Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Climate Science 3

This is a oxymoron.  Wonder if they do not see the irony of the requirement to cancel their trip during which they were to study "global warming".   Quote: "A team of “global warming” scientists were forced to cancel an Arctic trip due to “extreme ice conditions,” which highlights how the advocacy against “man-made climate change” is actually a globalist scheme to weaken the US economy.  The group of 40 scientists were onboard the CCGS Amundsen, a ship known for its icebreaking capabilities, but this time the ice proved too thick for the ship to break through safely. “Their trip began May 25 in Quebec City, but due to bad ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland, the icebreaker was diverted from its course to help ferries and fishing boats navigate the Strait of Belle Isle, said David Barber, a climate change scientist at the University of Manitoba and leader of the Hudson Bay expedition called BaySys,” reported CBC News. “Thick, dense ice had travelled to the area down from the High Arctic, said Barber, which caused unsuspecting boats to become stuck and even take on water.”    b

This adds credence to Trump's withdrawal decision.  Quote:"In the most recent WHO report on air pollution, the United States was listed as one of the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.  While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of any other country in the G7, except Canada with its scant population.
Following standard practice, the WHO measures air pollution by the mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter. These are the particles that cause diseases of all sorts and are responsible for most deaths by air pollution. According to the WHO, exposure to particulate matter increases the risk of acute lower respiratory infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer."    More on this topic. Quote: "Environmental groups are outraged that Pres. Donald J. Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, based on his “America First” mandate. But critics of the move may be missing the fact that the devil is in the details, and the world’s worst polluters are unlikely to change regardless of any supranational treaty. The White House issued statements that indicate the Paris deal would “cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion in reduced output, over 6 million industrial jobs, and over 3 million manufacturing jobs.” The Obama Administration had pledged $3 billion in Paris funding and set a break-neck pace for American industry to lower greenhouse gases. But the rub is that other major industrial nations made only modest, if any, commitments to reduction."  And, "In theory, the goals of the Paris Climate Accord are well intentioned. But until countries scroll back yearly amounts of greenhouse gases on a consistent basis, such policies amount to little more than political smoke and mirrors."

Those who act as if they have a lock on a given topic but cannot defend their position when confronted by someone who does need to either get out of the way, get informed before opening their mouths. This is an example of such a situation. Quote: The founder of the Weather Channel and climate scientist, John  Coleman, "...spoke to a CNN anchor and it made my day so much that I had to watch it twice! The man brings out some GREAT points about the hoax of global warming.  According to Coleman...himself, the scientists who are coming out and agreeing with climate change are basically paid (or should I say bribed) to say they agree with global warming. This in return gives the Democrats fuel for their fire, and they continue to profit off the ignorance of the people. “Science is about facts and if you get down to the cold hard facts, there’s no question about it. Climate change is not happening,” he continued, “It has become political, not scientific, [but] science is on my side.”

Quote: "Most global climate models are underestimating rainfall according to a study released Monday.  NASA and four universities compared climate data from 1995 to 2005 to 23 climate model simulations for the same period. More than 70 percent of the climate models underestimated the amount of rain compared to real world observations. “Precipitation is vital to life on Earth and regional precipitation changes accompanying anticipated global warming could exert profound impacts on ecosystems and human society,” reads the study’s abstract, adding that “we infer that most CMIP5 models underestimate the hydrological sensitivity under global warming.” The climate models that came closest to matching real world observations indicated that global warming will greatly increase rainfall in the future. Climate models in the study were underestimating rainfall because of the way they examined high altitude in the atmosphere. Global warming will mean fewer of these clouds, causing more rainfall."

Check this out.  It seems to be a foolish investment to me.  What about you?

An interesting experiment and one I find most convincing.

This is another example of cognitive dissonance.

A measured by a medical doctor discussing Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate change accord.  She thinks it is a good move for people's health. Quote: "The “voluntary obligations” of the U.S. include contributing to a $100 billion per year wealth transfer to poorer nations through the Green Climate Fund, and slashing its use of coal, natural gas and oil. The average U.S. family would have to pay $30,000 more for electricity over the next decade. Of course, the price of electricity is part of the cost of everything else also. More and more vulnerable people in the U.S. would, like those in the EU, face a “heat or eat” dilemma. And how much would the cost of medical care rise if a hospital has to pay $7 million a year for electricity at 40 cents/kWh instead of $1.5 million at 9 cents/kWh? How many more industries would move to China or other places not crippled by the Paris “economic suicide pact”?  And, "The imminent, serious threat to public health is energy poverty. The world, and especially the poorest and most vulnerable, owe President Trump a huge debt of gratitude for his strong leadership in facing down the powerful interests intent on harming America through the Paris regime."

Interesting observations on Trump's pulling the US out of the Paris accord.  Quote: "The president promised to put America first before assuming office. Despite what liberals and some shortsighted conservatives say, that is exactly what he is doing with this move. Trump is preparing to renegotiate improved deals for American businesses that will help to create jobs both domestically and overseas.  During his address regarding the decision to pull out, the president put forth the hard data on just how detrimental the current climate change agreement would be to the United States: 2.7 million jobs by the year 2025. It is this jobs data, not the bluster that liberals want to focus on, that is the major driver of Trump’s actions."
This is a very interesting piece, if it pans out to be true.  The earth makes water???  Quote: "Headlines in the popular press and science journals have been screaming the claim since January: “Planet Earth makes its own water from scratch deep in the mantle.” The claim, based on a new computer modeling study that suggests massive reserves of water, presumably fresh, have been produced by the planet itself – possibly more than is found in the world’s oceans – is sensational enough." 

Dr. Fred Singer is a world class climate expert.  He offers very interesting information in this piece.

Quote: "Judicial Watch is reportedly suing the Obama administration for Global Warming documents.  The Political Insider reported: For eight years, the failed Obama administration put jobs, security, and common sense on the back burner in order to push the “global warming” agenda. It was about more  regulations, like Obama’s full-throated attack on the coal industry. The religious-like belief of the left’s “watermelon” agenda (Green on the outside, red on the inside. Get it? Red like communism!) went so far that they pushed it on the military. That’s right, taxpayers like you and me paid $150 PER GALLON for “green” military fuel. Obama and the Democrats bilked taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars for scams like Solyndra. And it’s all because of their claim that “the science is settled” and “all scientists agree.”    This is just one more of Obama's colossal failures and absolutely horrific legacy of fraud, waste and abuse.     

This item considers the views of the political left on the matter of what they deem to be settled science.  Three examples are provided.   Quote: "To question any of the liberals' current holy trinity is to risk being ostracized, ridiculed, silenced, and even re-educated until conformity to their dogma is achieved.  There is no room for alternate theories in the world of liberal beliefs. To the ideological group that purports to be open-minded to other beliefs, liberals show an amazing ability to remain entrenched in their accepted groupthink universe while they accuse any dissenters of not being open-minded.  However, the definition of "open-minded" is not to accept anything that's told to us, no matter how bizarre or unfounded in fact.  The definition is "willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced."  Nowhere in that short phrase is it suggested that we abandon logic, evidence, or common sense for the sake of the feelings of another person. Even without evidence, the issue isn't whether or not these theories are plausible.  The issue is that scientific theories should be treated exactly as all assertions are treated in our legal system, which is with actual verifiable evidence rather than bluster, outrage, and inflexible adherence to wishful thinking.  Prove it, or stop saying the science is settled."

No comments: