It’s another conversion. The real environmentalists will all end up on the skeptical side. Notably, the switch is never the other way. (Richard Muller, remember, was never a skeptic). The climate scare works through bullying and suppressing one side of the story, and once open-minded people find the other side there is no going back.
What would it take to change your mind?
David Siegel has written six books, four of which were international bestsellers. He’s a Democrat voter, and he wants to preserve the environment. He wants that so badly he actually cares about the data, the graphs, and the arguments. (He cares about the outcome, not just about whether he looks like an environmentalist.) When challenged to find evidence, he looked, and was surprised, then he looked more and was shocked. “As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems.”Which is a similar path to mine eight years ago. I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming. (And I was a vegetarian).
Having studied both sides, he’s written up a very sharp page, condensing what he discovered, and with a personal narrative, plus great graphs and provocative questions. Siegel wants skeptics to reach a newer crowd, to push the boundaries by sending them links to his page. (Hey, it’s a good marketing strategy for his site right? True, but he does make a real point.) He’s written one page hoping to win over people who are more liberal minded, and it just might open some eyes. It’s very readable.
I did a similar thing. As a former Green, my instinct was to compress the whole debate to four points and put it in The Skeptics Handbook. (My first post). The second Skeptics Handbook expanded into issues that show up on the left leaning radar — more about people, intimidation, vested interests, and money.
He sent his feature article to news outlets, and they all knocked it back. (Imagine that!) It’s the scoop that no one wants, because of the baggage. Even newspaper editors don’t want to be called names like “denier”.
Welcome to the world of skeptics David, where you find out who your true friends are!
He has a good eye for graphs (and photographs too).
On a shorter time scale, we start to get some perspective:
At this scale of 11,000 years, it doesn’t seem like CO2 is “driving” temperature. We are in the middle of an upswing coming out of the Little Ice Age, but there is also an overall cooling trend.
The hottest year ever?
Seigel mocks the panic over “the hottest year” ever by graphing the last 20 years on a 20C scale — the daily variation we live with:
To give you a sense of how up and down this really is, I traced the graph above [of the pause in the last 18 years] and put it in perspective of the 20 degrees C (36 degrees F) we might experience in a single day:
Same data, different perspective. Can you see the hottest year on record now? In any given year, several weather stations will record dramatic “all time highs” with no effect on global temperatures.
Just a quick look through his Climatecurious website shows a very interesting and easily readable post.
So well presented.
221
Yes it is well presented indeed. It is articulate and coherent. It should be required reading for both new comers and old timers to this issue alike. Regardless of political affiliation too.
This is the kind of common sense presentation that needs to be available to the public at large. How can we make it more available to the general public?
His journey on this issue is not unique. I think most of us have tread this path to some extent.
211
Pretty infantile to compare a global average anomaly to a daily temperature variation – a raising of the global average temperature by 2-4 degrees would see summer daily maxima spike by double that in some locations, and leave swathes of the barely inhabitable due to the risk of hyperthermia upon physical exertion. But don’t worry, it’s apparently not a big deal because we might get there in a century or so and now-living denialists will be too dead to care by then.
7105
Now that’s infantile nonsense.
752
Said denialists, even if ironically dropping off their perch during an AGW-enhanced heatwave, will presumably still go to the grave happy knowing their greatest wish – to buried clutching their top 10 tax returns – will be honoured.
696
Excuse me but the D word is unacceptable here, we do our best not to insult people.
Now to your point, Bali is almost 5 degrees warmer than Melbourne on average, so how come half of Australia loves to holiday there, do they drop off their perch due to the sizzling 5 degree average (Max-min)/2 temperature difference?
754
I’m pretty well convinced that Stephan is a top climate change scientist at one of our top universities. He certainly seems well credentialed for that little caper.
392
With respect llew jones, you appear to have omitted the inverted commas either side of scientist.
120
Ironic, really, when you see that most of those who use the “D” word so freely are usually those who demonstrate the greatest amount of denial.
50
Stephan,
There we have the CAGW alarmist mentality in stark relief in the form of “Stephan”.
Presume for a moment his post is not a lampoon (after all the ghost of Brad Keyes still haunts these corridors), we have the startling combination of the evidence free denigration of others (“denialist”), revenge fantasy (“dropping off the perch”), bed wetting hysteria (“AGW enhanced heatwave”), and green-eyed envy of the wealth and/or achievements of others (“clutching their top 10 tax returns”).
Truly a parody of leftist thinking there sport. Now THAT is irony.
Note also, he has dropped the C from CAGW, and hopes we won’t notice, by crawling back to the position of Lukewarmers which include even people like our hostess.
381
Our hostess tolerates all sorts Winston, even those that can’t fathom the idea that radiation is omnidirctional
170
(And even those that can’t spell omnidirectional)
210
I liked the way you first spelt it, “omnidirctional”!
An adjective that exactly defines a subspecies of Dirct that can only exist in the singular.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away –
For the Dirct was not omni, but three.
(With apologies to Lewis Carroll, who probably doesn’t care, because he is dead.)
120
Hi Stephen,
I remember you remarking that “climate denial” was politically motivated and driven by Right Wingers and Libertarians…
Well here is another devoted Democrat voter to add next to David Siegel, on the counter factual list, one Mr Freeman Dyson.
So what will you do Stephen in the face of contrary evidence to your beloved belief system? (1) Modify your viewpoint to account for the contrary evidence, or (2) ignore the contrary evidence and go on believing what you desire to believe, or (3) take up a tack that this “evidence doesn’t matter or qualify” so that you can go on believing what you desire to believe, or (4) … go on believing what you desire to believe …
Uh oh – getting repetitive.
(Hmmmm… – noting that you left yourself a hedge with “…almost exclusively…” – So I guess, you’ll want to retreat to that little niche to preserve “believing what you desire to believe”)
462
Well, I give you that, Ex. My statement was a generalisation, a model if you will, and like all models it has residuals – in this case in the form of the random cranks, contrarians, and conspiratards who wander off the reservation (if they were ever stationed there to begin with) for reasons other than political ideology.
467
Stephen,
Are you suggesting that David Siegel and Freeman Dyson are “random cranks, contrarians, and conspiratards”?
To me, their positions seem to be well reasoned, nuanced, and aligned with verifiable facts.
Verifiable facts such as the infamous “Hiatus”
Don’t you just hate it when people throw the UN IPCC at you?
512
That’s twice now.
Directly after mentioning the UN IPCC use of the term Hiatus in reference to global surface temps – Stephen stops commenting and goes silent.
130
Writes the representative of ‘Big Ozone’.
233
You seem to assume a great deal about the people who regularly comment here.
I tip my hat to your over-excited and over-extended imagination. But you have gotten it wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I can honestly say that you really have no idea why we are here, and no clue about what we are really doing, and therefore have no argument to counter whatever it is that you might think we are doing.
Your very first comment was a cut and paste out of the list of incantations to be used to dispell the non-believers, cynics, contrarians, and deniers. We have seen it all before. None of the insults have any affect at all. The only thing that works is rational debate, and since you are not capable of that, you have nothing. So sad, but life is like that.
651
RW,
Its obvious what you’re doing on this site. Its to deride the scientific community with cherry picked data at every opportunity without any attempt to understand the big picture and having the gall to claim to follow the scientific method which you attack when if differs from preconceived views.
[He called you’re comment very accurately as what it is. Please let it go or lift your standards.] AZ
[It’s your call AZ, but I would have let it through – Rereke would have had a field day with that one.] Fly
[I made some popcorn.] ED
113
AZ
RW was commenting on Stephen’s post thank you very much !, I think he’s a big enough boy to fight his own battles
29
Wow Frank, sure fails to distinguish the difference between the IPCC climate models which runs to year 2100 and even 3100 and the Scientific Method, where the hypothesis is actually TESTED by experimentation,observation.
Frank Writes,
“Its obvious what you’re doing on this site. Its to deride the scientific community with cherry picked data at every opportunity without any attempt to understand the big picture and having the gall to claim to follow the scientific method which you attack when if differs from preconceived views.”
IPCC models that run to year 2100 is junk science because it can’t be TESTED, it is playstation stuff. You can’t apply the Method to it is since it is untestable… thus a waste of time.
But the IPCC did post one set of short term models that runs to year 2021:
LINK
It is a specific statement of about a .45C warming after 14+ years, reality is the very opposite as it is COOLING since 2001:
LINK
You can’t explain this failure away.
81
RW
You nearly had me crying there.
Last night I had exhausting dreams of dead whales drifting on the ocean surface as a result of the latest Global Warming Catastrophe:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/frances-top-tv-meteorologist-writes-skeptic-book-gets-told-not-to-come-to-work/#comment-1754387
This morning your description put me in mind of a person drifting aimlessly on the sea of life.
Somehow the whole thing ended up as an exploded whale called Stephan drifting aimlessly among packs of CO2 enhanced sharks.
Sad.
KK
191
If you want a US “Flaming Liberal”** (Democrat) who even works for the California government try Rosa Koire.
Her website is DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21 One of her books is BEHIND THE GREEN MASK
What is absolutely great is she has several videos of the media’s smear tactics where she has a video of the actual telephone interview and a link to the article that was written on the basis of the interview.
Anyone who retains faith in the truthfulness of MSM reporting after those multiple examples of blatant bias, well I have this bridge I want to sell.
**Her description of herself. (Liberals in the USA are leftists not ‘Classic liberals’)
471
Gai,
Thanks for that info. I have a number of friends who are “greeny” types and the information in those posts will give ‘ammunition’. One of them has about 20 acres here in Vic. Aus and I’m trying to impress on her that the UN wants to control her 20 acres.
Thanks again.
R-COO- K+
180
Peopel should have a look at the list of many UN Treaties that are in Bills before the Aust Parliament to see how The Hague will in years to come the highest court in the UN Soviet of “Australa”
10
Rosa Koire’s other site that I link to all the time is
http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/the-post-sustainable-future.html
This is also very very good:
Rosa Koire presents a comprehensive report on Agenda 21
10
Totally in conflict with the models (if you believe them) which state that warming raises nighttime lows, not daytime highs. The fact that you don’t know this indicates you’re ignorant of the basics of the greenhouse effect and the Stefan-Boltzman Law.
But it’s your resorting to ad hominem insults that reveal your intellectual poverty.
350
The “Greenhouse effect”…. ?? But there’s no convection from within a real greenhouse, and, last I heard, satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither does a real greenhouse experience any planetary feedbacks
170
Quite so. I believe that is what Jorge was implying.
120
“…a raising of the global average temperature by 2-4 degrees would see summer daily maxima spike by double that in some locations, and leave swathes of the barely inhabitable due to the risk of hyperthermia upon physical exertion…”
Where are your references for this statement? Are you capable of being more specific than ‘some locations’?
Maybe you can demonstrate that you possess some sort of scientific knowledge, perspective, and skills, but it is, in my opinion, highly doubtful, based on the deliberately inflammatory, misleading, and inaccurate drivel you seem to enjoy posting, plus the reluctance/refusal to engage in anything resembling actual science, choosing instead to stick to superficial, generalised statements with the occasional ‘refer to the IPCC report’ thrown in to make it seem like you’ve read more than the title.
I’m still waiting for your answer to these questions, by the way: Can you tell me what the climate would be doing if the industrial revolution never happened? How do you define normal, vs abnormal without a reference, and if you were to define a reference, how would you do it, given the inherent variability of the earths climate?
251
“But don’t worry, …”
Lol. I’m not.
I leave that worrying to ‘gullible, simple minded 97% doomsday believer people’ like you, Stephan.
Haw haw haw!
130
No evidence from the chicken-little, step hen.
Just another desperate, empty rant.
102
Poor chicken-little..
A quick read shows why you are so desperate to find error where there is none.
It really is a utter and complete destruction of farce that is “global warming/ climate change/ whatever”.
112
“a raising of the global average temperature by 2-4 degrees”
Is not happening. Get over it, chicken-little.
122
‘… a raising of the global average temperature by 2-4 degrees would see summer daily maxima spike by double that in some locations,’
Hard to know, there have been a lot of adjustments and my regional cooling meme will likely be ignored.
122
It’s impossible to get 2C (around the maximum of the Holocene Optimum) let alone 4C (around the maximum of the Eemian) increase in the GAT from fossil-fuel-burning CO2 forcing alone, because there isn’t enough of the stuff to be had.
The IPCC model projections assume positive feedbacks for which there is no empirical evidence.
150
“a raising of the global average temperature by 2-4 degrees would see summer daily maxima spike by double that in some locations, and leave swathes of the barely inhabitable due to the risk of hyperthermia upon physical exertion.”
Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8MgkqmWogo
80
Are you collecting red thumbs again Stephan ??
At a dollar per Red Thumb Down , you will crack millionaire in no time
You might crack the Guinness book of records !
How long does GW need to be stagnant for , before you and your true b’lver fellow brethren doubt your Church of Climatology Medieval Religion ?
The CAGW / CACC or what ever your cult choose to call it this month has become comical !
How can you deny the fact that warming has stopped , when even your high priests have chosen to change its name from Global Warming to Climate Change ???
Your Dwindling crowd of industry haters and anti wealth fanatics have chosen to do that themselves , not us Realists !
Your whole argument is that our co2 output ( 3% of a total 0.04% )is a greenhouse gas that is allowing /causing the planet to warm dangerously …..except that ,the planet is not warming at all , let alone dangerously !
All the prophecies of doom have not come to be ! To date , just all fraudulent propaganda !
No warming here for nearly 19 years >>> https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=597&h=279
No warming hiding in the deep oceans either , according to Argo Data ( our best ocean temp measuring system )>>>>> https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/clip_image024_thumb.jpg?w=603&h=427
There is some warming if you look at the land based temp record which is only 30 % of the planet’s surface , but those facts have been fudged to fit the faith , especially when you see that past temp records every few years keep getting adjusted to show an ever increasing cooling , obviously done to reinforce the grand lie ……gotta keep that multi billion dollar taxpayer funded RET gravy train alive !!
Cannot let the facts get in the way of a good fleecing now , can we ???
Plenty of funding , but only if the frauds keep flogging !
And now the big rush for the Paris Marxists’s Climate Hajj , before it becomes more obvious to too many people that the whole thing is a political agenda , great big new tax , and general global fraud worth Trillions !
This Paris Fiasco is the LAST HOORAH to sign away our rights , freedoms and wealth and if it fails , this garbage will finally and well deservedly be put to the sword , its instigators imprisoned and its true b’lvers handed straight jackets and forced medication …..a well earned and just reward for many starting with our very own Sage Flannery , Kookoo Karoly and fellow Brethren ……..your esteemed High Priests !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av_DAeTP6r4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
122
Hi Stefan,
Perhaps you are able to explain what caused temperatures to rise in the first half of the 20th century, and why a virtually identical change in the second half needs a different explanation? I am yet to hear hear a credible explanation why – perhaps you can.
160
According to “classical” CO2-caused global warming theory (actually non-data-verified hypothesis),most warming from C02 was predicted to occur at night, in winter, and in the higher 45-90 latitudes. Read the original papers.
There was no alarm raised about temperature increases of 2-4 in summer in hot tropical rain forests and lower-mid latitude deserts. As a matter of fact, Greenland Ranch, Furnace Creek, Death Valley, hit 134 F in 1914. It’s never hit 130 in the last 20 years.
The 1940’s-70’s saw massive fossil fuel burning and CO2 production, but average global temps decreased. In the past 18 years, manmade C02 represents nearly a third of all historic anthropogenic emissions. Avg global temp has been statistically stable. These two time series pretty much rule out manmade-CO2-causes global warming. But, also, as ice-core data shows, C02 rises followed temperature rises, not the converse.
The AGWers (the actual denialists who tried to eliminate the MWP) believe, cause temporally follows effect. In other words, effect happens first, and triggers a subsequent cause.
If 97% of climate scientists believe that man has caused global warming by emitting C)2, I’m pretty willing to bet that those same scientists flubbed 10th grade, 4th form geometry. (FWIW, classical postulate-to-theorm-to corollary proofs have been eliminated from high school geometry. “Logical proof, we can’t do that!”
90
Addiction to model world has been shown to have its short comings.
50
This Stephan poster seems to be am agitator troll. As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!”.
402
Sorry, don’t follow league – that’s a mug’s game.
346
Actually, punting on the nags is a mug’s game.
Thought I should clear that up.
120
On the plus side, he’s entertainingly incoherent. Anybody have a clue what that last post of his meant?
332
I guess it’s an open book, eh Mike?
330
Stephan,
I got an open book for you, Cook’s Consensus data, it’s all here:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
These are the 11,944 scientific papers reviewed by Cook and his team with their marking codes for your benefit.
Here’s your opportunity to put-up or shut-up and to find the 11,585 papers that prove ‘97% of all scientists consensus’.
I’ve offered Harry Twinotter the same information to prove the 97% consensus – so go ahead and knock yourself out big boy…
I’m sure you’ll be happy to take the challenge and prove to deniers that all your climatey sciency stuff is evidence based.
James Bradley.
131
The aim of that study, from the very first, was to fabricate the 97% to try to help out the mess left by Doran and Zimmerman.
82
Doran and Zimmerman have been reported to have been at the University of Illinois. Terrible reporting. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is one of America’s well-respected flagship universities. Two-time Nobel Physics winner John Bardeen (co-invention of the transistor and pioneer in superconductivity) taught there. Net pioneer Marc Andreessen got his degree there. UIUC was one of the first universities to install a supercomputer for the super-computer net.
University of Illinois-Chicago, source of Doran and Zimmerman, is a third-rate university. Most first-year students have to redo college-prep courses. E.g. most math and science major students don’t take calculus first semester, they take algebra (the 9th grade subject, or 11th grade algera-II subject.)
To put this into reasonable context, University of Illinois-Chicago is ranked below University of California-Riverside by US News and World Report.
Lots of Illinois students who apply to Chicago, Northwestern, Ivies, Stanford, Duke, Caltech, Swarthmore, Carleton, Pomona, apply to UIUC as a safety school, and many attend. UIUC matriculates over 50 National Merit Finalists each year. None of these high-targetting students applies to UIC. They perceive that UIC is for dummies. UIC is a safety school for students who are advised that the flagship UIUC is probably beyond their reach.
E.g. you have a 3.3 GPA from a Catholic HS, and a 1060 SAT/ 23 ACT, UIC will admit you.
So can UIC give us reliable research? We’ve seen the Doran/ Zimmerman research results. A survey disqualified thousands of respondents. 77 were accepted. 75 supported AGW. That was 97%.
You couldn’t gotten that result from the University of Chicago, Northwestern or UIUC. They’re first-rate universities, which adhere to scientific standards. But UIC is in a different realm.
111
I have no idea either. Just ignore it’s droppings. They are only dangerous if you pick them up.
192
He might be referring to an Aussie Rugby League team who play in maroon jerseys?
He might even have been kicked in the head himself a few times. That would explain a lot.
180
It could be that he’s one of those interlectershals over at the conversation.You know the one folks where academic types live in an inverted reality- just like in those Lewis Carroll books.
70
All this on 400 hours of research? What about those utterly ignored scientists who spent lifetimes learning to assess data and evaluate theories who have decided CO2 driven Global Warming is unproven, unlikely or just untrue and so obviously just a politically motivated scare? Why? Why would a French minister demand that meteorologists talk about ‘climate chaos’? Why would a US Vice President fabricate ‘an Inconvenient Truth’, which even a UK judge ruled had 36 lies. Why would the Nobel Committee give Gore the Nobel Peace prize and for what? Peace?
Why did the IPCC announce 400 million Indians would die of thirst with the mass melting of the Hindu Kush glaciers with no evidence whatsoever? Why do mass media and science publishers shut out anyone who questions man made global warming? Why is even Bjorn Lomborg, a true believer, not allowed to speak? Why would government departments fiddle (sorry homogenize) the numbers? Cui Bono? Who benefits? Or is it, as Dr. Patrick Moore says, simply the result of the takeover of the caring Greens by hard line communists after 1988, supported by an unlikely combination of unelected and power hungry UN bureaucrats, merchant bankers and mass manufacturers who profit from it? Is the whole thing fake? Yep.
521
The whole CAGW scam is living proof that money makes your nose malfunction – its now proven that with enough funds you can bullldoze cow dung into a huge pile visible for miles , and make it smell nice….
30
Weirdo.
150
Quote by Charles Mackay
Seems appropriate.
Stephen (above at #2) clearly hasn’t caught on yet.
Stephen – here’s a hint – “It’s a scam.” – time for you to recover your senses don’t you think?
(Or… heaven forbid… are you on the inside?)
241
At this point after so much evidence from the skeptic side has been aired you have the following choices:
1. Following the herd and too lazy to think for themselves.
2. Livelihood depends on the continuation of the CAGW scam.
3. Belief based on ideology not science
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Ex-Senator Timothy Wirth, leader of the U.S. negotiating team at the Kyoto Summit and now President of the UN Foundation. Wirth colluded with Hansen in tricking the US senate into supporting CAGW in 1988 for political reasons.
4. Paid to comment
210
If this is the case it is proof of the adage that a fool and his money are soon parted.
130
He’s so pathetic, the AGW bletheren should pay him NOT to comment.
His type do irreversible damage to the AGW meme.
102
Speaking of PAID..
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/heidi-centrals-funding/#comment-53931
62
Off topic but here is the latest insanity with your tax payer dollars.
The Melbourne City Council has borrowed $30 million from the Federal Government so that they can replace 16,000 mercury street lights with LED’s.
The claim was the council would save $1 million per year and of course Greenhouse gases would be saved.
I haven’t run any numbers but I would be very surprised if this made any economic sense and if the cost savings were real.
130
Could have given $30M back to the ratepayers who most likely would have made some useful economic decisions with that money, based on “Care factor”.
Does the Mayor’s cousin own the LED supplier?
180
Robert Doyle is usually quite sensible. 16,000 Mercury Street lamps are expensive to buy and run and while they have a lifespan of 26,000 hours, 7 years, thats 2,000 globes to change every year, they run all night every night and at 200 watts each, this is 3Megawatt for 10 hours a day. Say 20c/kwhr this is $600 per hour, $6,000 a night and most of $2M a year.
So I doubt this is about being Green. It is about not having to change 2,000 globes a year at say $500 each with labor and cherry pickers and reducing running costs with a direct grant from the Federal government based on the Abbott’s Direct Action scheme. Better that than Malcolm’s merchant banker run ETS. It sounds like a cunning plan really, getting the Federal government to save two million dollars a year at no cost to the council? Of course it does not need to be done, but why pay a carbon tax?
180
Absolutely Tdef,
I have done this exact lifecycle calculation comparing LED to Metal Halide on a utility scale before (it’s my Job). LED over the cycle is about 1/2 the cost of low power (150-400 Watt) Metal Halide, but the comparison does not stack up for HPS (High Pressure Sodium) lamps, the high intensity yellow lamps as used on highways. These have similar efficiencies to the absolute best LEDs but have light output power that LEDs just can’t match, replacing them with LED lowers light levels and compromises safety.
This is being done for cost reasons. I however would run this on a replacement basis, no sense in replacing a perfectly good MH luminary until it’s used up.
121
I replaced all the 75w incandescent bulbs in my house with 100w LEDs. My electricity bill decreased ~7%/month. Admittedly 6 of those bulbs are in my family room where my wife and I spend most of our time. The other advantage is that I can now see more clearly. Getting older has some disadvantages but for now it beats the alternative. OT, I recommend that you read “Being Mortal” if have aging parents.
100
100 Watt LED’s?
A 4 watt LED gives the equivalent light output (in lumens) as a 40 Watt incandecent bulb, but with a whiter light.
A 100 watt LED would give a theoretical light output of an arc lamp, without the extrinsic benefit of frying people you didn’t like.
I guess you meant to say that you installed 7 watt LED’s which would roughly give the equivalent to a 100W incandecent, but with a much whiter light. Even so, six of them is a lot of lumens.
90
Agree totally CC. Even at $10 per bulb it’s well worth it, to be able to flick on a light and be able to read immediately instead of having to wait 20 minutes for the CFL to warm up or whatever it is they do before they start to produce light.
Now I’m planning on converting my vehicle headlights to LED bulbs. I already have LED driving lights on the one I use the most and they are (literally) brilliant. I intend to try the headlight conversions on my historic restoration 4WD first even though I rarely use it at night, because they aren’t authority cleared and they might be too bright for oncoming traffic. I sometimes see vehicles which are obviously using them and haven’t had any problems yet. I haven’t heard about anyone being booked for them.
A conversion costs about as much as top-quality aftermarket bulbs and gives much more light.
51
Most traffic lights are now LEDs
And when old incandescent ones die they are replaced with LEDs
Yes, some of the early LED’s traffic lights had issues and drop dots occasionally, but according to a friend down that the traffic branch, the newer ones are proving to be very reliable.
82
Andy,
In both streetlighting and traffic control indicators the inherent design of the lights is also more fault tolerant, if you have a fault, in 99% of scenarios the light output is just reduced (lost emitters or sectors). The old incandescent systems had catastrophic failure modes, that is everything went black.
PS: of course these could have been engineered out with multiple lamps, but for the most part (because of cost) weren’t. In LEDs inherently you need to have multiple emitters.
90
I read a few years ago that they were having rather deadly issues with LED traffic lights in North America. The problem was that they did not generate enough heat to melt snow and ice that settled on them.
31
there has NEVER been enough heat generated by traffic lights to melt snow and ice.
04
Strange you say that Bill as every search I have done on the subject says otherwise. The old incandescent lights generated enough heat to melt the snow that settled on the faces, whereas the LED lights are unable to do so. prompting calls to redesign lights. One city had to manually clean the new LED lights during the winter months, something they never had to do with the old lights.
31
flood lamps generated sufficient heat ONLY when on for long periods of time. In a prairie winter, there was never long enough to melt the snow, of course if we discuss perhaps Georgia or California, you might see a different result. Melted snow quickly freezes into ice once the light changes.
00
WUWT covered the problem:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/09/led-stoplights-failing-in-winter/
So did LED mag
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2010/01/led-advantages-outweigh-potential-snow-hazards-in-traffic-signals.html
The big problem is wet wind driven snow that sticks to everything.
10
If this doesn’t change your mind, I don’t know what will:
https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/can-we-both-be-right/
41
‘I was looking at satellite data over the life of the earth’?
40
I meant to imply that I was using more accurate temp data than he for recent trends, and that I was also looking at the big picture.
Thanks for pointing it out, I will edit.
50
Satellite date and long term data..
30
When I read, “chem-trails,” he lost me. By now I have seen several dozen photos purporting to be chemtrails and they don’t stand up to even a cursory examination. Unusual contrails behind a high altitude jet are evidence of nothing but an unusual contrail. Show me some actual evidence that it’s happening and I’ll look at it. But until then there is no case.
Please! We don’t need any more alarms than we already have.
70
I don’t know why anybody thinks chem-trails don’t happen. Maybe you don’t live in the US?
1- Modern jet engines don’t make contrails.
2- Rain, snow, and soil analyses have been done.
3- Thousands of photos have been taken.
4- There is a lot of literature on the subject (insurance co.’s, academics, politicians, military…)
5- There have been whistle-blowers and witnesses.
6- There is a lot of video evidence.
7- Cloud seeding has been going on for decades. Nobody doesn’t believe that.
8- “What in the World are They Spraying” is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
9- “Why in the World are They Spraying” is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis
10- http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org has tons of info.
11- If you never read past the word “chem-trails” you will never know, will you?
But then I guess Roy hasn’t read down this far.
Besides, it’s the Hegelian dialectic being used against us all, alarmists and doubters, to distract us from what they really plan to do. They’ve been dividing and conquering for centuries. Whether or not you believe chem-trails happen, there is a common goal for both teams. If we don’t start working together, we won’t be able to win. That’s the whole point of the article which Roy didn’t read.
48
May be they don’t in the US of A. Perhaps it is a Southern hemisphere phenomenon!
Or maybe you can’t see them when wearing dark glasses.
50
Here.
11
Since we’re going on with this… …when what you give me as evidence to support your case begins like this.
What do you think I’m going to think about it?
Well, I’ll tell you so you don’t have to guess. This is just a finger pointing contest, another war of opinions. And still, right down to the moment I’m typing this, opinions are not evidence. Fear of something is not evidence either.
And yes, J. Edgar Hoover in particular was a loose canon with the whole FBI at his disposal. So was Senator McCarthy. But I still don’t see evidence of anything but government foolishness. They are always paranoid about what people think. Richard Nixon had an enemies list and so does Barack Obama right now. And so what? You can stretch and twist all that any way you want to and it’s still not evidence of,
1. High bypass turbofan engines not being able to generate a contrail
2. Chemtrails
3. Anything else you want to name
Point me to an actual engineer involved in the design of high bypass turbofan engines saying they can’t produce contrails and I’ll read that and believe it.
10
I’ve regularly seen contrails in both hemispheres from any seat behind the engines and in different aircraft, they are fascinating to watch
http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/
80
That link makes some good points, and much is true… but live real-time flight tracking sites allow one to see a plane’s altitude exactly. These persistent trails were never seen decades ago.
Anyhow, I just wanted to rebut what you have brought up and I will desist because it is not relevant to this thread. Hopefully there will be a meaningful discussion about this topic in another thread.
Respect…
23
Utter nonsense! Persistence, even shape and distortion all depend on relative humidity, wind and air temperature, all of which vary with altitude. I have seen contrails from the ground that covered nearly my whole field of view and not just recently but decades ago. Jets have been around a long time, so have I and aviation has been a lifelong passion. I watch the sky to this day.
You’ve shown nothing but opinion so far.
100
Agreed — — contrails are NOT a new phenomenon. On occasion, I watch AHC (American Heros Channel) which, among other things, reviews the Second World War.
Much footage shows Allied reciprocating-engined bombers, flying at the altitudes that modern passenger (and freight) jets fly, nominally, about 30,000 feet, or higher. Those engines produced copious contrails. The narrator pointed out that the ‘beautiful’ contrails were actually used as aim points for ground-based anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), and so were a distinct disadvantage.
High enough in the atmosphere, the ambient temperatures are easily -50 degrees C. The combustion products, mostly carbon dioxide and water vapor, leave the interior combustion chamber at some 2000 degrees C, immediately to find themselves in an environment well below the freezing point of water. Of course they are going to freeze into visible microscopic ice crystals.
I’m not sure where you are getting your info, hebgb; I can tell you that as a child, I witnessed a B-36 overflying my residence at the time, and leaving a visible contrail (and not just from the four turbine engines). I’ve also seen B-47’s in flight, with contrails. Neither has been in service for quite some time.
Regards,
Vlad
30
The most common bombers you would have seen were the B17. And they would have been at about 25,000 feet since their ceiling was probably below 30,000 when fully loaded — so about 10,000 feet lower than today’s jets.
10
Hi Roy,
I wasn’t born until after the end of hostilities in the ETO and PTO. The only B-17 I’ve ever seen in the flesh is operated by the Commemorative Air Force, and it comes to the Central Wyoming area almost every year. They also bring a B-29, on occasion, and have been known to bring a B-24, and a B-25, which is always popular for its role in the Doolittle raid.
No, it was a B-36 I saw, in the flesh, flying north to south, over our residence, at the time. I was about 6 or 7; one of my greatest thrills was watching the arrival(s) of TWA “Connies”; the final approach course for our airport was right over our house.
My source for info on what altitudes B-17’s and the like bombed at, is the aforementioned AHC episodes. The narrators made the claim/statements that Allied Air Forces were bombing from 30,000 and higher (but not much).
I personally have had a Cessna 414 to FL 280 (28,000 feet, for you non-aviator types), and had not reached the all-engine service ceiling (SE service ceiling is listed as 8,800 feet). In any case, the idea that ‘contrails’ are a new phenomenon is hogwash. Some B&W footage of the Battle of Britain will also show amazing contrails of Spits and Hurricanes duking it out with Messerschmitts.
Sorry for the confusion about when/how I saw B-36’s (and -47’s). Both were extremely distinctive in their profiles (the latter as the first US production swept-wing turbine bomber). And yes, I also saw (once) a B-58, at a static display for a VE-Day celebration.
I bet it was AWESOME in flight!
00
I actually got a chance to ride in a ‘Tin Goose’ a Ford Tri-motor
10
Albert,
There you go — actual experiment that proves the point. 🙂
10
Please! This is pure unadulterated nonsense. Jet engines burn a hydrocarbon fuel — Jet A or A1, almost the same thing as kerosene. Burning a hydrocarbon produces H2O vapor. It’s vapor because the heat of combustion is much higher than the boiling point of water. At the altitude used by jets the outside temperature is around -62 to -65 °F (say, -53 °C). The engine exhaust full of water vapor cools behind the engine and under the right conditions the water condenses then freezes, forming what in other circumstances we call clouds.
You cannot escape from this scenario by any argument. It’s what the rules of physics and chemistry demand and those rules are immutable.
The rest has been someone’s opinion as far as I’ve looked into it. There is no evidence of harm that I’ve found and if you have some, state it clearly and I’ll be glad to look at it. But the propaganda I’ve seen is not evidence.
All the photos I’ve seen show the supposed chemtrail coming from the engine exhaust, a location that would destroy anything chemical, be one hell of an engineering trick and is totally unconvincing to anyone with any real aviation chemistry and physics knowledge.
You don’t link to anything identifying a whistleblower. You don’t link to anything showing what soil samples disclose or why anything is a problem. You don’t state any of those things directly either. You don’t show that weather has significantly changed since the advent of jet airplanes. And I’ve looked a long way into this before giving up in disgust at the fact that all I find is opinion and no real evidence of anything. And opinion will not convince anyone who understands what evidence is all about.
120
With all respect Roy,
I have provided the links to all the answers to your questions. Have you checked them?
I have been asked by a mod to drop this topic because it isn’t relevant. I’m trying.
I have looked into this as well.
But the bottom line is that it is all irrelevant!
Whether or not you believe in chem-trails, the point I have been trying to make since my very first post is that we must come together against the unelected who would foist upon us the globalist rules of a new international order.
Perhaps that point had eluded you. If you want me to be wrong so badly, you are no better than the alarmists you decry.
Remember, this all started because I was arguing with an alarmist who’s life’s work is defending chem-trails. I was simply trying to find common ground. We are stronger together than we are apart.
Over and out, and saving this topic for another day.
15
Please do drop it.
81
It’s good that hebgb raises such contentious issues Roy, as we then get well informed responses such as yours sourced from great personal and factual experience, respect. 🙂
50
Good comment Yonnie
20
Excuse me for thinking by myself rather than accepting your dogma, but my understanding is that contrails are caused by jets flying through humidity/pressure/temperature zones that are close to the triple point of water. When the humid air flows over the lift surface of the wing, the pressure drops (this provides lift) , the pressure drops also causes the water in the air to freeze.
Just a little home experiment for the kiddies ( and hebgb), put a bottle of soda water (or any fizzy drink) in the freezer, take it out just before it freezes (when the first ice crystals form). Open it.
The pressure in the bottle drops and the water in the soda instantly freezes. Great experiment to show the kids! (Pity it also lets all the CO2 out and the lemonade goes flat)
I have NO DOUBT about this mechanism since I’ve done thousands of hours of flying and you can see the contrail being formed behind the wing, especially in descent where you can see the stream off the corner of the control surfaces as they are deployed. It’s interesting to watch.
Assertion disproved
100
Bob,
No doubt I can’t equal your thousands of hours of flying but I’ve also seen the phenomenon you describe. And what you describe is not what I recognize as a contrail. A contrail as I know it comes from the jet engine exhaust and if you have the right vantage point it’s very obvious what the source is and it’s not any part of the wing.
At a military air show (Point Mugu, California every fall) I’ve seen a sharp pull up just above the runway do exactly what you describe. It’s high g stuff and not for the fainthearted. But the contrail at high altitude from a commercial jet requires the cold temperature and the right relative humidity. If humidity is too low the cold air is not close to saturated and can absorb the water vapor so no contrail. If relative humidity is high then the exhaust saturates the cold air and you see the contrail.
I’ve also seen such trails behind the wingtips of big jets but it’s rare and I’m not sure of the mechanism. But concerning the engine exhaust I’m very sure.
And now we’re risking the ire of some moderator so we should sign off.
50
Roy:
https://nanosync.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-impossible-dream-made-possible/
Well known photograph of Horns Rev 1 off-shore wind farm.
Not sure who nanosync is, this was just the first picture Google came up with.
30
Graeme,
Yes, the blades are airfoils exactly like any aircraft wing or propeller and they have a considerable pressure drop over the surface facing the direction of rotation and under the right conditions you get that condensation from the cooling where the pressure becomes lowered.
The picture is from too far away to see the vortex produced by the blade tips but in another picture I’ve seen it was quite distinct.
00
‘doubters’
We have decided to stick with skeptic.
40
TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter from WikiLeaks via Global Research:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/WikiLeaks-TPP-IP-Chapter-0510151.pdf
31
Let’s hope he convinces a lot of the true believers to think for themselves. When people can do that… …we can win the fight.
70
Let’s hope more warmists decide,
To switch to the skeptical side,
Where the right to dissent,
Is defended at length,
And climate-change isn’t denied.
250
100+ extra thumbs.
60
(Richard Muller, remember, was never a skeptic).
He got derided as sceptic by alarmists when he DARED to criticise Mann et al following Climategate and said he would never read any of their papers again.
That was neither sceptical or otherwise re. AGW. Just noting untrustworthy people for what they are, but in the eyes of the alarmists it made him a heretical denier.
When he continued being a believer since he had never stopped being a believer, those who had despised him tried to spin his ‘redemption’ as him being a denier who had seen the light.
Since they’d never found anyone who really went from objective critical thinking to blind faith, it was the nearest they could get so they ran with it.
120
Minor typo alert, “hottest year ever” graph, second year from the left should be 1999, not 1992.
30
Jo
O/T
“Petition for Climate Skeptic Philippe Verdier to be reinstated in his job at France Télévisions”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/16/petition-for-climate-skeptic-philippe-verdier-to-be-reinstated-in-his-job-at-france-televisions/
41
[…] you guess what happened next? (Jo Nova) David Siegel has written six books, four of which were international bestsellers. He’s a […]
10
Skeptics who aren’t skeptical of 97% group thinking consensus:
A Few of the Ten Distinguished Scientists and Scholars Named Fellows of Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:
John Cook
Stephan Lewandowsky
Naomi Oreskes
The new fellows join a list of notable CSI fellows that includes:
magician/author James Randi
~ ~ ~
Now, some Aussies might remember James Randi’s encounter with Australia’s “lanky yank,” Don Lane.
But, Randi has entered the climate wars.
Randi is a ‘hero’ of Penn & Teller, two noted climate consensus rebels.
2009 – James Randi is a hero to many rational people around the world.
He has done more than, perhaps, any person alive to promote rational and clear thinking about claims of the paranormal and alternative medicine.
It was something of a shock then to see Randi write an article on his site (link@link) that questioned the scientific consensus that man made activities are responsible for climate change and that dramatic intervention is required.
Such views, we tend to think, are the preserve of the ‘denialist’, loon or vested interest. How could Randi do such thing?
. . .
Watch this space, I guess …
** ‘oogle page “james randi global warming” for more links and context.
61
handjive
While you’re on things like that
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/10/16/the-man-the-royal-society-honoured-not-once-but-twice.html
41
And
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/16/guardian-breitbart-doesnt-write-what-believe-so-theyre-biased/
41
It seems Randi is an example of a ‘skeptic’ becoming a believer:
wuwt, 2013:
The Amazing Mann gives no pause
here is a photo of James Randi and Mike Mann. Mike looks a bit starstruck.
30
I hope this is not considered off topic but an analysis of the current state of climate “negotiations” was published yesterday which puts into context all perceptions of the issues and provides answers to the pointed questions that TdeF asks @ post 4.
The analyst Oren Cass does not dispute in any way the “science” as defined by the IPCC assessments but is concerned only with the motivations and objectives apparent displayed by the parties to the UNFCCC.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/eper_19.pdf
This analysis supports the view I have long had that the CAGW Narrative was contrived in order to inhibit the economic development of the third world by restricting supplies and use of fossil fuels, casting them as “toxic” to the planet.
The developing nations, back in 1992, were aware of this and negotiated the UNFCCC with an absolute defence of their aspirations.
The “west”, that is the USA and the EU, accepted this believing scarcity would price the third world out of the market. Against all prediction – exponential production occurred.
Chapter II of this analysis clearly shows the consequences of this strategy and points to the scale of the third worlds revenge which will unfold in Paris.
Chapter III indicates the potential for world conflict if this farce is allowed to continue.
The conclusion is that the likeliest outcome, no agreement whatsoever, would move the world away from futility into realistic and productive discourse.
Read it – it is the most clear on informative 15 minutes you can spend.
80
Outstanding!
40
Nice link.. 🙂
42
So no one is expecting anything in Paris, but Malcolm Turnbull will bring back and Emissions Trading Scheme and no one in Australia will be surprised. That is tragic.
I tried to follow the proof of the opening statement of the article about why nothing would be achieved and it opens with
“The Carbon Budget Once emitted, CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.”
The refernce 6 sent me to the US EPA. All waffle and broad statements including the following
Carbon dioxide (CO2) has a GWP of 1 and serves as a baseline for other GWP values. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time – changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations persist for thousands of years.
That in turn led me to the IPCC where nothing is clear or even in agreement, a circus.
About half of a CO2 pulse to the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.
So Carbon Dioxide hangs around for hundreds, some even thousands of years? (Of course that does raise the absurd question of how the CO2 molecules sort out among themselves who is going to float around for thousands of years)
Logically then, if CO2 does NOT hang around for hundreds, even thousands of years (in the air), the whole business is wrong according to this article. In that respect it is spot on.
(I noted also the IPCC waffle about C12 and C13. C13 is stable and 1% of all Carbon. The real measure of a pulse of CO2 is the rare, one in a trillion isotope C14 used in radio carbon dating and I have written a lot about this, where the half life of CO2 in the air is demonstrably 14 years. No debate.)
So what happens is that everyone seems to reference someone else and the statements become more and more irrelevant as you follow the reference trail. In fact the links are useless. It is simply assumed this is right because someone else assumed it was right and so on. So a general internet search and I found the half life of CO2 in the air is 5 years, 35 years, 80 years, thousands of years.
You would think that this most important fact, in this article the very starting statement which underpins the logic of the conference in Paris, would have been established. If the CO2 increase is not man made, why the conference?
90
Objectively,
Each year the annual CO2 cycle ends with about half the manmade emission added to the atmosphere and half absorbed. Since one CO2 molecule is as good as another, in the following year an amount equivalent to half the remaining half would be absorbed as the biosphere expands to use it. After 5 annual cycles over 95% of the original years CO2 is left.
So CO2 overturning has a half-life of 1 year. If however you were to trace the outcome for a PARTICULAR molecule, yes it might be there for a thousand years or more, but frankly that doesn’t matter.
This shows that the CO2 level is only really increasing because our CO2 emission is increasing, simply keeping CO2 emissions constant would stop the CO2 rise once the biosphere had grown sufficiently to rebalance absorption (which takes time).
50
If TURNCOAT TURNBULL tries this there will be RIOTS in the streets !
Australians will not cop this !!
PS Read about the REAL turnbull here……..
http://stopturnbull.com/
51
A bit OT, but shows up the Green Blob funding quite well.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/heidi-centrals-funding/#comment-53931
63
Ta, Ta, to 1200 more steel working jobs in Scotland & Humberside, after 1700 went already earlier this week. Is TaTa taking the P!££.
Or is it just the UNFCCC’s grand masterplan unfolding?
51
I am sure David Siegel is a good writer, but that is not qualification to be a climate scientist. The 97% consensus around global warming is pretty formidable.
Still, his opinions might be worth looking at to see if he comes up with anything novel, instead of the usual old climate change doubter talking points.
230
“The 97% consensus around global warming is pretty formidable.”
yep 77 out of 79 is pretty formidable .. to the empty mind. 🙂
Everyone knows that the 97% consensus is a fabricated lie, just like the rest of climate science. And you continue to look like a rabid, propaganda spewing troll every time you go there. No discussion from you, ever….. just empty regurgitation of the sierra club meme.
184
And you really should read all of it, at least 4 times..
… and actually try to argue the points,
.. yeah right.. as if that is ever going to happen.
104
And of course you have such impeccable qualifications that we should all listen to you right? (By your own logic).
104
bobl.
“And of course you have such impeccable qualifications that we should all listen to you right?”
Not by your logic.
211
Twatter,
Here’s Cook’s Consensus data file – there are 69 papers that support man made global warming out of the some 11,944 papers reviewed.
Go through it yourself – all the marking codes are there:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt
143
At least I do the math and can prove what I say
10
Y’see Harry, David Siegel actually puts up a very coherent, factual, point of view.
That is something that you will never be able to do.
I strongly urge you to actually read it and learn. 🙂
94
Close enough to 97%, I guess 😉
http://s19.postimg.org/iie7h3pdf/Dyson_v_Obama.jpg
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/15/liberal-physicist-says-obama-is-wrong-on-global-warming/
94
oh, and the sample size is far more than 79. ! 🙂
84
‘… old climate change doubter talking points.’
Groan …
‘The 97% consensus around global warming is pretty formidable.’
The facade is pretty shaky after 19 years of no warming.
104
The believers are down to the one talking point and that’s becoming very tired. Even the not-very-committed are beginning to sneer at the 97% meme.
94
Did you see that Sierra club guy on youtube.
Bl***dy hilarious to say the least. 🙂
Sort of like a Norwegian blue !
Harry must have been watching 😉
93
As I thought, David Siegel does not come up with anything new. Same old climate change doubter talking points.
314
Echoing your earlier comment? That will convince the doubters.
104
‘Same old climate change doubter talking points.’
Harry I have it on good authority that global cooling will begin next year. Prove me wrong without the use of logical fallacies.
http://www.geek.com/news/the-11-most-irritating-logical-fallacies-1636224/
73
Ooops …. that was a burden of proof fallacy.
Its a minefield out here.
73
And Harry comes up with the same old empty pointless post, full of “nothing”.
Just as I predicted he would. 🙂
102
… “but that is not qualification to be a climate scientist.
The 97% consensus around global warming is pretty formidable.”
~ ~ ~
97% Climate Scientist Al Gore 2007:
Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013
. . .
“Formidable?”
Not the word I would have chosen, though the word does begin with the letter “F.”
(fail)
92
By “formidable”, I think Harry means that its the only thing he has left.
64
Harry Twinotter:
Here’s how the time-worn statement that ‘97% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming’ was derived.
In January 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a research paper entitled ‘Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’. This can be accessed via the internet – see for yourself..
Comments in quotation marks are verbatim from the paper.
Survey questionnaires were sent to ‘10,257 Earth scientists’.
The paper explains that ‘This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey’.
These were:
1) ‘When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained generally constant?’
2) ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’
The survey was ‘designed to take less than 2mins to complete’ and was administered online.
Firstly, note that of the 10,257 to whom the questionnaire was sent, only 3,146 individuals bothered to complete and return the survey – i.e. just short of 31%.
‘Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists’ – as opposed to for example oceanographers and palaeontologists. That’s 157 individuals out of the 3,146.
Of these 157, 79 scientists had published more than 50% of their recent research papers on the subject, and so were deemed by the authors to be ‘the most specialised and knowledgeable respondents’.
In other words, of the total of 10,257 considered knowledgeable enough to have their opinion sought at the outset of the study, only 79 individuals were by now considered to the most knowledgeable.
Of these 79, 76 (96.2%) answered ‘risen’ to question 1, and – wait for it – 75 out of 77 (97.4%) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.
So there we are – job done – 97.4% of scientists agree that humans are warming the planet significantly – or do they?
Let’s see now: 75 out of the 10,257 polled. I make that 0.73%.
51
Also, we should note that it wasn’t a blind survey. Doran and Zimmerman preselected the ‘Earth Scientists’ that were originally sent the survey.
Anybody who knows anything about conducting surveys would recognise that as a total crock.
Earth Scientists they may be, but Statistitians they ain’t.
81
Also, there’s no doubt that this hugely flawed paper was ‘peer reviewed’.
If ever there was a good example of faults in the peer review process, this is surely it!
30
16 Oct: UK Express: Nathan Rao: SHOCK CLAIM: World is on brink of 50 year ICE AGE and BRITAIN will bear the brunt
BRITAIN faces DECADES of savage winters driven by freak changes in global ocean conditions and a weakening of the sun.
Crippling blizzards, snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures threaten a yearly dose of Arctic misery for the next FIFTY YEARS at least – and possibly decades more.
Climate experts warn a rare pattern of water cooling in the north Atlantic will trigger a chain reaction of events leading to a “fully-blown ice age”.
The(y) say the UK is on alert for a “serious climate situation” with regular winter whiteouts pushing emergency services to the limit…
AccuWeather senior meteorologist Alex Sosnowski said icy Atlantic waters could affect the weather for years to come…
The warning comes just months after the Met Office warned Britain might be facing another maunder minimum period of cooling.
A recent report warned the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels “not seen for centuries”…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt
121
All due to Global Warming and CO2 no doubt.
140
Of COurse!
I love this statement:
Bizarre! Global warming will continue as temperatures plunge. But no worries, because we are going to shut down your energy to keep it from getting hotter. You are just going to freeze your butts off in the mean time. Think of the Children! (The ones who don’t freeze to death that is.)
61
Tell me about it. I woke up to 29 °F (minus 1.7 °C) this morning. The normal low here in the sunny south of the USA is 49 °F (9.4 °C) for this time of year. — BRrrrr.
71
“and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems”
Like Indonesian deforestation for example, a topic you hardly hear anyone (green groups) talking about. (no Harrison Ford does not count)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrCqjtpJxOc
Michael Crichton said this like 10 years ago. He called AGW a “classic hand wringer problem”. One that bureaucrats and fear mongers love because you can make any argument to tackle it and never have to worry about measuring success, because there is no success, nor any need to measure it. You can just go around and around, sounding like you care and that your doing something without ever having to worry about results. It avoids having to tackle measurable objectives like urban river water quality, deforestation, illegal toxic waste dumping, treatment of animals etc etc etc
Great to see another mind unplugged from the Eco Matrix.
122
He’s late to the party. I’ve been saying the same thing for years, this non-issue has sucked out all the environmental capital that could be used to save the whales, dugongs and dare I say it Polar Bears – and protect the (real) environment and water supplies ( EG by controlled burns, better farming etc).
There is no money for these real problems because it all gets hoovered up by this non-problem. Real environmentalists should rally against this meme that is frankly harming real living people and the environment
81
I no longer use the term environmentalist. I use the term conservationist to distinguish myself from the eco-loons.
51
Exactly safetyguy. There are real problems in the world that need to be addressed and this nonsense prevents it. Perhaps we should be charging the agw nuts with negligent homicide for all the deaths caused by the diversion of resources and attention?
20
Another one (a Democrat) comes out of the woodwork.
SOMETHING is happening out there – it just MAY be in time to avert “smart” countries from signing up to world government in Paris.
Let’s hope so.
Cheers,
81
Underlying all this is the fact that man made Global Warming is an extreme political issue. Democrat=AGW, Labor=AGW, Green = AGW Communist=AGW. Rather, the Left, which incredibly lets politicians do their thinking is all for it and the conservatives, who think for themselves, do not agree with ‘the science’.
One the Democrat/Labor/Green side the disconnect with facts is startling. However as a physicist and a CO2 warming believer but at least he has taken the Lomborg view that CO2 is the least of the world’s problems and further that it is fundamentally uncontrollable and considerably beneficial. That technically that disqualifies him as a Democrat. Dissent is not allowed. Science is what politicians say it is.
71
Sorry about the editing and typos. A bit like a cryptic crossword. Ignore the words.
41
I have fired my blind proof reader. So much for affirmative action.
101
It’ll be interesting to see just how many ‘climate warriors’ are prepared to fully commit to political seppuku, I feel many will burn the uniform and head for Brazil.
71
Welcome to reality David.
71
Why do people keep bringing their interpretation of politics and blaming AGW on communist thinking into the climate debate ?
It is simply divisive and stupid.
The 2 biggest communist states on the globe do not give a tinker’s cuss about AGW or man made climate change except for pretending they do so they can sell us basically useless expensive machines and panels at exorbitant prices which is partly funding their economic development.
The rest of the communist states are either exporting hydrocarbon fuels as fast as they can or wishing they had some to export.
On the temperature graph you could plot the anomaly data from the Australian BOM to a base of say 14 degrees C – that way you can have a scale of say 10 -25 C on the “Y” axis and still have a basic flat line for the whole of the last 100 + years – the effects of climate change have certainly been terrifying over my 60 years of life – LOL.
Winters in the cities I have lived in aren’t as cold as they were – could be due to being twice or more as developed or could also be due to the sequence of Solar maximums in the latter half of the 20th century – or a bit of both.
72
Read “Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout” from a Greenpeace founder, Dr Patrick Moore. Agreed, the biggest communist states do not give a tinker’s cuss about AGW. Precisely. The biggest emitter China loves it, makes the world’s windmills, solar panels and receives carbon credits while western manufacturing collapses. It is all blatantly and openly about an attack on ‘rich’ Western democracies and even Christiana Figueres, head of the IPCC openly says China is her ideal government and she wants wealth redistribution and the end of the power of the ballot box. It is not about the weather. It is about power, politics and bucket loads of money.
111
Rosco ,
Its a Marxist UN agenda , not particularly one country !
It supposedly is to take from the wealthy countries to subsidize the poor countries with a big fat commission to the rulers …..the self appointed UN new world power grab , under the guise of ‘to save the world from itself ‘……CAGW /CACC !
No one flogs this crap harder than the U.N. , because these unelected frauds have the most to gain from it …..just a bigger version of the Brussels based Commissars defrauding the Eurozone , and we can see how successful that is !
I don’t remember voting for the self – proclaimed world climate fraud Authority ,the IPCC some of who blatantly even admit that they have nothing to do with climate >>>>> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-AXhzg12yOI8/VIP_CPD2B9I/AAAAAAAAgac/c9dcHdYUnGU/w907-h587-no/endenhofer.png
All this CAGW / CACC garbage is strongly and predominantly defended by the left and far left and led by the extreme left , to the point where facts are irrelevant !
Green Parties are far left and fanatical true b’lvers !
Absolutely ,it is and has always been a political agenda ….. World Socialism by the back door !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9bEOB3x0dQ
All the Eco – Loons/freaks are left and many extreme >>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838857/posts
91
Rosco,
The Communist countries are ALREADY communist so they get a free pass and rewards. It is only EVIL capitalist/free countries that must be punished by the climate agreements.
That alone tells you CAGW is communist in origin.
If you follow Al Gore’s History his money comes from Armand Hammer.
40
UPDATE: jonova: France’s top TV meteorologist writes skeptic book, gets told not to come to work
~ ~ ~
> notrickszone: Meterologist Verdier Fights Back: Petition Against Laurent Fabius’s Orwellian-Style Tactics And Fear Of “Climate Chaos”
“The Collectif des climato-réalistes call on you to sign this petition regardless of your opinion about climate change.”
Reader are urged to sign the petition and to urge as many others as possible to do the same.
For English-speakers: the climate-skeptic “Collectif des climato-réalistes” also welcomes your support.
Simply write us an e-mail at [email protected] with your name and profession.
Thank you! NB: do not confuse this support with the petition in favor of Philippe Verdier, launched by the Collectif.
To support this petition, please, click here.
71
lol.
16 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Green Climate Fund directors warn it faces staffing crisis
Poor pay and remote location in South Korea are driving away potential employees says GCF, as it prepares to sign off on first funding projects
Its directors say it needs more resources and 72 new full-time staff by 2018 to operate effectively…
Some posts have been vacant for two years says the GCF, which had a total approved administrative budget for 2015 of $19,566,866. $11.21 million is set aside for salaries and consultants.
As a result it has employed 62 temporary staff, ballooning its consultancy costs by 185%…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/16/green-climate-fund-directors-warn-it-faces-staffing-crisis/
16 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: GCF selects first 8 projects seeking $168m for final approval
The GCF board will next month decide whether to make its first funding awards of up to $168 million after the secretariat put forward eight mitigation and adaptation projects on Friday, none of which were CDM schemes…
Also on the board’s agenda is the GCF’s acute staffing shortage, which the fund blames on the lack of willingness of candidates to move to its headquarters in Songdo, South Korea, and unattractive salaries, a separate statement said. The board meets over Nov. 2-5 in Livingstone, Zambia…
The projects were drawn from 37 shortlisted that are seeking $1.5 billion in total, 29 of those were from public sector bodies…
http://carbon-pulse.com/gcf-selects-first-8-projects-seeking-168m-for-final-approval/
40
***message to the 134 countries: don’t back down. derail Paris.
16 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Bonn set for fireworks as UN climate talks resume
Developing countries cry foul ahead of week of negotiations in Germany – claiming finance, loss and damage have been wiped from draft deal
India’s climate chief could not have been clearer: “I am not happy with the text. We should certainly have a different text for the Paris to become success.”
In an interview with the Times of India this week, Prakash Javadekar piled into a draft document published by the UN that could form the basis of a global climate change agreement.
It was disappointing, he wanted changes, India would soon offer new suggestions. If it had been a boxing match the text’s corner would have thrown in the towel after round 1.
Javadekar’s blast sets the tone for what is sure to be a lively 5-day set of climate negotiations in Bonn next week…
But it has left many unhappy and not just India…
Giza Gaspar Martins, head of the least developed countries grouping, also has issues.
“A proposal on loss and damage by ***134 countries gets ignored in the draft global agreement on climate change,” he said – again on twitter.
References to a long term carbon cutting goal – deemed a critical component of any agreement by UN climate chief Christiana Figueres – are equally vague…READ ON
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/16/bonn-set-for-fireworks-as-un-climate-talks-resume/
40
who will be held accountable?
15 Oct: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Factories face switch-off to keep household lights on, National Grid warns
Rising risk of blackouts means factories may need to be paid to switch off on weekday evenings to keep household lights on
In a report, the company said there was an “increased likelihood” that it would have to pay large businesses to switch off between 4pm and 8pm during the week.
Busineses with 130 megawatts of capacity have signed up to take part in the scheme, which is voluntary. They will be paid for taking part, even if they are not actually called upon – as happened last winter…
Analysis by Ofgem, the energy regulator, suggests that without the emergency interventions, a blackout during a cold snap would be highly likely…
Ofgem forecasts suggest that by next winter Britain could experience ‘negative margins’ – meaning output from Britain’s power plants would not be enough to meet peak demand – if it is very calm, resulting in low wind turbine output…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11933020/national-grid-blackout-risk-factories-paid-switch-off-keep-lights-on.html
15 Oct: BBC: Richard Anderson: UK power supplies enough for winter, says National Grid
This means supply is expected to exceed peak demand by 5.1%.
The Grid may have to secure extra supplies to keep this margin, such as paying plants to remain on standby.
Without these measures, the margin would be 1.2%. With the additional measures, margins are at their lowest for seven years, and have deteriorated year on year…
The government has announced new measures to ensure the lights stay on in the future.
It’s making changes to the Capacity Market, a mechanism which pays owners of power plants a subsidy to guarantee having the plants available from 2018 onwards.
The changes will increase the “incentives and penalties” on firms which agree to build new power plants, but then fail to do so…
The GMB union accused the Grid of “complacency” and criticised as “bonkers” its policy of paying power stations to be on standby.
“That and bringing unused inefficient power production back into operation are the special measures National Grid is being forced to rely on to keep the lights on and the cost is added to consumers’ bills,” said national officer Brian Strutton.;;
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34537806
40
15 Oct: Financial Times: David Cameron calls high-level talks on energy crunch
by Kiran Stacey and Jim Pickard
Chris Kimmett,commercial manager at Open Energi, one of those brokers, told the FT: “There must be a more efficient way of running the system than for small firms to run diesel generators, but for now this is what National Grid needs to do.”
***Part of the reason for the reduced gap between supply and demand is that thermal energy units, such as coal-fired powerplants, have been shut down withrelatively little capacity built to replace them…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/68331e5c-7326-11e5-bdb1-e6e4767162cc.html
30
Shellhummer goes the full loonie !!
http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/15/potsdam-institute-director-schellnhuber-presents-60000-year-predictions-a-prophet-or-just-stark-raving-mad/#sthash.MGKMtkw5.dpbs
82
Try that again..
Shellhummer goes stark crazy
http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/15/potsdam-institute-director-schellnhuber-presents-60000-year-predictions-a-prophet-or-just-stark-raving-mad/#sthash.MGKMtkw5.dpbs
92
Sorry.. first got stuck in moderation.
Keeps happening to me, can’t think why 😉
32
Personally, I blame the Nargles …
20
Apply occams razor …
40
16 Oct: BusinessGreen: The UK solar industry is in crisis, but can a catastrophe yet be averted?
Job losses are mounting, but there are steps still available to the industry and the government that could avert a full-blown disaster for UK renewables
Over the past two weeks I have spent four days at the Birmingham NEC, being denied sunshine while listening to various people talk about the grave state of the UK solar industry. At the Energy Hub for the UK Construction Week and Solar Energy UK (full disclosure, BusinessGreen was a media partner and I chaired panel discussions at both events), an understandably subdued atmosphere was in evidence as solar industry executives wrestled with optimism at the sector’s exciting long-term prospects and genuine sadness at the recent job losses and bleak short- to medium-term outlook for the sector…
There is surprise the predicted surge in new installations ahead of the government’s planned cuts to subsidies has not yet materialised, but for whatever reason (have media reports left customers thinking the subsidies have already gone, or are solar firms too cash-strapped or disheartened to step up marketing activity?) demand has failed to spike significantly and companies are being forced to prepare for a contracting market.
Consequently, the sense of frustration, betrayal and resentment directed at the government across much of the industry is palpable. This anger is leavened somewhat by a recognition the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is in a difficult position with the Treasury pulling the strings, an understanding some pretty deep subsidy cuts are necessary and justified, and broad acceptance that greater control over clean energy subsidy spending should have been exerted sooner…
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2430860/the-uk-solar-industry-is-in-crisis-but-can-a-catastrophe-yet-be-averted
15 Oct: BusinessGreen: Without robust safeguards we risk ending up with a not so Green Investment Bank
The government has to find a fail-safe way to cement the Green Investment Bank’s low-carbon purpose – and fast
If the government’s decision to privatise the Green Investment Bank (GIB) was short sighted, the plan to privatise it while removing the legal requirement for it to remain a green-focused institution appears almost blind…
The clock is ticking. The GIB needs additional funding next year if it is continue to grow and provide a much-needed source of capital for the UK’s faltering green economy. If ministers are really insistent the bank can borrow only once it is off balance sheet, they need to find a way of getting it off balance sheet, quickly. But in this rush to get the bank into private hands, they also need to provide 100 per cent assurance the GIB will remain green…
The chancellor no doubt already has some ideas on what to do with the proceeds from the GIB windfall, but there are a lot of industries the GIB was designed to nurture that could really do with the cash right now.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/james-blog/2430689/without-robust-safeguards-we-risk-ending-up-with-a-not-so-green-investment-bank
20
every ABC employee should be made to read this in full:
15 Oct: WaPo: Joby Warrick: U.S. exports its greenhouse-gas emissions — as coal. Profitable coal.
This is part of a series exploring how the world’s hunger for cheap electricity is complicating efforts to combat climate change
The Obama administration is seeking to curb the United States’ appetite for the basin’s coal, which scientists say must remain mostly in the ground to prevent a disastrous warming of the planet. Yet each year, nearly half a billion tons of this U.S.-owned fuel are hauled from the region’s vast strip mines and millions of tons are shipped overseas for other countries to burn. Government and industry reports predict a surge in exports of Powder River coal over the next decade, at a time when climate experts are warning of an urgent need to reduce coal burning to prevent global temperatures from soaring.
Each shipment highlights what critics describe as a hypocrisy underlying U.S. climate policy: While boasting of pollution cuts at home, the United States is facilitating the sale of large quantities of government-owned coal abroad.
“We’re a fossil-fuel-exporting superpower that goes around lecturing the rest of the world about cutting emissions,” said Paul Bledsoe, who was an adviser on climate during the Clinton administration…
Coal accounts for 40 percent of the electricity produced globally — and more in China and India…
Yet, the government continues issuing new leases for Powder River coal, in ever greater quantities. The Interior Department is finalizing leases for 2.5 billion tons of Powder River coal, and agency documents released earlier this year propose making an additional 10 billion tons available for mining — and, potentially exporting — over the next 25 to 30 years…READ ALL
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-exports-its-greenhouse-gas-emissions–as-coal-profitable-coal/2015/10/08/05711c92-65fc-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html
30
16 Oct: PR Week: Alex Benady: Are PR agencies happy to work for climate change deniers?
Given the weight of scientific opinion and the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, many think that those who deny climate change should be denied a platform for publicity because they endanger the future of mankind.
The world’s largest PR agency certainly does. Last month, Edelman made it known that it would no longer work with clients that produce coal or deny climate change.
However, that view is not shared by the majority of UK PR agencies, according to a straw poll carried out by PRWeek this month.
Just six out of 20 UK agency chiefs questioned said that they would not work with climate change deniers. Only one was brave enough to say that they definitely would. Two said they might and 10 did not reply. One responded with the quip: “What’s climate change?”
You might conclude that, therefore, this was a bad poll with a poor response and no conclusions can be drawn from it…
Gavin Devine of MHP Communications was the only agency chief prepared to say publicly that he would work with climate change deniers – although he does not agree with them: “Yes, we would work with people who have questions about climate change science. Not that I personally – nor, I suspect, many people in the agency – would share their views, but it is not morally wrong to take a different position from the mainstream on climate change.”…
One agency head pointed out that Edelman’s decision concerned not only climate change den-iers, but coal companies too. He suggested that perhaps this was clouding response. “Why single out coal?” he asked. He was concerned about the growth of what might be called ‘eco-fascism’. “Is this going to be the start of a carbon witch-hunt? If so, many perfectly responsible companies and any industry with a large carbon footprint could be denied a voice.”…
http://www.prweek.com/article/1368512/pr-agencies-happy-work-climate-change-deniers
20
“…it is not morally wrong to take a different position from the mainstream on climate change,” Gavin Devine said.
Can’t argue with that, straw polls are extremely good value.
30
16 Oct: Reuters: Macau billionaire in U.N. bribery case gets $50 mln bail
But over the objections of a federal prosecutor, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox in Manhattan accepted a proposal by Ng’s attorneys to allow him to live under house arrest at a $3.6 million apartment under 24-hour watch by two private security guards.
The $50 million bail must be secured by $20 million cash and the apartment, Fox said, adding Ng must also wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and bear the guards’ $200-an-hour cost.
Daniel Richenthal, the prosecutor, said the U.S. government may appeal. He argued it was “not appropriate for wealthy defendants to buy their freedom.”
Benjamin Brafman, Ng’s lawyer, countered that arrangements for home detention with security guards had been seen before, including with convicted Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff.
“Rich people should not be put in jail just because they are rich,” he said.
Fox also on Friday set bail at $500,000 for another defendant in the case, Sheri Yan, who was Global Sustainability Foundation’s chief executive officer, and ordered house arrest…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/16/usa-crime-un-idUSL1N12G1XM20151016
30
interesting Australian connections with Global Sustainability Foundation’s Sheri Yan…read all:
15 Oct: SMH: Australia-China social queen Sheri Yan arrested for bribery
by Daniel Flitton, John Garnaut, Chris Vedelago
The queen of the Australia-China social scene has been charged in New York with funnelling almost $1 million in bribes to the president of the United Nations General Assembly…
She and her husband Roger Uren, a media executive and former Australian intelligence analyst who was once tipped to be former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s ambassador to Beijing, have long been a fixture at Australian embassy events in Beijing…
***Underlining her deep ties to Australia, Ms Yan was once also paid to act as a lobbyist by the ABC in her native China when the public broadcaster made an ultimately futile effort to secure local broadcasting rights for its overseas television channel Australia Network…
Mr Ashe was elected to a one-year term as president of the General Assembly beginning in 2013, about the same time Ms Yan is accused of making monthly payments of $20,000 to him under the guise of a non-governmental organisation she headed, known as the “Global Sustainability Foundation”.
Prominent Melbourne businessman Phil Scanlan, the founder of the elite Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, initially was listed to sit on an advisory board for Global Sustainability Foundation, along with Australian insurance lawyer Ian Hutchinson…
Former Australia Network chief Bruce Dover said he was introduced to Ms Yan in 2005 by her husband and she was later paid around $5000 per month as part of a bid by the ABC to secure broadcasting rights in the tightly controlled Chinese market.
“After about six months I wondered what we were getting,” Mr Dover said. “It was all talk and not a lot of progress, and we parted ways.”…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australiachina-social-queen-sheri-yan-arrested-for-bribery-20151015-gka7pd.html
not a hint about the “Sustainability” angle or any of Ashe’s CAGW connections in this Garnaut piece (with Philip Wen):
16 Oct: SMH: John Garnaut with Philip Wen: Are Chau Chak Wing’s circles of influence in Australia-China ties built on hot air?
Dr Chau Chak Wing may never get to live in the $70 million Vaucluse mansion that he bought from James Packer, sight unseen.
Because of an unfolding international bribery scandal, some officials believe the highly connected Chinese tycoon may prefer to bunker down in his personal “imperial palace” just north of Guangzhou, beyond the reach of extradition treaties.
But, while the United States may be considering taking action against the billionaire businessman it describes as “CC-3” in a bribery indictment against a former president of the UN General Assembly, John Ashe of Antigua and Barbuda, Chau denies any direct knowledge of anything…
PHOTO CAPTION: Dr Chau Chak Wing building, designed by Frank Gehry, at the University of Technology, Sydney
http://www.smh.com.au/national/are-chau-chak-wings-circles-of-influence-in-australiachina-ties-built-on-hot-air-20151015-gkalg8.html
20
Stop..your just beclowning yourself…
Its no big deal all the models have failed .and trillions gone…but hey it doesnt matter to the sheep right.
Son..are there no adults to check stuff for you.?
Lets clear up something for you…
Our dirty denier tax dollars have been spent..”fighting global warming”…they are part of the trillions that has vanished from western countries…
The same as the tax dollars of the sheep who do not care about science.
Taxes cannot differentiate peoples beliefs,,
So…you lose on that angle.
All our energy needs like transport and housing..are supplied by dirty fossil fuels..the same as they are for your mum and dad.
Are you still following.?
Other than being obnoxious…and clearly clueless..and scientifically illiterate…you have zero moral or scientific ground to try your act on here.
See above points…
132
Hmm? Oh. Wrong.
213
” Wrong.”
Yes, that also. Always.
102
Just to remind people that there will be plenty of atmospheric CO2 for many hundreds of years to come.. Even the IPCC agree. 🙂
http://s19.postimg.org/z50d3x7oz/Plenty_of_CO2.jpg
And guess what…. there is nothing anyone can do about it.
They can bring in carbon taxes, cap and trade whatever, but it will have no effect on the steady increase in atmospheric CO2.
The only thing it will do is to stunt the economies of those countries stupid enough to send all their money to the UN and the AGW banksters.
103
How I knew rain was on the way one day.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/contrail.jpg
00
The last graph with the 0-20 DegC y-axis is the only graph that is needed to illustrate how ridiculous this whole AGW panic really is.
00
Copy of my “reply” to the WUWT article introducing David Siegel.
PS: No-one is or ever can be a “climate proponent”.
Dear David Siegel,
Your essay is noteworthy but you are NOT YET STRONG ENOUGH to hold much sway here.
I do not intend to view your website, nor do I wish to be guided through your journey until you can show a much better grasp of realities.
Your article includes one particular sentence (in bold) …
QUOTE: “I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in preserving our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible.” END QUOTE
I cannot dispute your political persuasion: that is for only you to say, of course, but your “bolded” sentence in the middle part of your article shows me that you are plainly IGNORANT OF THE VERY FACTS THAT THIS SITE AND ITS’ READERSHIP ARE FIGHTING AGAINST !
You will find NO ESCAPE HERE.
Write as you wish but don’t expect me to fall for such a GLARING INSULT to those who write here with honesty and truth.
I respectfully suggest that you read the rather special WUWT “article” produced by Lord Christopher Monckton concerning wind turbines.
I await your reply.
Regards,
WL
Reply
10