Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Climate Science 4

She is obviously a sharp lady but I wonder if she is the best person to investigate Obama's misdirection and wasteful climate change programs.  At least the matter is being looked into.

President Trump's selection as EPA chief was vendicated by a study just released.  Quote: "A study meant to debunk a claim made by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt in his confirmation hearing ended up doing the opposite — it proved him right."

Ignoring facts and using deceptive tactics is not a good way to win arguments.  This is an example of why.

This piece rightfully portrays Bill Nye, the science guy, as being a partisan joke.  Quote: "There was a time when I was a big fan of Bill Nye’s. That was long before he became an authoritarian, supercilious fraud. Bill Nye is just another leftist celebrity promoting a leftist agenda. People need to stop looking to him as if he were an authority on…well…anything.  Although he is not a scientist, Nye seldom if ever reminds the people that he’s speaking to that he is only a former engineer who decades ago jumped careers into entertainment. He parlayed a regional sketch comedy television gig into a successful children’s television show. He used that to gain access to real scientists and allows people to assume based on his proximity that he is one himself."

After watching this man perform for a number of years he has, in my mind, lost all credibility.  He has turned into a science politician more interested in pushing political positions rather than scientific ones.

This item explains which power sources are the most efficient in terms of manpower usage.  It provides very interesting insight which may surprise you.

Quote: "There’s a lot of talk about science these days, with the battle for the planet itself at the forefront. Climate change alarmists have grown bolder and more vocal every year, and their media blitz has taken a toll. Allegedly, if you aren’t with them, then you’re an enemy of humanity.  Let’s review some of their strongest claims, and see what happens when we sprinkle a little truth on the subject."

This is sad to see.  Al Gore thinks we need a $15 trillion tax on  ".... carbon-dioxide emissions, a benign gas required for all life to thrive on Earth—plant, animal, and human alike."   And, he "....has been demonizing fossil fuels and attempting to marginalize all those involved in the traditional energy sector since 1988, the year the climate-change movement was rolled out in Washington, D.C., which happened to correspond with a nationwide heatwave and with Yellowstone in flames. Ever since, Gore's pathway to political power and personal riches has been a successful one, to be sure, but his multi-trillion-dollar effort today is his most sophisticated effort to date. Unfortunately for him, it will also fail, because what he's selling in his "new" proposal is bad for the people being asked to embrace it. Over the years, Gore has emerged in many contexts in his effort to eradicate carbon-dioxide emissions, a benign gas required for all life to thrive on Earth—plant, animal, and human alike. It has never mattered to Gore that ordinary people everywhere have been hurt and will continue to be hurt by his continual efforts to make fossil-fuel energy expensive and that the poorest among us are harmed the most by the energy policies he supports."    This proposal truly is a fool's errand.  That he even offers up such a foolish proposal reassures me that we are fortunate he never made it to the White House.

This scientist reject global warming theory based on science, not government policies.  Quote: "The Science & Environmental Policy Project is an outstanding resource for those unwilling to bury their heads in the sand and blindly accept the notion that human-caused catastrophic global warming is settled science and must be the highest priority in allocating the world's limited economic resources.  Its April 1, 2017 issue of "The Week That Was" leads with the point that "government-funded Climate Studies have largely turned from empirical science to dogma – a belief system unsubstantiated by physical evidence."  Each week's TWTW is chock full of commentary and links describing the latest science and other developments that challenge the climate change orthodoxy.  This issue highlights the written testimony of John Christy, distinguished professor of atmospheric science, Alabama's state climatologist, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, at the March 29 hearing titled "Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method," held by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Consider whether or not this is  rational thinking.  Quote: "Climate change has been a fact for thousands of years. Even before human industrial activity contributed the first gram of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, climate repeatedly cycled between warming and cooling trends. (Graphs, such as the one produced by, chronicle over 4,000 years of significant swings in global temperatures.)  Yet according to numerous climatologists, in spite of numerous other sources, the burning of fossil fuels is the primary reason for increasing CO2 emissions and the only one worthy of the full focus of regulatory agencies. And it comes as little surprise that among governments throughout the world, the most popular means of addressing CO2 emissions is through some form of taxation or manipulation (cap-and-trade and “offsetting”)."

So many of the scientific community's environmental calamity predictions have failed to materialize.  It makes you wonder if we should ever believe such predictions.  This item explains. Quote: "Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”  Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies."

The so called settled science of global warming is now moved from a scientific foothold to full blown politics, leaving real honest to goodness science in the dust.  Dishonest and unscientific as can be.  Quote: "A number of Ph.Ds have written a book chapter asserting that doubts about the theory of human-caused global warming should be considered “real science.”  You know, the idea of basing hypotheses on documented evidence rather than a political agenda.  But the National Science Teachers Association wants nothing to do with such an approach.  Its executive director, David Evans, has written a letter to members insisting they must teach the agendas of the National Wildlife Federation, the North American Association for Environmental Education, the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, the Center for Climate Change Communication and other activist groups.  What they must avoid, he contends, is the information compiled by the scientists who wrote “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming."     With educational leaders like David Evans it is no wonder our kids are being led astray in so many, many unscientific, unethical and misguided ways.  Political agendas trump truth, facts and real history.  As a consequence schools produce far too many kids completely unfit for adulthood.

Many of us already knew this but it is good to get confirmation from an Obama insider.

This writer challenges the whole notion of climate change/global warming.

Government best revenue stream is derived from climate change scam.  Quote: "No one knows how to profit from scaring the pants off of people quite like the government. And they don’t even need an actual threat to make it happen. Take “climate change” and “global warming” for example. These are both naturally occurring, cyclical events that have been happening since the dawn of the Earth. It’s only recently, though, that governments and their wealthy cronies figured out a way to monetize it with the added bonus of being able to exert even more control over the people of the world."

This puts the global warming notion into perspective.  Quote: "It has always been worrisome to me that every so-called solution to global warming subverts rather than enhances human freedom and advances the power of the state to regulate energy, industrial activity, and individual behavior That seems to me, a denier, or whatever term you want to use, a potentially greater threat to the future of human welfare than even climate change. Václav Klaus, the former president of the Czech Republic, made this same point when he declared: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom.”

With the passage of time more and more evidence emerges that call to question the man caused global warming thesis. Quote: "While the Democrats are doing everything to block any alteration to the regulation and the tax scheme supported by Global Warming theories, the refreshing rise of Donald Trump in this arena is allowing free speech to be heard for the first time in more than a decade since Al Gore started this nonsense. This idea that man is the sole cause of climate change and CO2 is the devil, has been so seriously wrong. The Global Warming crowd has been attempting to silence any other research whatsoever."

Quote: "There isn’t much the GWPF and the World Meteorological Organization agree on except this: 2016 was probably the warmest year on record, likely due to an “El Nino” event over the winter of 2015-2016, according to The Daily Caller.  Ole Humlum, the author of GWPF’s “State of the Climate in 2016” report, is professor emeritus of physical geography at the University of Oslo and adjunct professor of physical geography at the University Center in Svalbard — in other words, no academic lightweight.   He rejects the “man-made climate change” assessment of liberal scientists and argues that current warming trends are merely a historically observable weather pattern."

This is probably true but will Gore ever admit it.   Quote: "The Earth came with a large number of natural resources, and an atmosphere with many ingredients that allows millions of animal and plant species to survive. Think of the skill it took to come up with a process that has plants breathe out oxygen that allows humans to survive and humans breathing out CO2 which allows plants to thrive and the plants in turn feed humans and animals. There are millions of natural processes, millions of animals and millions of plants and evolution explains little." 
NOAA is an agency that has once again proven itself to be unreliable at best.  Quote: "The NOAA is now claiming that independent studies confirm they are right and that global warming is real. The claim only reveals once again how dishonest the NOAA is really acting. This new compilation of temperature records they say is etched into ice cores, old corals, and lake sediment layers, all reveals a pattern of global warming from 1880 to 1995. They are criminally misleading everyone for there is no dispute that there is a 300 year cycle to the energy output of the sun and the last low was in the 1700s so we have been moving into a natural warming cycle that has now peaked."  and,  "The NOAA continues to hone in just on the modern period and refuses to test the analysis long-term. They continue to mislead people that our greatest danger is that we are headed into a mini-ice age and that means food shortages, which are beginning to see hit Europe this very year. They seem to be deliberately trying to mislead the public to thin the herd."

A very good analysis of the climate change narrative and what proponents need to do to convince the public that they are right.

It is obvious to me that the "science guy", Burney Sanders and any of their global warming cohorts are suffering from cognitive dissonance.    More.

Unbelievable mainstream media reporting. Lie after lie after lie.  Quote: "The loathsome “news” article concludes: “Tailpipe fumes (my italics) are crucial in the fight to stop global warming.”  The illiteracy is almost as striking as the dishonesty – or the imbecility, you decide which.  Note the conflation – the inert, non-reactive gas (C02) is now a fume. And it is “crucial” in “the fight to stop global warming.”  Not the galloping unchecked assumptions; the blithe acceptance, as of gravitation, of the political “science” of “global warming.”  The awful construction would be enough to make my teeth feel loose. But the oily proselytizing is just too much.  And they ask me why I drink . . . ."

I don't know if this is a real break through or not but if it is it is a giant leap forward for fueling needs across the globe country and maybe even be a part of the solution for pollutants caused by fossil fuels.   I guess such questions as these are necessary given early stages of the exploration of it potential.  Is there a sufficient supply to make a real difference? What about cost of processing it for use?  What is the conversion costs to use the fuel with current products or does it require total replacement?  and, more.

George Burns

No comments: