was clickable, linking to his “The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog” (it took me a many minutes to locate the link that my computer’s Link History saved, since I could not remember the blog name) which appears to be nothing more than an automatic aggregator of climate-related webpages. It brags it has figures approaching 590,000 views (do a screen search for the words “page views”). Meanwhile, in a sample of just one of its Archive pages, 1/14 – 1/21, do a screen search for the word “bonus”. What do you find in each case there? Bimbo photos.
If I may simply suggest it, somethin’ not right going on with this particular “Richard Greene”‘s efforts here at WUWT …..
I don’t know that everything Dr Soon says is adequately supported in evidence but he’s a skeptic who agrees that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. So I count him as an ally.
Recently I heard him argue in favor of abiotic oil on Tucker Carlson. What effect did this have? It reduced my trust of his scientific rigor, but in no way does it make me want to attack him or regard him as any less of a skeptical ally. (Also even though 150+ years of oil exploration seems to argue against his views, I’m modest enough to acknowledge that he has more understanding of the topic than I do).
“Their worst political position is that government should control every aspect of our lives.
Who wants that? Why would any rational person be a leftwinger?”
Why? Mostly for one of three main reasons, IMHO:
1) They are wealthy and have all they want. They do not want anyone to take their stuff so they use government control to prevent that. They are willing to pay a little more to buy the politicians who will be sympathetic to that end and who (the politicians) get their own financial gains in doing so.
2) They want to be one of the wealthy and cannot see a path to that end so use the government to ensure that others are as miserable as they are.
I’m sure much of the motivation to be a leftist comes from peer pressure and groupthink. For a young person on campus today it is extremely difficult and stressful, or even actually dangerous, to express conservative opinions in public.
I think you have described libertarians, not conservatives
Actual conservatives sometimes talk like libertarians sometimes, but spend money like drunken sailors on shore leave. Consider Trump’s 2020 and 2021 US budget as examples.
They tend to want excessive military spending and want to be policemen of the world.
Using 2020 & 2021 budgets without the COVID funding caveat is misleading. Was it necessary? Apparently so because it helped keep many small businesses from folding. Of course there were abuses, government programs always produce waste and abuse, that is why we should limit them. But we will never really know what would have happened had those funds not been available.
That question should have been asked about the ridiculous (evil/devious) decision to lock down the population. And the answer is no, no, a thousand times NO!
Vulnerable populations should have been isolated and protected while everyone else should have been left alone. Inexpensive therapeutic drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine should not have been restricted. Ineffective and potentially dangerous gene therapies should not have been forced on the public under the guise of a ‘vaccine’.
There would never have been a need to gush trillions of dollars into the economy permanently raising consumer prices by 20% and resulting in billions of dollars in fraud if the insane policy of locking down the entire population had not been pursued.
Your comments are Monday morning quarterbacking.
In the early part of 2020 there was a lot of unknowns about the virus, and those in charge trusted Fauci, not knowing what a rat he was. That early response by the Feds was correct. Then the states took over and started mandating all kinds of behavior. A few, Florida in particular, didn’t go along. We were allowed to make our own healthcare decisions. There was plenty of state support for what ever decision we made. Liberals, never wanting a crisis to go to waste, saw the opportunity to control people. So while the original response was correctly precautionary, the subsequent rules and misinformation were not.
You can claim it was all unnecessary now, but you can never know what would have happened if it was done differently or if the virus did turn out to be more deadly than it was.
If Fauci, Osterholm and others had been serious about human health they would have advised wearing a bullet-proof vest when shopping on West Madison in Chicago.
That’s certainly a fair criticism, Tom. Hindsight is 20-20. But I didn’t criticize 15 days to flatten the curve at a time when there was little to no data.
What I am criticizing is the idea that vulnerable people would be protected by locking everyone including them down (often in close quarters with infected people as in nursing homes) for months on end.
I am criticizing the coercive practices that persisted long after there was plenty of evidence that the mRNA shots did not prevent the spread to others, infection, or re-infection.
I am saying that by April or May of 2020 at the latest it was possible to see that the approach wasn’t effective. Had we segregated those at greatest risk and rigorously quarantined anyone in a nursing home or hospital showing the slightest signs of illness to prevent spreading within the vulnerable population, many lives would have been saved.
Yes, that’s Monday morning quarterbacking, but what is more important is that we take lessons learned. The next pandemic will come with its own unknowns to be sure. Different populations could be vulnerable. But the biggest lesson learned should be to characterize the early cases and determine who needs to be isolated, then isolate them effectively.
I certainly agree that this must be a lesson learned. Learned that we should question unelected bureaucrats, learned that big pharma isn’t always truthful, learned that the media is not on our side, learned that we shouldn’t follow blindly without reasonable questions answer.
I am grateful to Ron DeSantis and how Florida handled the situation.
Hydroxychloroquine has one of the longest lists of known side effects of any drug I have ever been prescribed. One of the most common and severe is the loss of color vision after long-term use. I was prescribed it by my VA rheumatologist for osteoarthritis. Before taking it, I had a test for my base performance of color vision, which was to be repeated every 6 months. However, I became aware of having developed high blood pressure (160/85) within 2 weeks of starting the prescription. It took me about 6 months to convince my rheumatologist I wasn’t handling it well, before she agreed for me to stop using it. My blood pressure came down quickly after stopping it. Yesterday, it was 119/71.
It would be irresponsible to allow unlimited, unmonitored access to this drug based on the large number of known side effects. People with Long Covid, especially, might be tempted to use it long enough to suffer some of the more serious side effects. You should be free to be your own physician, but remember the old saying about the man who acts as his own lawyer — He has a fool for a client. On the other hand, it is tantamount to practicing medicine to encourage others to follow your advice rather than that of their educated and licensed physician.
Fair enough Clyde. HCQ isn’t ’harmless’ and neither is chemotherapy. The point you miss is that qualified doctors were ‘cancelled’ for making the case (with data) that off-label uses of dirt-cheap medicines could be safely used and had some efficacy. I also would hesitate to self-medicate or to act as my own legal counsel.
Let’s not lose sight of the reality that placebos often help patients. Debilitating fear can be more harmful than the actual disease. And I would maintain that the Pfizer/Moderna money grab was little more than a placebo, except that sugar pills and saline injections don’t tend to cause irreversible heart damage in healthy young athletes.
There is a lot we don’t know about the placebo effect. However, researchers have seen it enough that they have wisely included it in double-blind trials.
Being a prescription medication, access would have been monitored by an individual’s personal physician.
I would say that preventing it from being prescribed actually resulted in less monitored use, as people were still able to obtain it without a prescription from their personal physician and thus did not have a medical professional familiar with them engaged in its use.
So, yes, the crony military industrial complex spends more money then necessary.
And Rockefeller Republicans believe in corporate welfare for their cronies, even though those cronies have been supporting the Democrats for the last 20 years well more than Republicans because the Dems deliver the pork.
As to the budgets, you were a little off base with that one, and TRUMP!, if POTUS again, will NOT allow RINOs to control the budget process next year.
“What separates “conservative” from “far right”? Of course, the Left doesn’t think there is any separation, but that’s just their political propaganda.” I’m a centre lefty and I think there is very definitely a difference between conservatives and far right extremists. I have plenty of conservative friends but I would find it difficult to befriend a proud boy.
But Tom, you must concede the misunderstanding goes both ways. I think there are a few on the right who think being left of centre means you are a communist. That is no more true than your statement re conservatives. And I am with you. I want the least amount of government intervention, it is just I want it to a level you would consider “too much.” eg I want quality education for all, even if that means funding poor areas more. I think the state should provide good health care etc.
Simon, since you’re showing a glimmer of common sense, let me extend an olive branch. It’s reasonable to say that your acceptable level of government is different from mine. We have different conception on whether it is possible to deliver quality education or healthcare irrespective of the individual cooperating in necessary ways. Let’s not waste time litigating that.
The question is whether you can honestly say that there is a climate emergency or that eliminating fossil fuels could be done without the harm of losing reliable energy and modern agriculture.
“Simon, since you’re showing a glimmer of common sense, let me extend an olive branch.” well that’s an inviting back handed reply. “The question is whether you can honestly say that there is a climate emergency or that eliminating fossil fuels could be done without the harm of losing reliable energy and modern agriculture.” Good question. Pretty well captures the whole issue. See, in my world we have little choice but to try to reduce CO2 emissions. I accept that so far there has been minimal disruption caused by the warming and that it is very difficult to attribute an event to climate change… but…. I think the chance is very high that the future will look very different if we continue on this path. Will the earth collapse? No. The planet will be just fine. Will humans survive? Of course. But there could well be serious disruption to life as we know it? So does that warrant reducing fossil fuels. Probably, maybe, perhaps. The truth is we wont know till it’s too late. So what you are really asking me is, is the risk worth the action? I say yes you say no. From here we start to get heated and argue, but I wont go there today.
See, in my world we have little choice but to try to reduce CO2 emissions. I accept that so far there has been minimal disruption caused by the warming and that it is very difficult to attribute an event to climate change… but…. I think the chance is very high that the future will look very different if we continue on this path.
My suggestion is to delve into the historical records of your location. Instead of focusing on averages, examine the distribution and observe it over time. When selecting stations, check the available metadata and make sure to avoid stations that are inhomogeneous in anyway possible. Personally, I’ve found no discernible CO2 fingerprint at the stations in my area. Additionally, I’ve scrutinized stations in the Arctic Circle and found no such fingerprint there either—just the same volatile temperature fluctuations that the region consistently undergoes. If snow cover extent is a regular occurrence at the stations, also take a look at that metric; it’s probably a better metric than temperature.
Simon,
Thank you for responding honestly. Keep it up and I’ll try harder to eliminate the backhandedness you (reasonably) perceive.
So I’m wondering how you, as a self-described ‘centre lefty’, feel about giant corporations milking climate subsidies and avoiding taxes while paying their executives millions?
At the same time, do you not share in the least my concern that the world’s poor nations are being held in poverty?
Do you not see the grave harm to the elderly in countries with cold winters (well to all people there) if the heat goes out during a polar blast?
And what about the ravaging of nature? The loss of endangered raptors, destruction of pristine forest habitats, the voracious demand for ever-more mining?
Aren’t these more immediate concerns than the uncertain and as yet unseen impacts of mild warming?
We do not agree on the need to ‘do something’, but if we do something to reach net zero CO2 emissions, why should that not be the development and deployment of safer nuclear power?
“So I’m wondering how you, as a self-described ‘centre lefty’, feel about giant corporations milking climate subsidies and avoiding taxes while paying their executives millions?” Not sure who you are talking about here, but if you know of a specific company please state. But I would counter that with, I like it no more or less whether it is done by the left or the right. I mean both oil companies or electric car companies seem to do it.
“At the same time, do you not share in the least my concern that the world’s poor nations are being held in poverty?” I think sadly the poor lose out no matter what the richer nations do re climate. They are certainly the most vulnerable to reducing fossil fuels but also the first to suffer with a changing climate.
“And what about the ravaging of nature? The loss of endangered raptors, destruction of pristine forest habitats, the voracious demand for ever-more mining?” Certainly what is happening in Brazil with the destruction of the rainforest to farm cattle is a serious concern for us all.
“Aren’t these more immediate concerns than the uncertain and as yet unseen impacts of mild warming?” Like I said, we wont know the answer to that till it’s too late. The problem with a changing climate is it takes such a long time to reverse course, hundreds of years. This is a juggernaut.
We do not agree on the need to ‘do something’, but if we do something to reach net zero CO2 emissions, why should that not be the development and deployment of safer nuclear power? Can’t argue with that. Got my vote.
You can read between the lines when he trys to be sincere.
He thinks everyone can be equal, if only given the chance … but he needs your ongoing money/resources to keep up the charade of quality education.
(And, it is very important, maybe most important, to provide the teachers with ever increasing salary/benefit/time-off incentive so the kids won’t be left behind.)
So soup is a healthy and sustainable food which these idjits are throwing away while demanding healthy and sustainable food? Am I missing something here?
Some thoughts about the brilliant and kind Michael Mann, one of the best scientists in the history of the world. Just ask him.
Some jealous people are not very nice to one of the greatest scientists ever.
Just ask his mother.
So they search diligently for his mean tweets and then call him names, such as a science fraud, a horse’s ass, a bum, meaner than a junkyard dog, and even comparing his brilliant work to a pile of farm animal digestive waste products.
One angry person claimed he was worse than Adolf Hitler.
These people are all jealous of a great scientist.
I would never say anything bad about such a genius, since I was raised to always be polite and respect men of great accomplishments. And women too. I am also a proud graduate of the Don Rickles Charm School.
Trump had plenty of mean tweets, but most conservatives still like him.
This brilliant scientist, a legend in his own mind, also had some mean tweets and you should read them at the link below:
I’m no Fan of that G-Man
His ego set on Expand
His brain the size of a Pecan
Climate he Misunderstands
Theories built on Sand
Junk science is his Brand
He should be Banned
But he’s still in Demand
Claptrap to beat the Band
Hard to Withstand
Libel lawsuits he Planned
To make the critics Disband’
Mann should take the Stand
From UP he should be Canned
Unless he’s a Trans
They’re in high Demand
Utterly unclear at this point. I’ve asked one of the WUWT moderators to look into this, a singular “Richard Greene” cannot have it both ways by holding clearly anti-Mann positions here today while citing pure Greenpeace-sourced accusation diatribes against Dr Willie Soon over in the comment section for the Jan 10 WUWT “Tucker Carlson / Dr Willie Soon Climate Change Interview.” Those were accusations the Mann himself would endorse. It isn’t logical, which makes me wonder if the “RG” may have been an impersonator over there.
True. Which contradict his other irrational comment replies elsewhere. I found the guy’s Disqus commenter account today in an effort to see if he is legit — he utters many things you’d expect hear from fed-up Republicans … but also outright trashes ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano. Joanne Nova, and Joe Bastardi among others, all of whom are on the climate realists side. That makes no sense. Pile on top of that his prior Greenpeace-sourced accusation against Willie Soon at the and you have the appearance of the guy either being nuts, or possibly up to some other nefarious intent in luring people to click on links in his irritatingly endless conveyor belt article links-only ‘blog’ (saved an example page in this Archive for posterity’s sake).
EU lawmakers to Biden: We don’t need more US natural gas
by Saul Elbein – 01/25/24 12:57 PM ET
Big oil is trying to make Europe “the excuse” for an unnecessary and planet-heating expansion in gas exports, 60 members of the European Parliament wrote in a Tuesday letter to President Biden.
The letter from largely left-leaning members followed unverified reporting from The New York Times that the Biden administration is considering a pause on new gas export terminals until it can determine whether they are in the national interest — something dozens of Democratic lawmakers have called for. . .
Europe’s transition to an economy that doesn’t heat the planet “will only be held back by the construction of new LNG export facilities in the US and import facilities in Europe,” which they argued would serve only to “lock-in” unneeded gas resources.
“We know that ongoing dependence on fossil gas, no matter where it comes from, is not in the best interest of the European Union and we are confident you will come to the same conclusion in the United States,” they added.”
end excerpts
Idiocracy, on both sides of the Atlantic.
The EU is transitioning to a bankrupt economy, so therefore, they don’t really need much natural gas.
It’s not as it appears to you. Every literate must know that the electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels can’t make the world go around and won’t for long into the future, if ever. Even those awarding the leases and constructing the arrays and transmission lines know this. These projects are red herrings devised by elements of US intelligence and their allies as part of a procedure to gain physical control of the undeveloped and developed hydrocarbon resources everywhere, their refineries and distribution. Then the renewables will be allowed to fail and control of the world’s energy will be in their hands. This is also the basis for the continuing animosity toward Russia. It is essential that its hydrocarbon energy also be under the control of elite clandestine western power.
That’s why it’s a crisis that must be immediately addressed. There’s no time to use the most sophisticated new methods of researching climate and engineering practical and effective solutions. Action must be taken now, not because of an invisible “tipping point” but before 8 billion people realize that they are being had. The existing power grids must be under the control of the western powers as will be the new renewable efforts. In fact, they already are. The new African pipeline expansion will be an immediate target.
Once the world’s hydrocarbon energy is safely under the intelligence service’s thumbs the renewable machinery will still operate but as its machinery fails none will be repaired or replaced. It will be back to “fossil” fuel normal with a powerful ownership in control of not only oil but serious weapons. The “left” are idiot stooges on the sidelines.
I’m really starting to think that the alarmists are seeding the discussion with fake conspiracy theorist gibberish to sow chaos and generate division among skeptics.
Do you actually think that control of the world’s hydrocarbon energy resources is of no interest to the CIA, NSA, FBI and other intelligence agencies whose acronyms we don’t even know? The guys that are investigating “Havana Syndrome” so they can use it themselves? By torturing ferrets? Of course this is minor league activity that wiggles out to the public, not stuff like fomenting revolution and war in eastern Europe, invading Arab countries and screwing with Hong Kong. Maybe CIA director William J. Burns isn’t obsessed with the world’s hydrocarbon energy but it’s his job to keep track of it and report to his boss, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, who is concerned with everything.
Yes but this is also the same bunch of geniuses that spent millions trying to train operatives to kill people (or goats) with their minds, got conned out of billions for a debunked spoon bending/distance viewing con and keep spending vast sums on the latest unconventional ‘big idea’ to get one over on their opponents. Vast sums, I should mention, that are partly from the international sales of illegal drugs which, inevitably, end up poisoning their own citizens. I wouldn’t trust these geniuses to know the difference between olive oil and crude.
Reality is worse than climate models predict, new study finds
Sabine Hosenfelder
Floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, storm surges. Extreme weather events receive a lot of media coverage. In recent years, these events have frequently been attributed to climate change. This “extreme event attribution” how it’s called is a way to quantify how climate change supposedly increased the likelihood of a specific weather event by so and so much. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that these numbers are underestimates. Yep, that’s right, reality is worse than they told us it would be. A new paper confirmed this problem for extreme rainfall events.
Now she thinks the ECS is greater than 5. Her logic is lame. I know less about climate science than almost all the commenters here but I could see problems with her logic. My grip on the subject isn’t sufficient to deconstruct her argument. Other than she always refers to all the well known climate scientists who are often criticized here. She seems to be well versed on astronomy- but not climate science. She talks a lot about models! She should get back to dark energy and the like. She’s panicking.
Also, I see idiot climate stories in the Boston Globe every day. I like to mention them here but I don’t like to jump into somebody’s story with an off topic story. It would be nice if there was an open thread every day! There’s so much to talk about- other than the articles posted by the excellent authors here. Furthermore, I do now see the fallacies of almost everything I see about climate in the MSM- in a basic sense- but I don’t know how to find all the info to back up the alternative perspective, as the experts here do- and of course people like Tony Heller and many others.
The experiment of changing CO2 on Earth’s climate has been done. It’s called the Geological record, and it shows unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 concentration is a function of temperature, and not vice versa.
😀 😀 😀
The so called well mixed CO2 introduce 2 different processes ?
And you name others a science denier ? 😀 😀 😀
May you explain the starting point of these processes and how they act ?
I’m sure you can’t beside in your wet dreams.
It’s astonishing how he casually threw in the ‘99% consensus’ the other day, seemingly ignorant of the intellectual shallowness that accompanies such a simplistic viewpoint.
At least the Minuteman State has been relieved of the machinations of the dishonest Charlie Baker, who can now move on to work his magic on the similarly dishonest NCAA.
Sabine has made the transistion from scientist-trying-to-educate-people-in-sub-atomic-physics to an influencer making a living from you-tube views. Unfortunately, she’s discovered that climate controversy generates many views. Her climate posts are now only a bit better than Bill Nye, the Science Guy reruns.
I find the same. Anything with a link gets deleted, so proving your point is a problem, and stating your point gets your comments moderated out of existence. Like many climate papers, sounding like you agree and then making points that clearly don’t agree seems to keep you “live” because the mods don’t read them in full, just look for word matches.
The local library apparently finds that customers aren’t searching for climate anxiety references so it displays them in a separate section. Even so, few seem compelled to check them out as there they are, ignored by the public, either because they already know as much as they wish about existential climate change or don’t care and would rather read Yuval Noah Harari or Stephen King.
Similarly, I was in a museum recently where one of the display areas had been given over to the usual propaganda detailing the horrors of “Changing Our Climate”.
The amusing moment for me was when a teacher ushered his group of ~ 8-year-olds in, whereupon the kids looked around with obviously disappointed faces, and one kid voiced their unanimous impression –
“can we go back to the dinosaurs section?
Steve Oregon
January 28, 2024 7:27 am
I wonder if the vast amount of money and effort wasted over decades of global climate action will every be tallied. More importantly with a query on what human advancement was missed.
What could have been had this massive force been applied to real world needs and improvements.
It’s such a shame. And the enormous misappropriation is still underway.
Someday, somewhere, someone will desperately need a topic for their PhD dissertation. Being that a PhD is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration, I predict that the analysis will take place.
Farmers from the Lot-et-Garonne, one of the hotspots of the protest movement in southern France, had already announced their intention to ‘go to Paris’ on Monday.
Governments worldwide are resorting to taxation based behavioural modification of citizens as a fun objective for their many petticrats. They have entirely lost track of the usual government mandates of repairing roads, having enough jails for criminals, and having a big-enough-but-not-ridiculously-excessive army to defend borders from invaders.
Curious George
January 28, 2024 9:04 am
?resize=990%2C660
No king tide should be wasted. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, left, and California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis during a news conference to address sea level rise along the city’s waterfront in San Francisco, Friday, Jan. 26, 2024.
They don’t leave a paper trail, but I recall from TV news that a very expensive seawall was discussed.
Cornell University engineers have created a new lithium battery that can charge in under five minutes — faster than any such battery on the market — while maintaining stable performance over extended cycles of charging and discharging.
People who were more skeptical of human-caused climate change or the Black Lives Matter movement who took part in conversation with a popular AI chatbot were disappointed with the experience but left the conversation more supportive of the scientific consensus on climate change or BLM. This is according to researchers studying how these chatbots handle interactions from people with different cultural backgrounds.
There ya go- just use that chatbot and you’ll turn into a climate alarmist!
Now we need a chatbox that’ll turn alarmists into skeptics! 🙂
Climate change behind extreme Amazon drought: study
“Climate change was the chief driver of the devastating drought that gripped the Amazon last year, say researchers, as warming threatens one of the world’s most important ecosystems for stabilizing the global climate.
The historic agricultural drought affected millions of people across the Amazon basin, stoking huge wildfires, shrinking key waterways and taking a calamitous toll on wildlife.
Some experts have suggested that the arrival of the naturally occurring El Niño weather phenomenon was behind the tinderbox conditions.
But a new study from scientists at the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group, published Wednesday, found that climate change caused by humanity’s planet-heating carbon pollution was the main culprit. They said it had made the drought 30 times more likely from June to November 2023.”
end excerpt
The “World Weather Attribution group” is a joke.
Their opinion is noted. Opinions are not established facts.
There is no established connection between CO2 and any weather event.
So I watched the NFL playoffs. I don’t watch the regular season, because I don’t like the woke nonsense. I was rooting for the Ravens and they lost. I was rooting for the Lions and they lost. So KC will probably win. The only reason to watch the Super Bowl is for the commercials. The last couple of years, they have been crappy. I hope KC loses, but I also hope that SF doesn’t win–what a conundrum!
We can see why the United States is experiencing relatively warm weather at the moment. The jet stream configuration is currently keeping the cold arctic air out of the United States and is allowing moist, mild air from the Pacific ocean to blow across the nation.
I say relatively warm, since the high temperature yesterday was 51F here in my area of Oklahoma, and the average for this day is 50F, so we are not far from the average. Loving the warm weather! Keep it coming! But, that won’t happen, as the cold arctic air will rear its cold head again in the near future. Enjoy this warmth while it lasts.
Since then I analyzed the weather station data in two more ways, that are different from this first analysis. Both confirm the original result that there was significantly less warming than the IPCC claims.
These analyses are rather dry. Should I bother to write an article summarizing my findings?
Three American soldiers were killed yesterday by the Mad Mullahs of Iran.
What will President Biden do about this? Well, the first thing the Biden administration has done is say “We don’t want a war with Iran”. Just what should be expected from an appeaser personality like Joe Biden? Joe’s appeaser attitude and actions are what are causing these murderous dictators to think they can get away with these attacks. And so far, they have gotten away with them.
Now, the debate is about what to do about it. Should the U.S. attack the proxies of the Mad Mullahs or should the Mad Mullahs be attacked directly?
Here is what should happen if we want to deter the Mad Mullahs.
The United States should blockade all Iranian ports. No ships in or out, with the exception of foreign vessels currently in Iranian ports, which should be allowed to leave. This will shut off the Mad Mullah oil revenues.
The U.S should NOT bomb any Iranian oil producing facilities. Leave these intact for the Iranian people to use after they overthrow the Mad Mullahs.
The U.S. should destroy ALL of the Mad Mullahs nuclear weapons production facilities, along with destroying all attack drone production facilities and all rocket and missile production facilites. All existing drones, rockets and missiles should also be destroyed.
The U.S. should target all the leadership of the Mad Mullahs, killing as many as possible, along with all the IRGC forces (the Mad Mullahs private army).
This campaign will mean limiting civilian casualties to a minimum while directly targeting the bad guys and their hardware. Civilians are not going to be hanging around weapons production facilities or military bases.
Once the U.S. starts in on this campaign, the Iranian people will rise up and depose the Mad Mullahs and hopefully hang them from the highest tree in Iran. All the Iranian people need is a little outside help. Destroying the Mad Mullah’s army’s capabilities will be sufficient help.
Dependent on the speed of the removal of the Mad Mullahs from power along with their army, the damage may be limited, as once the Mad Mullahs are out, there will be no more need to bomb the hell out of Iran.
This is what *should* be done, but I have no hope that Joe Biden will do anything like this. Biden will appease these murderers in Iran. He may hit the Iranian proxies in the area, to make it look like he is doing something, but that won’t bother the Mad Mullahs one bit. The only thing that will bother the Mad Mullahs is if *they* get hit.
To not take this opportunity to destroy the Mad Mullah’s ability to manufacture weapons would be the heighth of stupidity and shortsightedness.
Joe Biden is the worst person possible to be presiding over this situation. He is a natural-born appeaser. He would give up his lunch money to the playground bully every time. That’s what he is doing now.
Joe Biden is the worst, most dangerous president evah! He has put the nation in great jeopardy.
I also saw Laura Ingraham, a host on Fox News channel say tonight that the U.S. should not retaliate for the killing of three American soldiers, because if we do, it might start a war.
So I guess Laura wants us to suffer in silence and do nothing as murderous dictators kill our people. If we do something about it we might start a war, and we can’t have that, according to Laura.
Laura doesn’t seem to understand that we are already in a war with the Mad Mullahs of Iran, or rather they are in a war with us, but Biden doesn’t want to participate. The only problem with that non-participation, Joe and Laura, is it is not up to us whether a war is going on or not, it already is going on, so what are you going to do about it? Run away? Where are you going to run? Joe and Laura don’t want to do anything about it when Americans are killed for fear of the ramifications. What are the ramifications if we don’t do anything about it, Joe and Laura?
Typical appeaser thought processes for both Joe and Laura. Run, run, run. Appease the international bully.
It appears that Biden will not hit the Mad Mullahs over these killings. Instead, he will hit the Mad Mullah’s terrorist minions. The Mad Mullhas will not be moved by the deaths of a few of their henchmen. Joe is wasting his time. The target should be the leadership of Iran.
Joe has already signaled he is not going to go there. The Mad Mullahs must be very pleased at their success. They have ole Joe just where they want him.
Where’s Waldo?
“”Greta Thunberg joins protest against expansion of Hampshire airport
The fact that using private jets is both legally and socially allowed today in an escalating climate emergency is completely detached from reality,” Thunberg said. “There are few examples that show as clearly how the rich elite is sacrificing present and future living conditions on this planet so they can maintain their extreme and violent lifestyles.””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/27/greta-thunberg-joins-protest-against-expansion-of-hampshire-airport
“”Greta Thunberg briefly detained at coal protest in Germany”” – same rag
etc
“escalating climate emergency”
I think Greta is the one who is completely detached from reality.
Are they discussing the Farnborough Aerodrome, now Airport? Home of the 2nd largest, world-famous, Farnborough Airshow? The event that brings in thousands and thousands of aircraft enthusiasts from all around the world and has become a very lucrative business for all concerned? A business so lucrative, in fact, that successive UK governments (Conservative and Labour) have overturned every decision made against Farnborough by the local council and given Farnborough what they wanted at nearly every occasion. Yep – Greta does know how to pick a hopeless case.
That must be why she parties with the Davos crowd.
Does she still? I thought she’d been sidelined from big events after she got too old to be the ‘cute little kid mascot.’
Nuclear Renaissance XXIV picks up speed.
Nuclear goes backwards, again, as wind and solar enjoy another year of record growth
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-goes-backwards-again-as-wind-and-solar-enjoy-another-year-of-record-growth/
Hinkley Point C could be delayed to 2031 and cost up to £35bn, says EDF
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delayed-to-2031-and-cost-up-to-35bn-says-edf
Is the US finally coming into the 21st century in terms of transportation?
https://www.railway-technology.com/news/us-high-speed-rail-project-begins-fieldwork/?cf-view
You do realise that EDF is French???
And?
And?
“France presses UK to help fill multibillion-pound hole in nuclear projects “
https://www.ft.com/content/3320c06e-7ce3-4a6b-ab22-4b8201a4cfca
“How France left the British taxpayer on the hook as Hinkley costs go nuclear”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/28/edf-hinkley-point-c-costs-go-nuclear-uk-taxpayer/
“EDF posts record loss in France due to reactor outages”
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-posts-record-loss-in-France-due-to-reactor-out
Is this stuff really under your radar?
Nuclear is expensive and doesn’t work. Glad we agree.
Just a tad presumptuous, are we not?
I do not agree with you at all. I wonder which nation you hail from?
If Lusername is not griff then it’s a near-perfect imitation.
It seems to work fine in France, where 70% of the electricity is nuclear.
Costs are very high because of the lawfare waged by environmentalists on nuclear power, with attendant regulatory costs.
China is currently building 35 new nuclear power plants. Perhaps you should tell them they are making a mistake.
Flamanville?
https://www.nucnet.org/news/edf-announces-further-delay-and-eur500-million-cost-overrun-12-2-2022
But I guess even that won’t turn around the trend:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-energy-generation?tab=chart&country=~FRA
And the aging reactors should hope that future summers aren’t too hot or dry.
China finds out themselves:
https://www.colorado.edu/cas/2022/04/12/even-china-cannot-rescue-nuclear-power-its-woes
From your last link:
In the first two decades of this century, 95 reactors were started up around the world while 98 reactors were closed down.
If nuclear is declining, why have countries still opened 95 new reactors this Century?
Meanwhile, Wind and Solar really ARE on the way out. Ask any shareholder of RE companies.
SunPower is down in penny-stock territory.
The operative word here is “aging.” Everything wears out eventually — even mountains. The important point is that they didn’t fail immediately, which is implied by your claim,
What is expensive is building glorified windmills that only work when the wind blows within certain wind speeds and either don’t work if there’s not enough wind or have to be shut down when it’s too windy.
In the UK, we have installed 30GW of wind power and 6.5GW of nuclear.
Last year wind managed to supply 8.81GW of electricity and nuclear 4.6GW* (see image)
And you think nuclear doesn’t work! What planet are you on?
*Nuclear could easily provide constant, reliable electricity if allowed.
He’s on Planet Grauniad
To Lusername/griff, it makes sense to say walking is inherently unsafe and expensive and the statistics on muggings prove it.
Rickover would disagree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine
But then Rickover had a brain, LOL!
The US Navy should be using nuke reactors for power in MANY more ships than currently. Now only used on fleet carriers and subs.
Then US America class Amphibious carriers should have been nuke.
A little increased cost up front for UNLIMITED range and the ability to use fuel tanks for attack purposes, not for their own propulsion.
AND the added ability to produce the EMP for electrical powered weapons systems.
Mylittlepony appears to be stuck in some fantasy world where leftists never lie, are never wrong and nuclear really doesn’t work. Is Tinkerbell the world president in your fantasy, mylittlepony?
2 Virginia plants, 2 reactors each, one Surrey, has already been and the second North Anna will soon be licensed form 80 years of operation. Initial expenses paid for and now onto producing reliable dispatchable power.
These are late 70s era reactors that will probably be extended to over 100 years life cycle. You know, what will require 6 to 8 rebuilds for bird choppers that cannot provide dispatchable output.
Have you volunteered for YOUR smart meter to shut off ALL of your electricity when wind is not producing enough power?
Do you just go out and shut off your main breaker when you get a notice the you should curtail usage, since you want others to suffer from high electricity prices, do you make sure you help them when “power” is short?
Doesn’t work? They must have been slipping ionized fairy dust into all the transmission lines connected to the facilities. Especially in France.
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table
Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.
Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year.
IF then US did the Manhattan project type program and used Highly Enriched uranium for fuel allowing operation for 25 years or more without refueling and the US Navy’s new carriers do, the quick production of hundreds of reactor cores COULD actually provide substantial electricity more quickly.
BUT libs will be libs and will do whatever they can to harm the US, see Keystone XL pipeline, blocked by Obama then Brandon. US diesel fuel prices would be much lower if the Heavy crude from Canada was traveling by pipeline at much higher daily quantities than currently by trains enriching Buffett, the Dem Crony Capitalist.
BTW, the A1B reactors in a Ford carrier has a thermal output of 700 KW. There are two in each carrier, each able to supply all needs. So about 50% of the electrical output of a typical civilian nuke plant each. And the reactor vessels are made in Ontario and shipped to Newport News for installation, so portable. and not required to be completed in situ.
The A1B is rated for 700MWth. This would be good for about 230MWe, so you would need 5 of these reactors to match the output of a single unit of the Palo Verde plant in Arizona.
Refueling in a nuclear generating station isn’t that big of a deal, large LWR’s can be refueled every 18 months, which gives time for maintenance of the balance of plant.
4 reactors vessels of SMALL size, OK.
So every 18 months or so, they refuel, and need transport the new fuel in and store the removed fuel, always on site since there is no storage facility in the US.
This takes approximately a month.
During this time they also do any repairs, replacement or upgrade of the related 0generating and steam cycle equipment.
With a 25 year fuel cycle, no transport or storage of fuel for 25 years.
Now shutdowns for repair and maintenance will be ALWAYS needed, but not timed for fuel replacement.
Just look at the crap Duke Energy does for a refueling, starting 3 YEARS before, even when they refuel every 18 to 24 months. I wonder how much the government regulations have to do with that.
https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2022/03/09/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-refueling-outage-scheduling-group
“Is the US finally coming into the 21st century in terms of transportation?”
You are talking a privately built Las Vegas – Los Angeles line. They are hiring construction workers. Compare it to a state built Bakersfield-Merced line (you can find both terminal cities on a good map). Go Gavin Newsom!
Privately built but with 3 Billion IRA green new deal taxpayer funds.
As I mentioned before, my daughter rode Brightline in Florida to/from Orlando/Miami and really liked it a LOT. She said it was smooth and quieter than an airplane and restrooms were large and clean. She was delayed for 2 hours by a Darwin Award winner who went around a crossing barrier and got hit by a different train. She said the same crossing had another Darwin Award winner a week or so before her trip. All those liberals from NY, NJ and Chicago moving to Florida, I guess, culling their own herd.
Now this is not REALLY high speed, like a hyperloop is meant to be, but way better than driving if you can avoid I15 from Vegas to Barstow and beyond, and Cali gas prices.
I haven’t traveled to Cali in years since the grandkids got older and we stopped going for the theme parks (bought the whole family Disney annual passes one year and we went 6 times for multiple days each time) so no impetus to go there now. We will probably go to that coast again sometime in the future so we may just use the train. I guess you can see, we are in no hurry.
Title of news short making the rounds on TV ins Chile and Argentina (Spanish): En menos de diez años, Mendoza perdera su playa en el Pacifico (In less than ten years, Mendoza lose their beach in the Pacific). This was generated for the people in Mendoza, Argentina (where I live) because the Chile coastal town of Reñaca is a favorite summer vacation spot. I was just there and offer the following review (as a Geologist): The entire west coast of North and South America is a converging plate boundary, with subduction of the Pacific Plate under the various Americas Plates producing abundant volcanism, a part of the Ring of Fire. Although the subduction has generally became oblique, and the resulting volcanism has slowed down some, the process continues. So, both due to the Plate Convergence and the Thermal Inflation of the plate margin, the entire Pacific Ocean Americas Plate margin is EMERGING (going up)! Locally, as at Reñaca, the geology is dominated by older granite masses, and their constant erosion produces a mixture of quartz and feldspar sands, which appear to be in great abundance (personal observation, girls in thong bikinis had no trouble walking along the beaches).
This is talking point nonsense! The beaches along the entire Americas west coast may have intermittent issues with the emerging coastline, but quickly re-establish themselves. The East Coasts are another matter. This is a blatant lie, and of the type that is the new normal for the masses, who are empowered by their government’s support all over the globe.
Glad to hear the Chilean beaches are holding up. Hopefully, climate change is not adversely affecting Mendoza’s wine production.
Thanks Ron.
If we could all use your version of “personal observation” to practice Geology, every red-blooded bloke here would have a PhD in that admired discipline.
🙂
Here is an image (with Natural Intelligence) of how the Australian economy tanked in 2008.
See how electricity prices to the consumer rocketed above the basket of pther items in 2008?
See how since then, desperate times called for desperate measures that distorted the market something horrible. Those temporary dips are taxpayer money returned to the voters as “concessions” in case they think politicians are stupid and do things to raise the price of electricity.
Geoff S
It would help prove your point if you superimposed an unemployment rate graph, as well as those for the stock exchange, deficit, balance of payments and such, for comparison. As shown, the price increases up to Nov2008 don’t look that bad on that graph with that scale – however the increases just before Dec2009 look awful!
What happened in spring/summer 2000? Seems like the CPI indexes, especially for electricity, took a major hit.
Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
EXCERPT
In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga volcano, located close to the Solomon Islands, exploded,
The eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano did more than just launch a destructive tsunami and shoot a plume of ash, gas and pulverized rock 55 kilometers (34 miles) into the sky.
It also injected 146 megatonnes (161 megatons) of water vapor into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere)
Satellite measurements showed, in July 2023, the temperature of the lower-atmosphere increased from
0.38 C to 0.64 C = 0.26 C above the 1991-2020 mean.
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
.
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f, where h is 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, is wavelength, and c = 3 x 10^8 meter, is the speed of light in a vacuum.
If photon wavelength is 15 micrometers, the photon energy is 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule
.
CO2
CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers.
CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, per Image 11A
CO2 molecules absorbs IR photons at these finger print frequencies, which is only about 8% of the available IR energy reflected by the earth and lower-atmosphere.
The other 92% is absorbed by water vapor, except for the blue part, which escapes to space through the atmospheric window, per Image 11A
As that 8% of all IR photons is absorbed, it is instantly converted into heat (in less than a pico second).
That heat is distributed, by means of ‘mass transfer of energy, and phase transitions (conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation), to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% Argon; those three have no IR windows.
That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons, i.e., that 99.9% gets heated and cooled by conduction and convection
After some time, that heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere.
.
H2O
H2O molecules, as water vapor, on worldwide average, are at least 9.54 times more prevalent in the air than CO2 molecules, about 21.3 times, in temperate zones and 70.5 times in the tropics
Water vapor has a much more effective fingerprint spectrum than CO2
IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers are mostly absorbed by H2O, which has:
1) at least a three times wider spectrum than CO2, and
2) absorbs more IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers, which have more energy, per Image 11A and E = h x f equation.
.
It is obviously dishonest to officially claim water vapor does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, when H2O molecules, on worldwide average, absorb at least 9.54 x 3 = 28.6 times more IR photons, with many energies, than CO2 molecules; at least 21.3 x 3 = 63.9 times more, in temperate zones and at least 70.5 x 3 = 211.5 times in the tropics.
This means water vapor absorbing IR photons will totally swamp whatever CO2 does.
I am glad you wrote this. Just the other day, I was talking with the new owner of my store, a woman in her 40’s. The weather has been nice and warm the last few days here in Florida so she remarked about the “blanket” covering the Earth. I was telling her about CO2 and water vapor and such and I was getting a blank look. So I made it simple for her, I asked her why deserts are hot in the day and cold at night, something that the “blanket” should prevent. And why Florida summer nights are warm and muggy? Water vapor, or the lack of …. she got it. Now, whether or not is totally technically right, the point I want to make is that most people have no ability to understand what you wrote nor do they want to understand it. They need simple explanations that they can relate to rather than scientific explanations that are way over their heads. That is why the “blanket” analogy resonates with them. So in order to get through to the majority, we must present simple, everyday explanations they can understand.
Deserts also lack night clouds and sand releases heat faster than dirt or foliage.
Water vapor is the primary
element of the greenhouse effect but climate CHANGE from an increased greenhouse effect can not be directly caused by water vapor. WV is a dependent variable that can only increase if SMETHING ELSE causes the troposphere to war,. WV is a climate feedback.
What causes the greenhouse effect (Water vapor, clouds and CO2) and what DIRECTLY causes the greenhouse effect to increase (more CO2 and more clouds) are TWO different subjects.
As I said, not totally technically 100% correct but a simple example that can be understood by the majority of people to debunk the “blanket” analogy. How much CO2 increases any greenhouse effect is another argument altogether.
Tom,
My comment indicates CO2 plays practically no role regarding global warming.
In the tropics, water vapor absorbs photons 211.5 times as much as CO2
Without the heat from the Tropics, the world would be a very cold place.
How about a blanket or parka analogy?
The Earth already has a blanket or parka if you will, the current make up of the atmosphere that keeps temperatures above freezing. How much of a difference would you feel if you put a thin tee-shirt over that?
That’s a doubling of CO2.
And also:
Clearly these statements cannot both be true.
Either WV (Water Vapour) can increase from seismic activity without the troposphere having warmed or the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere did not increase by about 10%.
And for that matter, were the primary element of the greenhouse effect changeable from causes other than temperature changes, then the greenhouse effect must be constrained. Otherwise, the world would have accelerated away to Venus conditions millennia ago. Which it didn’t.
Unfortunately, this does not disprove AGW as we have already disproved Richard Green’s inconsistent premises.
Water vapor and clouds are the only greenhouse components. CO2 has a direct cooling forcing which is offset by additional absorption at the edges of the 15 micron bands.
Water vapor can also be increased by an increase in windiness or a decrease in precipitation resulting from a shortage of condensation nuclei.
Modern economies emit huge quantities of sub-micron particles, including high flying planes.
A shortage of condensing nuclei likely is not a condition
Salt particles from seawater are abundant too, away from urban areas. But it is true that condensation nuclei must control precipitation.
That means that the spring, with seeds and spores, will be controlled across all landmasses with water vapour precipitated quickly.
On the other hand, winter will be more influenced by atmospheric water vapour.
This seems to be a negative feedback – that helps explain why we have avoided dangerous climate change.
There is also the issue of the effectiveness of potential nuclei. Early experiments in cloud seeding expected that if the potential nuclei had the same crystal symmetry as ice (hexagonal) it would work better. That is why silver iodide was chosen. Unfortunately, there isn’t good statistical evidence to support the claims of cloud seeding. This is another example of how little we know about atmospheric processes. So, it isn’t just the quantity of particles, but size, solubility, and crystal symmetry may all be important parameters.
“but climate CHANGE from an increased greenhouse effect can not be directly caused by water vapor.”
Who proved that there was an increased greenhouse effect?? No one has proven anything – not when the temperature data is swamped with UHI and bad statistics, not when the world is still colder than about 1000 and 2000 years just based on agricultural data – in spite of our greater tech, our ancestors were growing things more northerly and at higher elevations than we can.
And to turn your argument back at you – lots of human activity causes increased water evaporation compared to the natural world: dams, irrigation, jet flights, even people watering their lawns and filling their swimming pools in the normally dry summer – what if that increase in water vapour is what ’caused’ the increase in temps ‘seem’ in various temperature series?
What if it’s the dramatic reduction in dirty coal use, and increased pollution controls that have cleared the air since the ’70s – right when we went from expecting an ice age to seeing temperatures rise.
Why did they stop rising after the 1997/98 El Nino, and for about a decade after in spite of the developing going through fossil fuels as fast as they could?
Greenhouse effect due to changes in CO2 on the macro scale, from 300-420ppm, re: a 1-2°C rise over the past century, is not proven. It’s a factor, a bit player in the climate but it’s not the control knob. And as the concentration continues to increase, each ppm does even less than before.
The last data shows ECS is now only about 0.7°C, whereas most non-government alarmist scientists had thought around 1° and the IPCC something like 2 to 4° (sorry if I don’t remember the exact range correctly except that the range got larger as time went on in spite of all the money spent). That’s based on current data, so 0.7°C for doubling CO2 – up to 424 from 212, though it’s normally stated as for future CO2 growth, say up to 848 ppm – which would take over a century easily. Which will probably never be reached because the world population is leveling off and we’re using energy more efficiently too.
Why should humanity worry about 0.7°C, or 1, or even 5 degrees over more than a century, and spending trillions to tackle fake monsters and enrich special interest and insider billionaires, instead of increasing prosperity and quality of life.
You may have a ‘bee-in-your-bonnet’ about a CO2 caused greenhouse effect, but realize when someone on this site says there is no effect, for the most part they mean no PRACTICAL effect, no net effect, etc. They are not denying that CO2 molecules can absorb an IR photon and re-emit it, sometimes right back at Earth, slowing that bit of energy’s trip to outer space.
No use arguing about CO2 trivia when lives, livelihoods and trillions are at stake.
“WV is a dependent variable that can only increase if SMETHING ELSE causes the troposphere to war,. WV is a climate feedback.”
Volcanoes blasting water into the atmosphere is just one example of how water vapour is not just a feedback depending on warmth.
Stop stating axioms that don’t exist – climate science is still in diapers – and making lots of foul green-black poo, by the way, so way too early to pretend we know the system that well.
The more I think about it the more I see water vapour has to remain an independent variable, or at least not dependent on temperature.
Another example: because of a change in prevailing winds in the Southern Ocean, the ice extent was less than normal recently, even though it was a very cold year the wind was keeping the ice closer to shore than it would normally. It was, however thicker than normal too, but the climate alarmists couldn’t stop panicking long enough to notice that.
That change in winds would also blow more vapour laden air into the heart of the freeze box, never to be seen again. And that drying of the air wasn’t dependent on temperature, just a change in wind patterns, which someone smarter than me will probably reply that were dependent on the El Nino, or the PDO or even AMO, or some other collection of letters of the alphabet.
However, make sure that in the process of dumbing it down that it is still correct. If someone can show that your claims are wrong, then you lose credibility and have not only wasted your time, but done damage to the skeptical position.
Agree, but keep in mind that the fear mongers never worry about how correct their position is, they know fear will overcome reason. So keeping it accurate but as simple as can be is the counter tactic.
That’s true – and the simplest argument for me is when I look at the latest graph from Dr. Spencer (though it applies to NASA et al as well) and I see the temperature range on the left axis on the time range on the bottom – and the weather forecast for tomorrow and I say “so what!?” It’s barely a good start, nevermind doomsday!
It should be reassuring to most people that in spite of the huge amount in fossil fuel use since China, India and the rest of the world decided they didn’t want to be poor anymore (roughly since 2000), there hasn’t been any sharp increase in temperature and not even a sharp increase in the CO2 uptick every year, still roughly 2-3ppm/yr.
One can look at a century+ long temperature series and see things warming since about 1910 up to now with the same slope – with a long break between 1940-ish until 1975-ish when the natural world didn’t seem to care about all that CO2 expended in the post-WWii rebuilding and the huge expansion of consumerism in the 60s and early 70s; seems like that CO2 wasn’t as magical as the current CO2.
You are a climate science nitwit
Tonga had no observed effect on the global average temperature.
The warming starting in June 2023 was from an El Nino, with zero relationship to a January 15, 2022 volcano
Tonga temporarily increased the tiny amount of water vapor in the stratosphere by about 10% which had no observed effect on the climate. The strongest effect would have been in the two months after the eruption, not 18 months later.
Have we had similar eruptions in the past on which to test the 2 months delay?
Or is it model output?
Richard “BS” Greene hits the troll button again, again proving himself to be a giant hypocrite.
While you are a science free dork
“nitwit” “dork”
So sophisticated, so erudite… so hypocritical.
dickie-boy calling someone else “science free”.
Now that is just funny !!
Who does the ironing at your place dickie. !
Please be careful as to which Richard you’re calling dickie there duckie.
You mean which persona of “Richard Greene”??
Ah Richard, I suppose that you consider calling someone a ‘nitwit’ to be an effective way to persuade others?
It really causes me to wonder what your motivation is. It certainly doesn’t look like it could be to convince as many people as possible that there’s NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Those people who will only read a few words of what I write, due to confirmation bias, will get a quick summary with one word aimed at the author: nitwit.
Someone has to say it, or else this becomes a conservative echo chamber.
You can not refute the climate emergency hoax by making up alternative one – off bizarre climate theories.
The right approach is to give credit to the hoaxers for the little science they get right: There is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 makes it stronger.
If you can’t admit that, then you are saying almost 100% of scientists are wrong, even the “skeptic” scientists ON OUR SIDE?
Real science says more CO2 causes a little warming, and centuries of anecdotes tell us people like warming. And science tells us plants like more CO2.
You can’t refute predictions of climate doom by claiming CO2 Does Nothing … and 100% of what the government says is wrong … and leftists lie about everything. Those beliefs destroy credibility.
Hypocrite.
What dickie-boy is saying… is to go along with and just “believe” all the anti-science and pseudo-science of the AGW agenda…. like he does….
… that way you can prove them wrong.
It really is a very STUPID approach.
And as usual.. nothing to do with reality or science.
While accusing others of writing “science free” posts.
You can’t refute them by ignoring all the science. That is what you are doing. It’s not that CO2 does nothing, CO2 increases cause BOTH warming and cooling effects. You want to ignore the cooling effect. In my view, that makes you the “nitwit”.
Richard, I agree with most of what you said there. Where we differ and for the most part the only time I ‘insult’ you with my ‘science-free’ comments is when you do not attempt to persuade but rather just attack OTHER SKEPTICS.
Now I do not live up to any ideal of being perfectly respectful of every interlocutor. But that is not my goal. My goal is to persuade as many people as possible that there is no climate emergency. I reserve ridicule for those who have a proven track record of being invincibly ignorant like griff/Lusername or the Rusty Nail. What you perceive as insults from me is in reality tough love.
I have also rebuked bnice2000 for the same reasons. The revised Reagan Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow skeptic.
That does not mean that respectful reasoned arguments in disagreement with another skeptic must be avoided. But it is just as counterproductive to alienate a potential ally over a scientific dispute by ridiculing them as it is to allow their nonsensical pseudoscience to go unchallenged.
Greenie is NOT a skeptic.. he is a true believer.
bnice,
My definition of a skeptic must differ from yours. I count everyone who agrees with the statement “THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY”.
I don’t care if 99% of what else they believe is batshit crazy. I hardly even want to discuss a lot of it in many cases. I guess you’d categorize me is lukewarmist with an open mind toward views that say natural effects explain most of the modern warm period. I’m also happy to ally with all the people who say that CO2 emissions eventually need to be constrained but mostly we should just adapt and expand nuclear power.
The urgent priority is to derail the program to destroy the economies of the western countries. If there’s a socialist atheist lesbian vegan who doesn’t think Nut Zero makes sense, I’m with her. If there’s a libertarian survivalist fundamentalist preacher gun nut who doesn’t think the Inflation Creation Act is a good idea, I’m with him too.
If you don’t think there’s an enhanced greenhouse effect or a greenhouse effect at all, if you think all the CO2 is coming from the ocean, if you think any number of things about the climate that in my judgment don’t make sense, that no more disqualifies you to be my ally than I would refuse to talk to you because you don’t share my religious beliefs.
Rich. A lukewarmist is just a name for someone who supports an unproven hypothesis. There is no scientific imperative to support an unproven hypothesis. Therefore, a ”lukewarmist” is a ”believer and unscientific. You place yourself in the same category as Greene.
Well said, Mike. 🙂
A skeptic is someone who asks for evidence…
dickie-boy has never been able to produce any, no matter how many times he has been asked to, just rants on, avoiding the issue.
dickie is totally unable to consider any other, more rational, explanations for the tiny amount of highly beneficial warming… childishly referring to people who put them forward as “nutters”
He is “locked-in” to the CO2 warming farce.
That makes him a died-in-the-wool AGW cultist, a true believer.
No, I don’t ’believe’ in AGW. I judge that there is some evidence that human emissions may affect the climate, if for no other reason than the apparent correlation between modest warming and CO2. But I also conclude that it’s irrelevant because after decades of observation, it’s still debatable and there is no evidence of anything but a net benefit from whatever it is that has warmed the climate modestly.
As I’ve said many times, the climate system is incredibly complex and there are many factors that have a real effect but many of those are not significant.
If you don’t worry about the harm that climate policy is having on western economies, you probably don’t live in California or the northeast, let alone the UK, Germany, or Australia. It’s good to be an optimist but I hope you won’t have to regret your naivety.
I agree. There is no empirical evidence and hence, there should be no argument concerning human co2 and modern warming. It is simply belief based and not science based.
Why do you care so much about that? If CO2 emissions warm the climate a little or they don’t, either way the ‘cure’ is far worse than the imagined ‘disease’.
We need to focus on opposing the policies that threaten our way of life.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
It’s the foundation of the entire argument. If we concede that all scientific principles are for sale, all is lost. As for threatening our way of life, I have serious doubts. No one will accept going back to the caves. In the end the argument will switch to ”we can’t stop it so we will need to adjust”
Foundation of the entire argument?
How is an esoteric scientific hypothesis worth even thinking about? The empirical evidence shows that whether the greenhouse effect is enhanced by our emissions or a myriad of negative feedbacks negate most or all of it, it just doesn’t matter! 1.5-2°C of warming from a further doubling of CO2 would be a boon to humanity, not a harm.
The only thing we have to fear about climate change is the irrational policies reacting to the fear of climate change.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether there is or isn’t an enhanced greenhouse effect. As long as you agree that there’s NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, and vote in line with that, I could care less what else you want to obsess on.
So if someone says human co2 is causing warming, I should say ”maybe, but there is no crisis”
Is that it? That’s not going to happen, That leads to useful idiots like Greene who perpetuate the bullshit unnecessarily. Let there be no confusion. The ”science” of human caused global warming should not be conceded. You can argue about the weather as much as you want.
Climate change in 1908…..
What does this add to the discussion? In fact climate was changing significantly in those years and it clearly was natural change, just as most likely today’s change is.
Well, Mike, I suppose that you understand my view. It’s hard for me to grasp why it’s more important to you to oppose a hypothesis than to oppose palpably harmful policies.
If you’re voting for politicians who oppose bad climate policy then like it or not, we’re allies.
“… and manmade CO2 makes it stronger.”
Evidence free statement…..
Then calls to the anti-science of “consensus…
You have below ZERO credibility.
Yet another repetition of this impotent and meaningless statement
Yet another repetition of this impotent and meaningless statement
What more than belief do you have of human co2 emissions causing warming of any consequence? You really seem incapable of the slightest hint of critical thinking. And your self-awareness is nowhere to be seen.
If I understand you correctly you say WV that is on average 10X more ppm than CO2 and is GHG has no effect on climate when increased by 10%. But a 130 ppm in CO2 (a weaker GHG) which is about equal to a 3% increase in WV does. Hmmmm!
Have you any idea about the lag H2O needs to be present in the complete stratosphere ?
https://twitter.com/MeteoMark/status/1583304297860644864/photo/1
A significant cooling event continues in the Stratosphere due to the large Water Vapor cloud, but can it impact the upcoming Winter Season?
Strong cold anomalies are still being detected in the stratosphere over Southern Hemisphere. The anomalous cooling is caused by the large stratospheric water vapor cloud created by the January Hunga Tonga eruption. Cooling on this scale has not been seen in modern satellite records, with record cold temperatures detected in the southern stratosphere.
I always look for the /sarc tag 😀
NASA Satellite Shows How Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption Released Water to Stratosphere; Trapped Vapor in Atmosphere Warms the Earth
NASA satellite observations revealed that the powerful volcanic eruptions of Hunga Tonga and Hunga Ha’apai ejected massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, likely warming the Earth’s surface temporarily. The explosion created a large plume of water vapor in the stratosphere, about eight and 33 miles above the Earth’s surface. According to NASA satellite data, there was enough water to fill 58,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
How does one easily convert “Olympic-sized swimming pools” to kiddie-sized wading pools, which most people probably have more experience with?
One doesn’t ‘easily.’
But, assuming a 6ft paddling pool, one Olympic sized swimming pool would be roughly equivalent to 2663 paddling pools of water.
So about 154.5 million paddling pools in total.
Hunga Tonga, while a powerful eruption, turned out to be nothing more than a pimple on the butt of an elephant. This brings into question assumptions about the cooling effects of aerosols that have been inferred by climate scientists in their models of future warming since Pinatubo. They use this aerosol correction to explain a rather large discrepancy in their “too big” warming predictions.
At least you realise the 2023 warming was from the El Nino and NOT CO2.
Ignoring the fact that HT almost certainly gave it a boost along.
And there you are again thinking that underwater heat shows up immediately. d’oh!
You really do have a very poor grasp of science and reality. !
Did you know that there is absolutely no evidence of CO2 warming in the whole of the satellite data period. !
Exactly correct.
Undetectable
Is lost in the noise of the data
This article by a retired professor makes exactly the same analysis as in the above comment.
The So-called Climate Crisis’ Is a Fairy Tale
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-so-called-climate-crisis-is-a-fairy-tale
The climate crisis (CAGW) is a 44 year old fairy tale. On that we agree. But there is AGW and it has been good news: Mainy warmer winters in colder climates since 1975.
You are correct Richard,
I graphed 40 years of NOAA data of 4 stations in Vermont.
The summer highs increased 1.4 F over 40 years
The winter lows increased 4 F over 40 years
I have lived in Vermont 34 years, and the winters have become warmer, the summers are about the same
We have about a foot of snow in our meadow and temp is 34 F
Urban warming has that effect.
Oh please do show us!!!!!
dickie is so scientifically illiterate that he mistakes LOCAL URBAN warming, being smeared all over the world, as meaning “global”
Yes, the mal-manipulation of data and the homogenising, infilling, and smearing of urban affected data, over vast areas where it doesn’t belong, does make URBAN WARMING into “global warming” in the surface fabrications….
…. But it is NOT REAL. !!
What is a conservative?
In the United States a conservative would be someone who favors the smallest government possible, that can get the job done.
A conservative would want to pay the lowest taxes possible, while still funding necessary government activities..
A conservative would want as little restriction and regulation from government as possible.
A conservative would be in favor of a strong national defense, including a secure border.
A conservative would support individual rights and freedom.
My question is: Why aren’t all people conservatives? What’s not to like?
Let’s compare “Conservative” to “Far Right” and to those on the Left of the political spectrum.
What separates “conservative” from “far right”? Of course, the Left doesn’t think there is any separation, but that’s just their political propaganda. “Far Right” is a very small minority of delusional thinkers.
Does the Left have any redeeming qualities with their political positions? What are their political positions?
Their worst political position is that government should control every aspect of our lives.
Who wants that? Why would any rational person be a leftwinger?
Leftists are entirely driven by emotion.
I’d say they’re driven by angst and deep self-loathing.
Leftists are driven by a lust for power and control. They believe they are experts on every subject.
While they actually know nothing about everything.
Mirror, meet Richard.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
BTW, who is speaking today? This one of your multiple personalities seems to be rational.
I am not a leftist, but I have a degree in vacuum physics. I know everything about nothing. Beat that 🙂
A Torr-id post this.
“Leftists are driven by a lust for power and control.”
We have noted that your posts have that as their main driver.
“While they actually know nothing about everything.”
WOW.. dickie just outed himself as a leftist !!
Not true
Leftist leaders use their intelligence to gain more power through planned emotional appeal for their useful idiots. This is a Saul Alinsky / Cloward Piven political science for them. And it’s working well. Look how they handled the 2020 election. That’s not emotion — it was a devious well executed plan.
There are times when a good messenger is rejected for expressing an unwelcome but true message. (Don’t shoot the messenger).
In this case however we see an example where a good message that would ordinarily be welcomed is rejected because of the messenger expressing it.
I don’t care
I don’t vote on other’;s posts and if people vote on my posts, maybe that proves they read them? Ot for bNasty2000, someone read my post to him.
So you say. You wouldn’t be posting if you didn’t want to have your ideas well-received and hopefully convince readers that you know how to wear a hard hat properly. If you ignore the down votes and critical comments, it strongly suggests a degree of detachment from reality.
You wouldn’t be posting if you didn’t want to have your ideas well-received
Not necessarily true. He could be posting simply for the responses, well-received or not. i.e. a troll.
(I’m not saying whether his is or not, only presenting an alternative.)
Ahh.. there’s that “vacant possession ” again.
The problem with RG is no-one knows exactly if at the moment he’s serious or not, 99.9% he isn’t.
As mentioned above, the rational voice is speaking for Richard today.
You are correct. Draining the SPR to lower fuel prices, forgiving student loans to get the tween (20s) vote and really pushing abortion “rights” to get the young women (and men) to vote, along with ballot harvesting really worked.
BTW: Ballot harvesting negates the “sanctity of the ballot box” that is “the secret ballot”, by allowing operatives to go into peoples houses and “help” them cast their votes, collect the ballot and submit it. Why is no one talking about that?
Irrefutably true statement. And yet, by repeating a literally unsupportable Greenpeace-sourced accusation against Dr Willie Soon — designed to appeal entirely to leftists’ emotional outrage over CAGW being caused by big nasty corporations — over in this other WUWT comment section, the “Richard Greene” over there has every appearance of being the exact ‘useful idiot’ described in the above quote.
Question is, do we have two “Richard Greene”s indistinguishable from each other commenting here at WUWT, or one “Richard Greene” whose login was hacked in that prior set of comment diatribes against Dr Willie Soon?
Perhaps a split personality.
Or zero personality.
One more thing possibly indicating the “Richard Greene” account(s) here at WUWT may not be what they appear to be: in the Jan 10 WUWT comment section about the Tucker Carlson interview of Dr Willie Soon, the “Richard Greene” commenter declared, as a means of defending himself about my basic statement of what the hallmarks of far-leftists are,
Implying it should be something like Marc Morano’s ClimateDepot, containing useful info we all could use. If I remember correctly, it was either at his specific defensive comment there or one of the others where his name was clickable, linking to his “The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog” (it took me a many minutes to locate the link that my computer’s Link History saved, since I could not remember the blog name) which appears to be nothing more than an automatic aggregator of climate-related webpages. It brags it has figures approaching 590,000 views (do a screen search for the words “page views”). Meanwhile, in a sample of just one of its Archive pages, 1/14 – 1/21, do a screen search for the word “bonus”. What do you find in each case there? Bimbo photos.
If I may simply suggest it, somethin’ not right going on with this particular “Richard Greene”‘s efforts here at WUWT …..
Omg looks like he might be cis-gendered, although I’m going to hazard a guess that those are not pictures of his dates.
I wouldnt be visiting his site without assuming your info is going into some soet of data base.
I don’t know that everything Dr Soon says is adequately supported in evidence but he’s a skeptic who agrees that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. So I count him as an ally.
Recently I heard him argue in favor of abiotic oil on Tucker Carlson. What effect did this have? It reduced my trust of his scientific rigor, but in no way does it make me want to attack him or regard him as any less of a skeptical ally. (Also even though 150+ years of oil exploration seems to argue against his views, I’m modest enough to acknowledge that he has more understanding of the topic than I do).
Greene is usually an idiot. Sometimes useful sometimes not.
“Their worst political position is that government should control every aspect of our lives.
Who wants that? Why would any rational person be a leftwinger?”
Why? Mostly for one of three main reasons, IMHO:
1) They are wealthy and have all they want. They do not want anyone to take their stuff so they use government control to prevent that. They are willing to pay a little more to buy the politicians who will be sympathetic to that end and who (the politicians) get their own financial gains in doing so.
2) They want to be one of the wealthy and cannot see a path to that end so use the government to ensure that others are as miserable as they are.
3) They are just stupid.
I’m sure much of the motivation to be a leftist comes from peer pressure and groupthink. For a young person on campus today it is extremely difficult and stressful, or even actually dangerous, to express conservative opinions in public.
I think you have described libertarians, not conservatives
Actual conservatives sometimes talk like libertarians sometimes, but spend money like drunken sailors on shore leave. Consider Trump’s 2020 and 2021 US budget as examples.
They tend to want excessive military spending and want to be policemen of the world.
Using 2020 & 2021 budgets without the COVID funding caveat is misleading. Was it necessary? Apparently so because it helped keep many small businesses from folding. Of course there were abuses, government programs always produce waste and abuse, that is why we should limit them. But we will never really know what would have happened had those funds not been available.
The government response to the “COVID” emergency destroyed thousands of small businesses and the destruction continues today.
Was it worth it?
That question should have been asked about the ridiculous (evil/devious) decision to lock down the population. And the answer is no, no, a thousand times NO!
Vulnerable populations should have been isolated and protected while everyone else should have been left alone. Inexpensive therapeutic drugs such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine should not have been restricted. Ineffective and potentially dangerous gene therapies should not have been forced on the public under the guise of a ‘vaccine’.
There would never have been a need to gush trillions of dollars into the economy permanently raising consumer prices by 20% and resulting in billions of dollars in fraud if the insane policy of locking down the entire population had not been pursued.
Your comments are Monday morning quarterbacking.
In the early part of 2020 there was a lot of unknowns about the virus, and those in charge trusted Fauci, not knowing what a rat he was. That early response by the Feds was correct. Then the states took over and started mandating all kinds of behavior. A few, Florida in particular, didn’t go along. We were allowed to make our own healthcare decisions. There was plenty of state support for what ever decision we made. Liberals, never wanting a crisis to go to waste, saw the opportunity to control people. So while the original response was correctly precautionary, the subsequent rules and misinformation were not.
You can claim it was all unnecessary now, but you can never know what would have happened if it was done differently or if the virus did turn out to be more deadly than it was.
If Fauci, Osterholm and others had been serious about human health they would have advised wearing a bullet-proof vest when shopping on West Madison in Chicago.
That’s certainly a fair criticism, Tom. Hindsight is 20-20. But I didn’t criticize 15 days to flatten the curve at a time when there was little to no data.
What I am criticizing is the idea that vulnerable people would be protected by locking everyone including them down (often in close quarters with infected people as in nursing homes) for months on end.
I am criticizing the coercive practices that persisted long after there was plenty of evidence that the mRNA shots did not prevent the spread to others, infection, or re-infection.
I am saying that by April or May of 2020 at the latest it was possible to see that the approach wasn’t effective. Had we segregated those at greatest risk and rigorously quarantined anyone in a nursing home or hospital showing the slightest signs of illness to prevent spreading within the vulnerable population, many lives would have been saved.
Yes, that’s Monday morning quarterbacking, but what is more important is that we take lessons learned. The next pandemic will come with its own unknowns to be sure. Different populations could be vulnerable. But the biggest lesson learned should be to characterize the early cases and determine who needs to be isolated, then isolate them effectively.
I certainly agree that this must be a lesson learned. Learned that we should question unelected bureaucrats, learned that big pharma isn’t always truthful, learned that the media is not on our side, learned that we shouldn’t follow blindly without reasonable questions answer.
I am grateful to Ron DeSantis and how Florida handled the situation.
Hydroxychloroquine has one of the longest lists of known side effects of any drug I have ever been prescribed. One of the most common and severe is the loss of color vision after long-term use. I was prescribed it by my VA rheumatologist for osteoarthritis. Before taking it, I had a test for my base performance of color vision, which was to be repeated every 6 months. However, I became aware of having developed high blood pressure (160/85) within 2 weeks of starting the prescription. It took me about 6 months to convince my rheumatologist I wasn’t handling it well, before she agreed for me to stop using it. My blood pressure came down quickly after stopping it. Yesterday, it was 119/71.
It would be irresponsible to allow unlimited, unmonitored access to this drug based on the large number of known side effects. People with Long Covid, especially, might be tempted to use it long enough to suffer some of the more serious side effects. You should be free to be your own physician, but remember the old saying about the man who acts as his own lawyer — He has a fool for a client. On the other hand, it is tantamount to practicing medicine to encourage others to follow your advice rather than that of their educated and licensed physician.
Fair enough Clyde. HCQ isn’t ’harmless’ and neither is chemotherapy. The point you miss is that qualified doctors were ‘cancelled’ for making the case (with data) that off-label uses of dirt-cheap medicines could be safely used and had some efficacy. I also would hesitate to self-medicate or to act as my own legal counsel.
Let’s not lose sight of the reality that placebos often help patients. Debilitating fear can be more harmful than the actual disease. And I would maintain that the Pfizer/Moderna money grab was little more than a placebo, except that sugar pills and saline injections don’t tend to cause irreversible heart damage in healthy young athletes.
There is a lot we don’t know about the placebo effect. However, researchers have seen it enough that they have wisely included it in double-blind trials.
I have two problems with your statement:
after long-term use
Use for COVID treatment is far from long-term.
unlimited, unmonitored access
Being a prescription medication, access would have been monitored by an individual’s personal physician.
I would say that preventing it from being prescribed actually resulted in less monitored use, as people were still able to obtain it without a prescription from their personal physician and thus did not have a medical professional familiar with them engaged in its use.
Again rational Richard.
So, yes, the crony military industrial complex spends more money then necessary.
And Rockefeller Republicans believe in corporate welfare for their cronies, even though those cronies have been supporting the Democrats for the last 20 years well more than Republicans because the Dems deliver the pork.
As to the budgets, you were a little off base with that one, and TRUMP!, if POTUS again, will NOT allow RINOs to control the budget process next year.
“What separates “conservative” from “far right”? Of course, the Left doesn’t think there is any separation, but that’s just their political propaganda.”
I’m a centre lefty and I think there is very definitely a difference between conservatives and far right extremists. I have plenty of conservative friends but I would find it difficult to befriend a proud boy.
But Tom, you must concede the misunderstanding goes both ways. I think there are a few on the right who think being left of centre means you are a communist. That is no more true than your statement re conservatives.
And I am with you. I want the least amount of government intervention, it is just I want it to a level you would consider “too much.” eg I want quality education for all, even if that means funding poor areas more. I think the state should provide good health care etc.
Simon, since you’re showing a glimmer of common sense, let me extend an olive branch. It’s reasonable to say that your acceptable level of government is different from mine. We have different conception on whether it is possible to deliver quality education or healthcare irrespective of the individual cooperating in necessary ways. Let’s not waste time litigating that.
The question is whether you can honestly say that there is a climate emergency or that eliminating fossil fuels could be done without the harm of losing reliable energy and modern agriculture.
“Simon, since you’re showing a glimmer of common sense, let me extend an olive branch.”
well that’s an inviting back handed reply.
“The question is whether you can honestly say that there is a climate emergency or that eliminating fossil fuels could be done without the harm of losing reliable energy and modern agriculture.”
Good question. Pretty well captures the whole issue.
See, in my world we have little choice but to try to reduce CO2 emissions. I accept that so far there has been minimal disruption caused by the warming and that it is very difficult to attribute an event to climate change… but…. I think the chance is very high that the future will look very different if we continue on this path. Will the earth collapse? No. The planet will be just fine. Will humans survive? Of course. But there could well be serious disruption to life as we know it? So does that warrant reducing fossil fuels. Probably, maybe, perhaps. The truth is we wont know till it’s too late. So what you are really asking me is, is the risk worth the action? I say yes you say no. From here we start to get heated and argue, but I wont go there today.
My suggestion is to delve into the historical records of your location. Instead of focusing on averages, examine the distribution and observe it over time. When selecting stations, check the available metadata and make sure to avoid stations that are inhomogeneous in anyway possible. Personally, I’ve found no discernible CO2 fingerprint at the stations in my area. Additionally, I’ve scrutinized stations in the Arctic Circle and found no such fingerprint there either—just the same volatile temperature fluctuations that the region consistently undergoes. If snow cover extent is a regular occurrence at the stations, also take a look at that metric; it’s probably a better metric than temperature.
Simon,
Thank you for responding honestly. Keep it up and I’ll try harder to eliminate the backhandedness you (reasonably) perceive.
So I’m wondering how you, as a self-described ‘centre lefty’, feel about giant corporations milking climate subsidies and avoiding taxes while paying their executives millions?
At the same time, do you not share in the least my concern that the world’s poor nations are being held in poverty?
Do you not see the grave harm to the elderly in countries with cold winters (well to all people there) if the heat goes out during a polar blast?
And what about the ravaging of nature? The loss of endangered raptors, destruction of pristine forest habitats, the voracious demand for ever-more mining?
Aren’t these more immediate concerns than the uncertain and as yet unseen impacts of mild warming?
We do not agree on the need to ‘do something’, but if we do something to reach net zero CO2 emissions, why should that not be the development and deployment of safer nuclear power?
“So I’m wondering how you, as a self-described ‘centre lefty’, feel about giant corporations milking climate subsidies and avoiding taxes while paying their executives millions?”
Not sure who you are talking about here, but if you know of a specific company please state. But I would counter that with, I like it no more or less whether it is done by the left or the right. I mean both oil companies or electric car companies seem to do it.
“At the same time, do you not share in the least my concern that the world’s poor nations are being held in poverty?”
I think sadly the poor lose out no matter what the richer nations do re climate. They are certainly the most vulnerable to reducing fossil fuels but also the first to suffer with a changing climate.
“And what about the ravaging of nature? The loss of endangered raptors, destruction of pristine forest habitats, the voracious demand for ever-more mining?”
Certainly what is happening in Brazil with the destruction of the rainforest to farm cattle is a serious concern for us all.
“Aren’t these more immediate concerns than the uncertain and as yet unseen impacts of mild warming?”
Like I said, we wont know the answer to that till it’s too late. The problem with a changing climate is it takes such a long time to reverse course, hundreds of years. This is a juggernaut.
We do not agree on the need to ‘do something’, but if we do something to reach net zero CO2 emissions, why should that not be the development and deployment of safer nuclear power?
Can’t argue with that. Got my vote.
.
“I’m a centre lefty “
ROFLMAO.
No simpleton.. you ae a rabid leftist.
“I want quality education for all”
To bad you missed out, hey. !
You can read between the lines when he trys to be sincere.
He thinks everyone can be equal, if only given the chance … but he needs your ongoing money/resources to keep up the charade of quality education.
(And, it is very important, maybe most important, to provide the teachers with ever increasing salary/benefit/time-off incentive so the kids won’t be left behind.)
Yes, that all came from his post:)
Fart-Breath Slimon is a totalitarian marxist.
“Fart breath.” Be honest did you think of that all yourself? I would wager BNasty taught you that searingly clever putdown.
“”eco-morons attack the Mona Lisa
The two protesters were demanding the right to ‘healthy and sustainable food””
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13015661/eco-morons-splash-soup-mona-lisa-louvre-paris.html
Silly season has started early
What do these morons think Mona Lisa prefers as meal ?
Probably [organic] Champagne
So soup is a healthy and sustainable food which these idjits are throwing away while demanding healthy and sustainable food? Am I missing something here?
Complete idiots. Lock them up for 10 years.
Da Vinci must be rolling over in his grave.
“Complete idiots. Lock them up for 10 years.”
And feed them mouldy gruel !
There must be something in the water that these Europeans drink!
Water? Never drink the stuff, fish crap in it.
Some thoughts about the brilliant and kind Michael Mann, one of the best scientists in the history of the world. Just ask him.
Some jealous people are not very nice to one of the greatest scientists ever.
Just ask his mother.
So they search diligently for his mean tweets and then call him names, such as a science fraud, a horse’s ass, a bum, meaner than a junkyard dog, and even comparing his brilliant work to a pile of farm animal digestive waste products.
One angry person claimed he was worse than Adolf Hitler.
These people are all jealous of a great scientist.
I would never say anything bad about such a genius, since I was raised to always be polite and respect men of great accomplishments. And women too. I am also a proud graduate of the Don Rickles Charm School.
Trump had plenty of mean tweets, but most conservatives still like him.
This brilliant scientist, a legend in his own mind, also had some mean tweets and you should read them at the link below:
The World’s Leading Climate Expert | Real Climate Science
The Michael Mann Rap
by Heavy R.
I’m no Fan of that G-Man
His ego set on Expand
His brain the size of a Pecan
Climate he Misunderstands
Theories built on Sand
Junk science is his Brand
He should be Banned
But he’s still in Demand
Claptrap to beat the Band
Hard to Withstand
Libel lawsuits he Planned
To make the critics Disband’
Mann should take the Stand
From UP he should be Canned
Unless he’s a Trans
They’re in high Demand
Where is your /sarc tag ? 😀
OK again the rational Richard’s comment is so clearly sarcasm that NO TAG IS NECESSARY.
Please don’t force another of his personalities to take over.
Sure it’s not meant serious by RG ? 😀
Utterly unclear at this point. I’ve asked one of the WUWT moderators to look into this, a singular “Richard Greene” cannot have it both ways by holding clearly anti-Mann positions here today while citing pure Greenpeace-sourced accusation diatribes against Dr Willie Soon over in the comment section for the Jan 10 WUWT “Tucker Carlson / Dr Willie Soon Climate Change Interview.” Those were accusations the Mann himself would endorse. It isn’t logical, which makes me wonder if the “RG” may have been an impersonator over there.
He just has multiple personalities, and you never know which is in charge on any given day, or sometimes even within the same post.
And in general, on his responses to this post, he HAS BEEN rational, IMO.
True. Which contradict his other irrational comment replies elsewhere. I found the guy’s Disqus commenter account today in an effort to see if he is legit — he utters many things you’d expect hear from fed-up Republicans … but also outright trashes ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano. Joanne Nova, and Joe Bastardi among others, all of whom are on the climate realists side. That makes no sense. Pile on top of that his prior Greenpeace-sourced accusation against Willie Soon at the and you have the appearance of the guy either being nuts, or possibly up to some other nefarious intent in luring people to click on links in his irritatingly endless conveyor belt article links-only ‘blog’ (saved an example page in this Archive for posterity’s sake).
Nope. You appear to be sarcasm-impaired, possibly with irony deficiency as well. So wide of the mark that Korean’s just flinched.
Where can I buy a Page Gibberish Decoder Ring?
You already use one looking at what you write 😀
Just part of in the “Worshippers of Mann” cult. 😉
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4429396-eu-lawmakers-us-natural-gas-exports-biden-letter/
EU lawmakers to Biden: We don’t need more US natural gas
by Saul Elbein – 01/25/24 12:57 PM ET
Big oil is trying to make Europe “the excuse” for an unnecessary and planet-heating expansion in gas exports, 60 members of the European Parliament wrote in a Tuesday letter to President Biden.
The letter from largely left-leaning members followed unverified reporting from The New York Times that the Biden administration is considering a pause on new gas export terminals until it can determine whether they are in the national interest — something dozens of Democratic lawmakers have called for. . .
Europe’s transition to an economy that doesn’t heat the planet “will only be held back by the construction of new LNG export facilities in the US and import facilities in Europe,” which they argued would serve only to “lock-in” unneeded gas resources.
“We know that ongoing dependence on fossil gas, no matter where it comes from, is not in the best interest of the European Union and we are confident you will come to the same conclusion in the United States,” they added.”
end excerpts
Idiocracy, on both sides of the Atlantic.
The EU is transitioning to a bankrupt economy, so therefore, they don’t really need much natural gas.
It’s not as it appears to you. Every literate must know that the electricity generated by wind turbines and solar panels can’t make the world go around and won’t for long into the future, if ever. Even those awarding the leases and constructing the arrays and transmission lines know this. These projects are red herrings devised by elements of US intelligence and their allies as part of a procedure to gain physical control of the undeveloped and developed hydrocarbon resources everywhere, their refineries and distribution. Then the renewables will be allowed to fail and control of the world’s energy will be in their hands. This is also the basis for the continuing animosity toward Russia. It is essential that its hydrocarbon energy also be under the control of elite clandestine western power.
That’s why it’s a crisis that must be immediately addressed. There’s no time to use the most sophisticated new methods of researching climate and engineering practical and effective solutions. Action must be taken now, not because of an invisible “tipping point” but before 8 billion people realize that they are being had. The existing power grids must be under the control of the western powers as will be the new renewable efforts. In fact, they already are. The new African pipeline expansion will be an immediate target.
Once the world’s hydrocarbon energy is safely under the intelligence service’s thumbs the renewable machinery will still operate but as its machinery fails none will be repaired or replaced. It will be back to “fossil” fuel normal with a powerful ownership in control of not only oil but serious weapons. The “left” are idiot stooges on the sidelines.
??
I’m really starting to think that the alarmists are seeding the discussion with fake conspiracy theorist gibberish to sow chaos and generate division among skeptics.
Do you actually think that control of the world’s hydrocarbon energy resources is of no interest to the CIA, NSA, FBI and other intelligence agencies whose acronyms we don’t even know? The guys that are investigating “Havana Syndrome” so they can use it themselves? By torturing ferrets? Of course this is minor league activity that wiggles out to the public, not stuff like fomenting revolution and war in eastern Europe, invading Arab countries and screwing with Hong Kong. Maybe CIA director William J. Burns isn’t obsessed with the world’s hydrocarbon energy but it’s his job to keep track of it and report to his boss, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, who is concerned with everything.
Yes but this is also the same bunch of geniuses that spent millions trying to train operatives to kill people (or goats) with their minds, got conned out of billions for a debunked spoon bending/distance viewing con and keep spending vast sums on the latest unconventional ‘big idea’ to get one over on their opponents. Vast sums, I should mention, that are partly from the international sales of illegal drugs which, inevitably, end up poisoning their own citizens. I wouldn’t trust these geniuses to know the difference between olive oil and crude.
Reality is worse than climate models predict, new study finds
Sabine Hosenfelder
duh….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n69omzUFvM
I wasn’t worried about climate change. Now I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9sDyooxf4&t=144s
Now she thinks the ECS is greater than 5. Her logic is lame. I know less about climate science than almost all the commenters here but I could see problems with her logic. My grip on the subject isn’t sufficient to deconstruct her argument. Other than she always refers to all the well known climate scientists who are often criticized here. She seems to be well versed on astronomy- but not climate science. She talks a lot about models! She should get back to dark energy and the like. She’s panicking.
Also, I see idiot climate stories in the Boston Globe every day. I like to mention them here but I don’t like to jump into somebody’s story with an off topic story. It would be nice if there was an open thread every day! There’s so much to talk about- other than the articles posted by the excellent authors here. Furthermore, I do now see the fallacies of almost everything I see about climate in the MSM- in a basic sense- but I don’t know how to find all the info to back up the alternative perspective, as the experts here do- and of course people like Tony Heller and many others.
The experiment of changing CO2 on Earth’s climate has been done. It’s called the Geological record, and it shows unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 concentration is a function of temperature, and not vice versa.
Hossenfelder seems unaware of this fact.
“atmospheric CO2 concentration is a function of temperature, and not vice versa.”
Wrong, science denier.
There is a natural process where CO2 is a feedback and a manmade process where manmade CO2 is a forcing.
Two very different processes.
But you are in the dark.
😀 😀 😀
The so called well mixed CO2 introduce 2 different processes ?
And you name others a science denier ? 😀 😀 😀
May you explain the starting point of these processes and how they act ?
I’m sure you can’t beside in your wet dreams.
What is a unit of forcing? Meter, degree K, knot?
unicorn farts. !
Dickie is a true believer in unicorn farts.
What is the difference between natural CO2 and man-made CO2? Genuine question.
Dickie-greenie is NO skeptic.
Just swallows the whole CO2 warming non-science whole… and regurgitates it.
With no evidence to back up that his rantings.
It’s astonishing how he casually threw in the ‘99% consensus’ the other day, seemingly ignorant of the intellectual shallowness that accompanies such a simplistic viewpoint.
“you are in the dark.”
Certainly, people are left dumber by reading your comments… (if not immune to them)
At least the Minuteman State has been relieved of the machinations of the dishonest Charlie Baker, who can now move on to work his magic on the similarly dishonest NCAA.
Sabine has made the transistion from scientist-trying-to-educate-people-in-sub-atomic-physics to an influencer making a living from you-tube views. Unfortunately, she’s discovered that climate controversy generates many views. Her climate posts are now only a bit better than Bill Nye, the Science Guy reruns.
I have found YouTube deletes my comments on CAGW videos when I point out Inconvenient Facts.
I find the same. Anything with a link gets deleted, so proving your point is a problem, and stating your point gets your comments moderated out of existence. Like many climate papers, sounding like you agree and then making points that clearly don’t agree seems to keep you “live” because the mods don’t read them in full, just look for word matches.
The local library apparently finds that customers aren’t searching for climate anxiety references so it displays them in a separate section. Even so, few seem compelled to check them out as there they are, ignored by the public, either because they already know as much as they wish about existential climate change or don’t care and would rather read Yuval Noah Harari or Stephen King.
No planet B? Has anyone informed Jack O’Neill that the Alphasite and Betasite have been compromised? 🤣
Similarly, I was in a museum recently where one of the display areas had been given over to the usual propaganda detailing the horrors of “Changing Our Climate”.
The amusing moment for me was when a teacher ushered his group of ~ 8-year-olds in, whereupon the kids looked around with obviously disappointed faces, and one kid voiced their unanimous impression –
“can we go back to the dinosaurs section?
I wonder if the vast amount of money and effort wasted over decades of global climate action will every be tallied. More importantly with a query on what human advancement was missed.
What could have been had this massive force been applied to real world needs and improvements.
It’s such a shame. And the enormous misappropriation is still underway.
Someday, somewhere, someone will desperately need a topic for their PhD dissertation. Being that a PhD is 99% perspiration, and 1% inspiration, I predict that the analysis will take place.
French farmer announce siege of Paris 😀
French farmer unions vow to put Paris under ‘indefinite siege’ in income, tax and regulation protests
Farmers from the Lot-et-Garonne, one of the hotspots of the protest movement in southern France, had already announced their intention to ‘go to Paris’ on Monday.
Governments worldwide are resorting to taxation based behavioural modification of citizens as a fun objective for their many petticrats. They have entirely lost track of the usual government mandates of repairing roads, having enough jails for criminals, and having a big-enough-but-not-ridiculously-excessive army to defend borders from invaders.
No king tide should be wasted. San Francisco Mayor London Breed, left, and California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis during a news conference to address sea level rise along the city’s waterfront in San Francisco, Friday, Jan. 26, 2024.
They don’t leave a paper trail, but I recall from TV news that a very expensive seawall was discussed.
Cornell University engineers have created a new lithium battery that can charge in under five minutes — faster than any such battery on the market — while maintaining stable performance over extended cycles of charging and discharging.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240124132741.htm
Uh-oh, it’s a 3 minute fused bomb! 🤣
Chats with AI shift attitudes on climate change, Black Lives Matter
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240126001915.htm
There ya go- just use that chatbot and you’ll turn into a climate alarmist!
Now we need a chatbox that’ll turn alarmists into skeptics! 🙂
Amelia Earhart plane located ?
https://www.newsweek.com/amelia-earhart-plane-discovery-clue-pacific-ocean-sonar-photograph-1864634
https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4?si=3l6mr9NgSYoT9gs0
Poor Sabina, sounds like she’s about to start crying at one point. Can someone help her out?
Delusional, would be a better description.
She brings it on herself…
… I hope it haunts her all the rest of her life. 🙂
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-climate-extreme-amazon-drought.html
January 28, 2024
Climate change behind extreme Amazon drought: study
“Climate change was the chief driver of the devastating drought that gripped the Amazon last year, say researchers, as warming threatens one of the world’s most important ecosystems for stabilizing the global climate.
The historic agricultural drought affected millions of people across the Amazon basin, stoking huge wildfires, shrinking key waterways and taking a calamitous toll on wildlife.
Some experts have suggested that the arrival of the naturally occurring El Niño weather phenomenon was behind the tinderbox conditions.
But a new study from scientists at the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group, published Wednesday, found that climate change caused by humanity’s planet-heating carbon pollution was the main culprit. They said it had made the drought 30 times more likely from June to November 2023.”
end excerpt
The “World Weather Attribution group” is a joke.
Their opinion is noted. Opinions are not established facts.
There is no established connection between CO2 and any weather event.
The opinion of the WWA changes nothing.
Running one FAKED model against another FAKED model.. (which is essentially what “climate attribution does)
… is not science !! …. no matter how much glitter they want to sprinkle on it.
Great piece on the abject failure of this administrations trade policies.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/01/28/arrogant-demands-have-consequences-mass-exodus-as-u-s-trade-staff-hit-dead-ends-and-unwilling-cooperation/
So I watched the NFL playoffs. I don’t watch the regular season, because I don’t like the woke nonsense. I was rooting for the Ravens and they lost. I was rooting for the Lions and they lost. So KC will probably win. The only reason to watch the Super Bowl is for the commercials. The last couple of years, they have been crappy. I hope KC loses, but I also hope that SF doesn’t win–what a conundrum!
We can see why the United States is experiencing relatively warm weather at the moment. The jet stream configuration is currently keeping the cold arctic air out of the United States and is allowing moist, mild air from the Pacific ocean to blow across the nation.
I say relatively warm, since the high temperature yesterday was 51F here in my area of Oklahoma, and the average for this day is 50F, so we are not far from the average. Loving the warm weather! Keep it coming! But, that won’t happen, as the cold arctic air will rear its cold head again in the near future. Enjoy this warmth while it lasts.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/01/29/1200Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-104.11,32.76,264
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/01/29/1200Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-104.11,32.76,264
Scotland had its hottest January day ever yesterday.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/28/scottish-village-may-have-set-record-for-warmest-january-weather-hitting-196c
I wonder where the weather station is. Perhaps the box visible on Google maps behind the village hall, close to a tall hedge?
Hi everybody,
a while ago I published an article about an error in the analysis of weather station data, that leads to an overestimation of global warming:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/30/systemic-error-in-global-temperature/
Since then I analyzed the weather station data in two more ways, that are different from this first analysis. Both confirm the original result that there was significantly less warming than the IPCC claims.
These analyses are rather dry. Should I bother to write an article summarizing my findings?
Three American soldiers were killed yesterday by the Mad Mullahs of Iran.
What will President Biden do about this? Well, the first thing the Biden administration has done is say “We don’t want a war with Iran”. Just what should be expected from an appeaser personality like Joe Biden? Joe’s appeaser attitude and actions are what are causing these murderous dictators to think they can get away with these attacks. And so far, they have gotten away with them.
Now, the debate is about what to do about it. Should the U.S. attack the proxies of the Mad Mullahs or should the Mad Mullahs be attacked directly?
Here is what should happen if we want to deter the Mad Mullahs.
The United States should blockade all Iranian ports. No ships in or out, with the exception of foreign vessels currently in Iranian ports, which should be allowed to leave. This will shut off the Mad Mullah oil revenues.
The U.S should NOT bomb any Iranian oil producing facilities. Leave these intact for the Iranian people to use after they overthrow the Mad Mullahs.
The U.S. should destroy ALL of the Mad Mullahs nuclear weapons production facilities, along with destroying all attack drone production facilities and all rocket and missile production facilites. All existing drones, rockets and missiles should also be destroyed.
The U.S. should target all the leadership of the Mad Mullahs, killing as many as possible, along with all the IRGC forces (the Mad Mullahs private army).
This campaign will mean limiting civilian casualties to a minimum while directly targeting the bad guys and their hardware. Civilians are not going to be hanging around weapons production facilities or military bases.
Once the U.S. starts in on this campaign, the Iranian people will rise up and depose the Mad Mullahs and hopefully hang them from the highest tree in Iran. All the Iranian people need is a little outside help. Destroying the Mad Mullah’s army’s capabilities will be sufficient help.
Dependent on the speed of the removal of the Mad Mullahs from power along with their army, the damage may be limited, as once the Mad Mullahs are out, there will be no more need to bomb the hell out of Iran.
This is what *should* be done, but I have no hope that Joe Biden will do anything like this. Biden will appease these murderers in Iran. He may hit the Iranian proxies in the area, to make it look like he is doing something, but that won’t bother the Mad Mullahs one bit. The only thing that will bother the Mad Mullahs is if *they* get hit.
To not take this opportunity to destroy the Mad Mullah’s ability to manufacture weapons would be the heighth of stupidity and shortsightedness.
Joe Biden is the worst person possible to be presiding over this situation. He is a natural-born appeaser. He would give up his lunch money to the playground bully every time. That’s what he is doing now.
Joe Biden is the worst, most dangerous president evah! He has put the nation in great jeopardy.
Tom
Did you happen to catch KJP saying that “they died for this administration”?
Yes, I saw that.
I also saw Laura Ingraham, a host on Fox News channel say tonight that the U.S. should not retaliate for the killing of three American soldiers, because if we do, it might start a war.
So I guess Laura wants us to suffer in silence and do nothing as murderous dictators kill our people. If we do something about it we might start a war, and we can’t have that, according to Laura.
Laura doesn’t seem to understand that we are already in a war with the Mad Mullahs of Iran, or rather they are in a war with us, but Biden doesn’t want to participate. The only problem with that non-participation, Joe and Laura, is it is not up to us whether a war is going on or not, it already is going on, so what are you going to do about it? Run away? Where are you going to run? Joe and Laura don’t want to do anything about it when Americans are killed for fear of the ramifications. What are the ramifications if we don’t do anything about it, Joe and Laura?
Typical appeaser thought processes for both Joe and Laura. Run, run, run. Appease the international bully.
It appears that Biden will not hit the Mad Mullahs over these killings. Instead, he will hit the Mad Mullah’s terrorist minions. The Mad Mullhas will not be moved by the deaths of a few of their henchmen. Joe is wasting his time. The target should be the leadership of Iran.
Joe has already signaled he is not going to go there. The Mad Mullahs must be very pleased at their success. They have ole Joe just where they want him.