NASA's ice measuring sat malfunctioned.... or should I say fell out of calibration, a while back. NASA was reporting clear arctic seas, while airliner pilots flying over the area reported total ice cover.
When the facts don't fit the theory, ignore, fake, or cherry pick. That's how "mainstream" climate scientists and politicians do things.
What we have to remember is that Global Warming is Real. So is Global Cooling. So Is Climate Change. It's happened for millions of years. ( what? you think the lush jungles of bygone days turned into prairie without Climate Change? ) There's even a real good probability that pollution, and greenhouse gases put out by burning fossil fuels has a notable effect on the Planetary Climate. A butterfly flapping it's wings....
We just don't know everything, and many ( Mann, the Hadley CRU ) just flat out lie, ( proven facts )so we can't Know until the con men are outed, and ousted, and real science takes place..
Real Science. Definition. When you change the theory to meet the facts.
Just because I'm certain that carbon credits are a scam doesn't mean there isn't money in them. I'm wondering If I can get enough money for NOT driving my old van to work to not go to work? I'll even go Total Solar, if you pay me! ( since coal, natural gas, etc. is formed by the Sun, a long time ago, I grant you, I can be Total Solar! ( pat pending ) )
didnt some smart person say "change is the only constant"? Or did i just missunderstand??? or worse im to dum-B to understand, or worseer Im a Republican!!!! We can change the global temp as easy as we can change the tide. As an Alaskan im bummed the global warming has been thrown out, i was really looking forward to more riding days.
In the eternally moving battlefield of claim and counter-claim in the great climate change debate, even Professor Phil Jones – of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – conceded in 2010 that there had been no ‘statistically significant warming’ between 1995 and 2009.
In the simplest, human terms, therefore, no one younger than 14 years old has experienced global warming.
The UN is showing it's colors again, wanting to "contract" the economies in major countries. I wonder if that is supposed to be on top of the contraction we have done to ourselves recently?
I wonder if anyone has ever pointed out to them that thriving countries tend to be much better to the environment than poor countries? There is no doubt that they don't have our best interests in mind, and I'm pretty convinced that they don't really have the best interests of the environment in mind. Never forget that regardless of how many times the IPCC is claimed to be a scientific body, they are in fact a political body dressed up to look like they are driven by science.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
This is something that many still refuse to acknowledge. Each passing year has been making more and more clear to all but the most ardent followers of the global warming climate change religion.
He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
This is an important point to understand. It's always pointed out that oil companies fund certain studies, therefor you can't believe those studies. The reality is that this is almost nonexistent. There is a huge amount of government money going into all sorts of scientific study though. It has become common place to tie what ever grant money you are applying for to how it relates to global warming. Just look at the published lists of things that are caused by global warming. It's become a complete joke.
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”
This is spot-on. Wind farms for the most part will become visible relics of a failed theory combined with failed political policies.
The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant.
Ted Kennedy wouldn't allow windmills in his sight at home. Ignore the possible genocide of the Condor and other raptors ( which in turn means rodent population explosion, crop damage, famine and plague... ) the ecological effects of sucking energy out of the weather system is unknown. It's possible that sucking a terawatt or so out of the weather system can have far more serious consequences than burning a years worth of coal. No one knows. No computer sim of the weather yet can predict last year, or the year before or.... They are just not right and it's more than likely that Chaos Theory says they can't be right. The 19th century determinism philosophy.... just isn't so. ( the belief that if you knew every atoms' position and momentum you could predict all..... )
Solar is great, all we have to do is cover Texas with panels, Massachusetts with lead acid batteries, and build a power plant every 50 miles to power the liquid nitrogen plants for the superconducting backbone to get that power to where people live. ( Texas and Mass will have to be evacuated to build the solar system. The Texans will fight. The New Englanders will Sue. ) I suppose you could do it in smaller, county sized chunks.... but you'd never get permission. I'm assuming Obama used his power to declare all Texan's terrorist and inters them... In Nebraska. Makes political sense... Perhaps he'll pick a different place than Mass. to put the batteries. They do after all vote for him... Kansas? That would lead directly to famine world wide, revolution and war. ( You would not freaking believe what percentage of world food comes from Kansas. ) Also the amount of lead needed is biologically scary.
Alcohol? I was all for it when I thought they'd make it out of garbage. Made sense. The bigger the city the more garbage you make, the bigger the processing plant....
No, they make it from food. Not algae, not switch grass, not seaweed.... food. Which has already jacked the cost of food and caused revolutions, and very soon now, war. ( see Egypt... )
Even then, the method is so inefficient that they literally can't tell if it takes more or less diesel to make the alcohol than you get out. It's within the error bars. It's not economical, and every gallon is tax supported. Based on a 78% cost of business rate normal to the US gov..... lose/lose, BIG time.
Now, Thorium Salt Nuclear, Garbage to Booze, and burning politicians for electricity all are workable and partly sustainable. ( the only iffy one is the burning politicians bit. We have to word the bill so they don't know until after they vote for it.... like Obama Care. It's not like they read this stuff...... )
In a related subject, One thing I agree with Glenn Beck on, is the kiddie molester incinerator. If built to produce power...... Perhaps a certain Jerry could inaugurate this Green Justice program?
LOL. Patrick beat me to it. Cold front has hit East Texas.
Saw where one of the leading alarmist scientists had to begrudgingly admit that as a whole the planet hasn't experienced any significant warming since 1998.
Then we have the fact that sea level has actually gone down, exactly contrary to the Gore lies and exaggerations that instigated all the alarmism nonsense. Properly categorized, the Al Gore film rife with blatant lies and deception would have Had to compete for the Oscar with all the other fictional films. Not my opinion but that of the British Judiciary.
Unlike Gore, I took meteorology. Micrometeorology and aviation weather, too. I make no claims to be an expert on weather, that takes a few more classes, but I usually had it figured out enough to fly gliders with moderate success. ( defined here as not landing right away...ie finding lift. One time at night... )
Now, climatology is a huge subject, requiring a far better understanding of co2 ocean uptake/release, cosmic ray blocking by the Magnetosphere, and solar weather than I have. But I've been a hobbiest at climactic archeology for over 30 years. I'm a tech buff, and it matters little to me if it's a i5-2500k or a windmill, I like to know how things work, and wonder why some things that work never caught on.
American Axes are heavier than European ones. Our trees are tougher. The moldboard plow changed agriculture, not always for the better, in terms of soil life. Vertical windmills are not the newest types, but the oldest ( Mesopotamian ) So much of history is about failed civilizations and many of them failed because the climate changed. Petra, the Pueblo cliff dwellers, Greenland, Vinland, Angor Wat, Atlantis. ( or was that Atlanta? )
Most of these disasters happened long before we started using fossil fuels, and most can be traced to either the heat transport cyclic current in the Pacific Ocean, ( el nina's & nino's ) or local land overuse leading to climate change. See Mt. Kilamanjaro, and the deforestation that raised the local mean temperature enough to melt the glaciers, a bit.
Periodically we get the orbital & inclination changes that give us Ice Ages. ( real long periods of suck, Much much longer than the short period of not too suck we live in today....) And nonperiodic stuff like Supervolcanos and Asteroid strikes.
just because grand dad didn't warn you about those things doesn't mean it is not going to happen.... I'm always amazed at people who insist that because an event that happens, on average, every, say, 700,000 years hasn't happened in over that time, means it's not going to happen again... what that means is we are over due.... Supervolcano and Asteroid hit are both....due. We should have a while before the ( only speculative ) gamma ray laser from the core sterilizes the surface again. ( they are still arguing if that is a long term periodic extinction reality or not... I don't know. )
If you change the theory to fit the data, it's science.
If you change the data to fit the theory, that's politics. And a lie.
Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said.
If you know statistics...or science...( which had better include an understanding of statistics... at least the freaking difference between mean and average } the above paragraph either makes you laugh or get angry at the distortion....
As my Father often says, "figures don't lie but Liars figure like crazy."
I especially love the computer model line.... the last computer model I used had me battling Zombies on the Island of Dr. Ned....
Everyone is less than 20ft from an unverifiable statistic.....
I wish I knew. One thing being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope you get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don't know it. It's just the way the humans go that if there's a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it. It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use.
On climate sceptics:
The people who don't believe in the environment and climate science, etc, are the deniers. They are a totally different category [to the greens]. They've got their own religion. They believe that the world was right before these damn people [the greens] came along and want to go back to where we were 20 years ago. That's also silly in its own way. I don't see how any true scientist could be either a believer or a denier. The term "sceptic" has been hijacked, too. ...
I am not a skeptic. I am not a denier.
I AM a heretic. I am against evil religions that exploit man for the wealth and power of the Priesthood. I'm pretty lax about that in general, as long as the shaman in charge settle for fleecing their own flocks. I don't rail against Scientology, the Mormons, Baptists or even Romans since, other than the constant push for stupid sexual mores, they tend not to send armed men to your house to take you away.
The Greenies really, really want to send armed troops to your house to take you away. Really. You thought Tom Cruise was wacky? ( many greens saw nothing wrong in this ad )
btw, Full disclosure, I own and drive a TDI. Getting good mileage (40+ @70mph) high torque and exhaust cleaner than LA air works for me....
I know all you guys have been waiting for this new fuel that will wreck your car, destroy your power equipment and pollute more than ever! Here It IS!
( If it takes a gallon of diesel to make a gallon of ethanol, ( and it, more or less, does.. the data is inside the error bars ) then burning 7 gallons of E15 actually burns 7 gallons Plus more than a gallon of diesel. Burning a gallon of E85 ALSO burns almost a gallon of diesel, and that does not count transport, because ethanol cannot be piped, like diesel or gasoline, but must be trucked.... with diesel burning trucks...
It is a slight exaggeration to say the means of saving fossil fuels burns twice as much as just burning the fossil fuels directly.... But far less an exaggeration than used to get us to pay billions to do so, by government mandate.
In any event the mandate to save fossil fuels actually burns MORE than before.
If you change the theory to fit the data, that's science.
If you change the data to fit the theory, that's lying.
Saw & just glanced at an article in an EE magazine on solar/biomass/wind power and the lack of maturity of the technology..... got distracted ( you know, that work for a living thing ) and now can't recall the mag. I think it's the latest issue, anyone know which mag and issue? Had EE...something in the title. ( there's more than one such mag... )
Are there ANY domestic manufacturers of these cells? Canadian Solar claims facilities here.Cool financing from the stymulus package.The owner will be able to claim carbon credits for his solar assisted factory?
A 400kw array is already in place up on the roof.The very conservative owner of the company is forward thinking and trying to TAKE ADVANTAGE of a gov. program.THe land was an unusable plot adjacent to the factory.He wishes %40 of his factory power needs from this array.He expects this ON A GOOD CLEAR DAY.IF carbon credits ever see the light of day he's prepared.
I just hope he can power these two brand new Index-MS40
In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back? (from above link)
Who knew? anyone who pays attention.
I will begin, and end, with 2 simple things.
1. The "hockey stick graph" published by Mann and endlessly used to show the upcoming apocalypse. It took years of Freedom of Information act paperwork to get the data used to make the graph. The data was fake. Or, as Mann and his cohorts at the Anglia Climate Research Unit would put it, "adjusted".
What I noticed, and others did as well, is the climate history, the past as shown in the graph..... was wrong. The Medieval warming period wasn't there. ( a subject of great interest to me personally, as MY ancestors were active traders and colonizers in that period. ) There is ample historical documentation as to the temperatures in places like Londonium, and Rome from 1000 years ago. Also ample documentation on the Great Frost Fairs 400 years later. Somehow, Mann's graph lacks these notable features.
If you are trying to show, say, gas prices rising, and wish to blame them on, say, sunspots, and your chart utterly lacks the massive price rise deliberately imposed by OPEC because of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, I would think your predictions to be as suspect as the rest of your "science".
2. The claim from those soon to brand any who disagreed with them as "deniers" ( with the full intent of linking them with nazi sympathetic Holocaust Deniers ) was that If/When the Earth got 2 degree's hotter, massive storms, droughts, plagues, etc would arise, and the world would look like "Soylent Green". ( if you missed that classic, See it for the late E.G. Robinson's last great role. He was stone deaf at the time, and did his cues on memory.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/ )
One tiny trouble. It never HAS happened as the fearmongers claimed. It HAS been that much warmer, and it doesn't happen that way. In never has. It DOES get stormy, and drought-ey, and plague-ey when the temperatures fall a few degrees.
I'd be happy to explain why, based on over a thousand years of archaeological data, and a 20th century understanding of weather causes.
The IPCC folk have been telling us that demons in the earth are released when we burn our offerings to the Gods of Commerce, Comfort, Transportation, and Capitalism. ( somehow the offerings to Marxist gods are not harmful..... )
There's some truth to that. Burning fossil fuels is, ultimately a dumb thing. Fossil fuels are the Capital Investment we should use to move to cleaner power, like Nuclear, or Orbital Solar.
Strict controls must be placed on the exhaust of fossil fueled power sources, lest we have the smoggy, dark days some may remember from Pittsburg, Los Angeles, or today's China.
Clean is good. Perfect is impossible. The Greenies are preventing the next step to cleaner, safer power, in their quest for Mother Earth News solutions.
There's only so much used fryer grease around to power diesels. It takes enormous tracts of land to capture the faint power of the sun and wind. ( and it tends to be ugly, so rich Men like E Kennedy forbid it in THEIR sight, and make it stick )
But we could, if we wanted, build small powerplants that run on the waste from our deliberately crippled nuclear program. large plants that burn the most dangerous waste...away. Forever.
And new design plants that are not the 1950's attempt to make as much Plutonium for Nuclear Bombs as possible.
The Greenies don't want any of that.
I'll leave it to your imagination why we no longer have a Space Program.
But... perhaps Xcor, SpaceX, or Bigelow will be ready to launch solar panels in the next decade.
RANJIT NAGAR, India — When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.
Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.
But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.
They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year. ......
So, just as the Carbon Credit Con is ramping up in America... Chicago to be precise, by some odd coincidence, the rest of the planet is showing us how to rip people off for religious purposes by selling invisible, and now harmful, stuff....
I expect the government of, say, Burma, ( renamed something I can't recall... ) to get rich by simply estimating the carbon footprint of each of it's peasants to be the same as a multi-billionare Chinese Businessman, and then slaughtering them for Carbon Credits. After all, they already do the slaughter part, might as well get richer on it.
I wish I was joking. Really really do.
Not new news, but you may need this reference if you object to someone taxing you for religious reasons....