My postings since May are nearly zero. I have been catching up on things that needed doing more than any need to be writing about the faulty catastrophic global warming theories. The family has to come first. In addition, to many honey dos weren’t getting done.
I suppose you are wondering what so difficult about writing a blog, if anything. Mainly the issue is trying not to make mistakes. Blovating is pretty easy. But checking out what is being blovated needs to be reasonably well supported. —A for instance.—- I just finished a posting on how small the sales of EVs really are. I had planed to use as one of my references a posting by a man for whom I have a great deal of respect. When I tried to confirm his numbers I could not do it. In this case, I think he made some mistakes, or at least I can’t confirm his numbers. So I used mine.
I like doing this so, I hope that I am back in the saddle again, —time will tell.
I want to respond to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video titled “Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the real problem with climate change deniers” so here goes. The problem according to Tyson is that “deniers” do not understand science. “They can not sort out what is true and what is not true,” says Tyson.
If you watch late night TV or mainstream TV news you probably know Tyson. He and Bill Nye “the science guy” are their favorites when the media want someone to talk about “deniers” and global warming. Tyson is reasonably informed about the theory of man-made global warming while Nye is an embarrassment. See Nye’s debate with Marc Morano of Climate Depot.
Back to Tyson. Climate Depot has assembled a list of 700 or so prominent scientists that are skeptics. Most of them have as much or more understanding of climate science than does Tyson. Is Tyson overwhelmingly arrogant or living in a cocoon? I suspect the answer to that is probably both. With regard to the cocoon, he probably never looks at any of these Skeptics work or their reasons for being skeptical.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a report every three or four years about global warming. This UN agency’s charter is not to examine the science of global warming but rather to show that man produced greenhouse gases will result in catastrophic damage to the globe. IPCC does as directed by giving little consideration to data, science or reports that would contradict the charter.
A relatively new report, compiled by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has been written to answer the IPCC’ reports. The first installment is Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II). This installment is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. Real data and unbiased studies were used in the preparation of this installment.
You can link to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCRII) by clicking here.
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Environment, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Interglacial periods, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level, Skeptic resources, Solar Activity, Sun, sun and climate
Mike Van Biezen is a physicist and former believer in catastrophic man-made global warming. His epiphany occurred about 7 years ago, he says, when he realized that between 1940 and 1980, global temperatures had actually declined a bit all the while CO2 was accumulating in the atmosphere at a high rate. Since then, his research into the theory of global warming has converted him to skepticism. Van Biezen says there are many scientific problems with the assumption that human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”. He has picked 10 of the many scientific problems and listed them in his posting on the Dailywire.com. titled “The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever”.
I will use his heading for each of the ten problems and pick out parts of his explanation of the nature of that specific problem. Of course you will get much more out of this if you use the link to his posting and read all of his explanation.
This year the International Conference On Climate Change will be held in Washington DC on the 11th and 12th of June. The presenters are Major League skeptics. Among the panel participants are Singer, Idso, Monckton, Legates, Soon, Briggs, Michaels, Watts, Carter, Loehle, Ball, etc.. The keynote speakers are Senator Jim Inhofe, Journalist Mark Steyn, Representative Lamar Smith and Princeton Professor William Happer.
S. Fred Singer
Full information, regarding registration, location, program & speakers and hotel reservations can be found by clicking here.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, crop yields, Electricity from Coal, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Media Bias, Skeptic resources
This is the second posting of skeptic reference sources. This time it is “1350+ Peer- Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism”. The papers have been sorted by categories to make the desired documents easily located. It is interesting that PopularTechnology.net supplied “Rebuttals to Criticisms” in the beginning. These are also a leg-up for you in discussions with warmers.
Click here to enter the PopularTechnology.net website.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Interglacial periods, IPCC, Media Bias, Ocean Acidification, Renewable Energy, Sea Level, Skeptic resources, Solar Activity, Storms/hurricanes, sun and climate, Windpower
There are several excellent sources for Skeptics. This posting provides a source for Solar Research Papers. The amount of Sun based research may surprise you, because the Warmers continue to tell us that the Sun is not important.
Some of the research is readily available and some is behind paywalls. But I suspect that just looking at the available research will occupy you for some long time. The source is Club du Soleil Click here to see this source.
There are several additional resources that I will post soon.
Posted in AGW, CO2, Earth Magnetic Poles, Environment, IPCC, Radiation, Skeptic resources, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25, Solar Flux, Sun, sun and climate, Sunspots