Sheriff Joe
DA
Couldn't have said it any better my self.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm
Anthony Watts / 12 hours ago August 7, 2018
Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm...
By Rob Bradley writing at IER
“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”
— Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun.” New York Times, June 24, 1988.
It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world.
The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).
Erroneous Predictive Scares
Consider the opening global warming salvo (quoted above). Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified—and by a lot, not a little. Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world.
Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees. At the thirty-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about one degree—and largely holding (the much-discussed “pause” or “warming hiatus”). And remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.
Turning to sea-level rise, the exaggeration appears greater. Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches. And it has not been appreciably accelerating. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades, noted climate scientist Judith Curry. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”
The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore. Sea levels could rise twenty feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.
Now-or-Never Exaggerations
In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a “point of no return.” In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”
Time is up on Gore’s “point of no return” and Hansen’s “critical tipping point.” But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions—as if they will suddenly be proven right.
Another scare-and-hide prediction came from Rajendra Pachauri. While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted “global disaster” from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet.
Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the UN claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away
There is some levity in the charade. In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming. But fifty days, six months, and eight years later, the earth seems fine.
Climate Hysteria hits Trump
The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers.
Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that “a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.” In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that “electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.”
Trump won the election, and the shrill got shriller. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” opined Joe Romm at Think Progress. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”
At Vox, Brad Plumer joined in:
Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States…. We’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown. The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption.
Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”
Falsified Alarms, Compromised Science
Anthony Watts / 12 hours ago August 7, 2018
Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm...
By Rob Bradley writing at IER
“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”
— Philip Shabecoff, “Global Warming Has Begun.” New York Times, June 24, 1988.
It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world.
The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).
Erroneous Predictive Scares
Consider the opening global warming salvo (quoted above). Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified—and by a lot, not a little. Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world.
Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees. At the thirty-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about one degree—and largely holding (the much-discussed “pause” or “warming hiatus”). And remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.
Turning to sea-level rise, the exaggeration appears greater. Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches. And it has not been appreciably accelerating. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades, noted climate scientist Judith Curry. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”
The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore. Sea levels could rise twenty feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.
Now-or-Never Exaggerations
In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a “point of no return.” In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”
Time is up on Gore’s “point of no return” and Hansen’s “critical tipping point.” But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions—as if they will suddenly be proven right.
Another scare-and-hide prediction came from Rajendra Pachauri. While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted “global disaster” from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet.
Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the UN claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away
There is some levity in the charade. In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming. But fifty days, six months, and eight years later, the earth seems fine.
Climate Hysteria hits Trump
The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers.
Heading into the 2016 election, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson warned that “a vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.” In Mother Jones, professor Michael Klare similarly argued that “electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.”
Trump won the election, and the shrill got shriller. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” opined Joe Romm at Think Progress. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”
At Vox, Brad Plumer joined in:
Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States…. We’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown. The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption.
Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”
Falsified Alarms, Compromised Science
Sucker.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Some bitches just won't die.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Sea level rise hit a new high, land and ocean temperatures reached a near record high and sea ice coverage fell to a record low. Those are just a few of the findings in the 28th annual State of the Climate report, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.
Last year was the third hottest year on record after 2016 and 2015, respectively, the report, billed as an "annual checkup for the planet, found.
7ca40f92-9a95-11e8-9630-e419171686d9
Last year was the third hottest year on record after 2016 and 2015, respectively, the report, billed as an "annual checkup for the planet, found.
7ca40f92-9a95-11e8-9630-e419171686d9
Sheriff Joe
DA
Fake News
Sheriff Joe
DA
START? LoL
Williams: Salon Says It’s Time to ‘Start Panicking’ Over Climate Change
2 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...MwA3oECAkQEQ&usg=AOvVaw0G1RNbsi5AsQCq_0hJemmt
Williams: Salon Says It’s Time to ‘Start Panicking’ Over Climate Change
2 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...MwA3oECAkQEQ&usg=AOvVaw0G1RNbsi5AsQCq_0hJemmt
Are you denying science?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Only man made science.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Wind and Solar Energy: Good for Nothing
NORMAN ROGERS
The bottom line is that wind and solar are useless. Here is why.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/wind_and_solar_energy_good_for_nothing.html
NORMAN ROGERS
The bottom line is that wind and solar are useless. Here is why.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/wind_and_solar_energy_good_for_nothing.html
Sheriff Joe
DA
Any port in a storm.
When the going gets tough the lefts values get going.
Hot Air
Uh oh. DNC proposes scrapping ban on fossil fuel donations
1 hour ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3uO3VqKv2QuU053DXAAopk&cf=1
When the going gets tough the lefts values get going.
Hot Air
Uh oh. DNC proposes scrapping ban on fossil fuel donations
1 hour ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...gQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3uO3VqKv2QuU053DXAAopk&cf=1
Sheriff Joe
DA
OPINION
The Trump Administration’s War on the War on Coal
Steve Sherman | August 11, 2018
]
Time’s up for bogus environmental do-gooders as the U.S. government rolls back anti-coal regulations left over from the Obama era. President Donald Trump has eased restrictions that have stifled innovation in the country’s power sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently revised standardson coal ash disposal in a move decried by inflexible tree huggers but welcomed by the utility companies for whom the legislation has proved unnecessarily burdensome – to the tune of a $30 million a year—and by states, who have been unfairly constrained by the strict federal standards.
The initiative comes just a few weeks into Andrew Wheeler’s tenure at the helm of the EPA, and should ease conservatives’ concernsthat Wheeler wouldn’t share former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s zeal for overhauling the agency and scrapping useless regulations which have been handicapping American companies. Wheeler choice to relax the restrictions on coal ash disposal as one of his first policy decisions confirms that his appointment was a savvy move by an administration committed to saving mining jobs and reviving interest in one of America’s most abundant natural resources.
The EPA’s policy shift is the latest step in the new administration’s war on Obama’s war on coal, emphasizing President Trump’s determination to liberate the American coal industry from the shackles Obama imposed on it. The excessive regulations Obama held back crucial technological developments, such as high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) plants designed to make fossil fuels more climate friendly.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Do gooders don't realize that green energy relies on coal.×
View attachment 3041
OPINION
The Trump Administration’s War on the War on Coal
Steve Sherman | August 11, 2018
]
Time’s up for bogus environmental do-gooders as the U.S. government rolls back anti-coal regulations left over from the Obama era. President Donald Trump has eased restrictions that have stifled innovation in the country’s power sector.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently revised standardson coal ash disposal in a move decried by inflexible tree huggers but welcomed by the utility companies for whom the legislation has proved unnecessarily burdensome – to the tune of a $30 million a year—and by states, who have been unfairly constrained by the strict federal standards.
The initiative comes just a few weeks into Andrew Wheeler’s tenure at the helm of the EPA, and should ease conservatives’ concernsthat Wheeler wouldn’t share former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s zeal for overhauling the agency and scrapping useless regulations which have been handicapping American companies. Wheeler choice to relax the restrictions on coal ash disposal as one of his first policy decisions confirms that his appointment was a savvy move by an administration committed to saving mining jobs and reviving interest in one of America’s most abundant natural resources.
The EPA’s policy shift is the latest step in the new administration’s war on Obama’s war on coal, emphasizing President Trump’s determination to liberate the American coal industry from the shackles Obama imposed on it. The excessive regulations Obama held back crucial technological developments, such as high-efficiency, low-emissions (HELE) plants designed to make fossil fuels more climate friendly.
Which practice is more damaging to the environment?
Finding, mining and using a plentiful resource, or finding, mining and using a rare resource?
Discuss.
What is the net effect on the environment in building, using, and disposing of one electric vehicle?
Whet is the net effect on the environment in building, using, and disposing of one natural gas vehicle?
Natural gas, dipstick.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Good point in your article.
Other studies show that electric vehicles beat gas-powered ones in terms of greenhouse gas emissions even if they’re charged in regions that depend heavily on coal.