The previous posting, examined the study “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” published in the Science magazine, and discussed the major obstacles the warmers face in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the voters to undertake decarbonization. And do it rapidly. You may not think thirty years is rapid, but convincing 8 billion people to wipe out the present infrastructure and substitute a new one using as yet unproven methods in 30 years, is moving at a breathtaking speed.
The above noted study, is not the only one that has looked at a way to satisfy the Paris Agreement of holding the global temperature to max.2 ºC rise, with a goal of 1.5ºC rise. A study by 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS) led by Jacobson, Delucci , et at. is, on the surface (number of pages of detailed discussion), more elaborate than the previous posting. This WWS roadmap calls for an 80% reduction of fossil fuels by 2030! Only 13 years away.
The WWS study is an all-sector roadmap that is said to show how 139 nations could jointly hold the temperature rise to no more than 2ºC.
Friends of Science critique the WWS study with a response titled “WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050” . Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge says: “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality”.
That’s what guides this critique. The critique illustrates the enormous number of new renewable facilities needed, the time necessary to put these facilities in to operation and the amount of space they require. It is awesome.
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Batteries, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Electric Vehicles, Electricity from Coal, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy, skeptic science knowledge, solar cells, Windpower
The website inc.com/quora posted “Why You Should Never, Ever Stop Challenging Conventional Wisdom”. I have lifted most of their little gems of wisdom. I am posting this as it fits well with my previous blog about theTheory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect.
The experts are usually wrong.
Experts (those who predict the future for a living) are, more often than not, dart-throwers. They perform no better than chance. And recently they have performed even worse than chance.
“Economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions.”
We are ALL biased. We see the world through a very hazy prism of our experiences.
There is no unbiased news outlet. Even “real news” has an element of untruth to it. Almost every news story I had intimate knowledge of made a significant reporting mistake of factual error in the story.
We’re human, and we make mistakes. We’re human, and we see the world with our strong bias. We overweight individual sources and underweight others. We discount data that is very good, and we rely on data that is wrong. We see patterns when there are none and see coincidences when there are conspiracies
The “expert” can be dangerous. Continue reading
Whistleblower Dr. John Bates really has stirred up a hornet’s nest. He says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA) global temperature revisions made just before the Paris COP meeting are suspect. Skeptics have been critical of those revisions from the very beginning. The UK Daily Mail posted “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” The Daily Mail opened up their posting with this:
“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, IPCC, NOAA, President Trump, skeptic science knowledge, United Nations, warmer prediction fails
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.
The Pacific Research Institute has released a video entitled “Hysteria’s History: Why is Alarmism so Dangerous?-Part 4“. The video’s purpose is to expose people to” the historical progression of environmental alarmism that has often resulted in poor and contradictory policy proposals” This video discusses the ban on DDT. DDT had been very successful in nearly eradicating malaria around the world. Following the ban, malaria deaths skyrocketed.
DDT sprayed indoors, where it can keep mosquitos in check and have no effect on the local wild life is a responsible action. But it took skeptics to point this out over and over again before the green movement reeled in their efforts to keep DDT banned.
Hopefully, we skeptics, showing that the catastrophic global warming movement is more hysteria than facts, will eventually cause the greens to concede in this case as well.
The new movie produced by Marc Morano, “Climate Hustle” was in theaters on May 2 all over the country. The movie shows the skeptics side of the argument about CO2 and global warming, aka Climate Change. Many notable skeptics are in the cast.
The target audience, as I see it, was for the relatively low information people that get their global warming news from the main stream media. If you are into this topic daily or often, most of it will be review. I think Morano did a very good job in assembling the topics and the players. So I recommend it. If there was something I would like to see expanded was the part where warmer predictions were examined. About 10 predictions were discussed briefly. I would like to have seen more emphasis.
As part of the film and as an “extra” was a panel that discussed current issues especially those of the current attempt to criminalize discussion of skeptic views. Bill Nye is feature in it and comes off looking pretty small minded. The panel moderator was Brett Bozell and the panel consisted of Sarah Palin, David Legates and Marc Morano. David Legates stood out.
Looking at Morano’s blog, “Climate Depot”, the attendance was good, nation-wide. I went over to Delaware and my estimate was that about 50 people were in the theater.
This was a one night showing and I am not sure what the plans are for this movie. It may see a general release or perhaps be available in places like Netflix.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, ClimateGate, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Ice cores, IPCC, Sea Level, skeptic science knowledge
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.