The weather is heating up, and so is the “climate lawfare” radicals are using to impose draconian policies that would impoverish the masses, and even put some people in jail. On episode #118 of The Climate Realism Show we will cover that story; plus say goodbye to Jim Inhofe, one of the United States Senate’s stalwart opponents of climate alarmist policy and junk science; and poke some fun at the Crazy Climate News of the week.
At 1 p.m. ET, tune in LIVE for the stream with The Heartland Institute’s Jim Lakely, Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken — as well as special guest Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com and CFACT.
O/T. That Labour victory…
just 52% of UK adults went to the polling booth on July 4
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1922389/Election-turnout-report-record-low
48% were effectively disenfranchised with nothing worth voting for
Those people disenfranchised themselves. If those voters found nothing or no one worth voting for, that’s on them. Political parties don’t court non-voters. They do court voters and likely voters.
We need to adopt the Aussie system where voting is compulsory, but we need to have on the ballot paper a final box which says “none of the above”, and if that gets the most votes then there must be a bye election in which none of the original candidates can stand.
Compulsory- and to motivate further, offer some $$$. Maybe $100 or whatever, in the US. I suppose someone could argue that the lower classes don’t vote as often- so if they do, they’ll vote Dem. Not so sure about that. It used to be that way, but not so much now. The lower classes are now more likely to vote Trump. Not the party of Woke.
Early 1960’s, Queensland. Two police constables at the door. “Who live here?” “What are their ages?” “21?” Onto the electoral roll. Vote – and be checked off. Don’t vote, a £5 fine.
Spaces for ‘write-ins’. I was disappointed when “Mickey Mouse” didn’t win.
Early 1960’s, Queensland. Two police constables at the door. “Who live here?” “What are their ages?” “21?” Onto the electoral roll. Vote – and be checked off. Don’t vote, a £5 fine.
Spaces for ‘write-ins’. I was disappointed when “Mickey Mouse” didn’t win.
For the last forty years, the voting lines that I stood in every year are mostly blue collar folks.
Yes, there is a rush of white collar workers voting before they go to work. Understandable, when I reached white collar work status, I often worked late and missed the end of voting hours.
Net zero or net zero
Let me guess what you’d opt for
Certainly not None of the above
Voter apathy was in part caused by the media pushing opinion polls that said that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, so why bother? Labour did badly in the previous election in terms of seats won but got a record number of seats this time – with fewer votes overall. Low turnout combined with fragmentation of the opposition allowed them to win many seats. In my constituency the Labour candidate was elected with fewer than fifteen thousand votes – once that would havr given you a poor second place. The remaining 27,000 votes polled were shared between ten candidates. The first past the post system worked well when two parties took most of the vote, it biased the result towards the winner, where proportional representation would result in coalitions that give disproportionately more power to small parties. With the current fragmentation, it has caused some very odd results – Labour have taken two thirds of the seats with just one third of the vote. The Liberal Democrats took over seventy seats with three and a half million votes while Reform got five seats with four million.
G’Day Strativarius,
“…with nothing worth voting for.”
There’s always something worth voting against.
VOTE!!
When the number of votes counted gets to 150% of the number of registered voters some folks will maybe, just maybe, start to wonder. “What the ‘bleeping-blap’ is going on.”
I voted Reform UK….
Noted.
Story Tip
“A new study comprehensively eviscerates a 57-year-old modeling paper upon which nearly the entirety of the IPCC’s CO2-drives-climate paradigm is based.
Seminal 1967 Paper Introducing CO2 ‘Radiative Forcing’ Is Based On Assumptive Imaginary-World Modeling (notrickszone.com)
“
Thanks for the remembrances of James Imhoffe, that guy who denied climate change. I can respectfully remember him thus. Appreciate Morano’s insights into his humor and originality.
Inhofe. Searching for him on Google, the Times article was the first that popped up among many others, both undignified and dignified.
Never were appositive phrases more overused in headlines: NY Times: James M. Inhofe, Senator Who Denied Climate Change, Dies at 89; The Hill: Inhofe, famed climate denier, dies; MSNBC: Jim Inhofe, climate crisis-denying former senator, dies at 89
Catchy.
Climate lawfare relies on hearsay evidence created by fraudulent climate models. There are at least six fundamental errors in these models. Five of these errors relate to the oversimplified climate energy transfer processes used in the climate models. The sixth follows from the nondeterministic nature of the fluid dynamics equations used in the global circulation models.
The first three errors were introduced in the 1967 paper by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W).
These were:
1) A steady state air column was used that created warming as a mathematical artifact when the CO2 concentration was increased.
2) The relative humidity was fixed for the air layers in the model. This provided a ‘water vapor feedback’ that amplified the initial warming artifact.
3) The time integration procedure used in the model allowed a very small warming signal to accumulate over time. In the real world, the normal daily and seasonal changes in temperature and humidity mean that this signal cannot integrate over time.
When the CO2 concentration was doubled from 300 to 600 ppm, these assumptions created an increase in surface temperature of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions. The 1967 M&W algorithms were then incorporated into each unit cell of a ‘highly simplified’ global circulation model [M&W, 1975].
The 1967 model included a partially reflective blackbody surface with zero heat capacity. The fourth error was introduced when a ‘slab’ ocean was added [Manabe and Stouffer, 1979; M&S, 1980]. The surface energy transfer, specifically the wind driven evaporation, was ignored. This was a flat ocean model without wind or waves that just introduced heat capacity into the model.
As funding was reduced at NASA after the end of the Apollo (moon landing) program, the planetary atmospheres group switched to ‘earth studies’. In 1976 they copied the 1967 M&W model and created warming artifacts for 10 ‘minor species’ including methane and nitrous oxide [Wang et al, 1976]. Later in 1981, Hansen et al added a 2 layer slab ocean and the CO2 doubling ritual. They also claimed that they could simulate a ‘global temperature record’ with this model by using changes in CO2 concentration, volcanic aerosols and changes in solar flux. This established the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and a climate sensitivity to CO2 that is still used in the climate models today.
Later as computer technology improved, the original 1-D steady state models were replaced by atmospheric GCMs and then by coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. Starting with the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, the fifth error was introduced when the radiative forcings were split into ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ contributions. A dubious statistical argument was used to claim that the anthropogenic forcing could cause an increase in ‘extreme weather’. This provided the argument for Net Zero. Little has changed since 2001.
The large scale global circulation models require the solution to very large numbers of coupled nonlinear equations related to the fluid dynamics of the climate system. The errors associated with this approach accumulate over time and the models may become unstable. This was demonstrated by Lorenz in 1963. This is the sixth error in the climate models. These models have no predictive capability over the time scales associated with climate simulation.
These modeling errors are discussed in detail in the recent paper ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’ published in the open access on-line journal Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
And, after Climate Lawfare is done saying “the science is therefore settled,’ it segues into saying skeptic climate scientists were recruited into disinformation campaigns. E.g. what’s seen in Puerto Rico v Exxon and Vermont v Exxon. The accusation, which usually also includes a side reference to ‘disinformation advertorials’ is totally without merit. The directives in the leaked industry memos were never implemented anywhere and the particular advertorials these lawsuits love to feature were never published anywhere. Arguably, these things should be dismissed for their failure to make the prima facie case that ‘Exxon et al knew CAGW was established fact, but employed shill scientists to reposition the science back to theory‘.
The proposal for Arizona prosecutors to pursue 2nd-degree ‘climate murder’ charges that was mentioned in the above Climate Realism Show podcast is enslaved to the very same meritless accusations, as I detailed in my July 8 WUWT guest post.
Climate Lawfare crashes & burns on two fronts, its cherry-picked IPCC ‘science’ and its meritless accusations.
Questions to any witness in an anti-FF case.
1… How long have you “known” that fossil fuels cause warming ?
2… Have you used any fossil fuels during that period ?
*”known” = how long have you been a brain-washed AGW-zealot.