Crazy World Quiz #2349:
Let’s close the cheapest generators of electricity. Will electricity bills:
a/ go down, b/ go up, or c/ be paid by The Tooth Fairy?
A quarter of Australians don’t know. A half think the answer is “b” or “c”. It’s that bad.
A new survey came out this week which fans of renewables are using to argue we need more renewables, but hidden in the data is the big misinformation that underlies this attitude.
Coalition supporters back quicker shift to renewable energy
[Sydney Morning Herald]
Adam Morton says:
The wisdom of a campaign by the Turnbull government emphasising the risks of moving too rapidly to renewable energy has been thrown into question by polling that suggests a majority of its supporters don’t agree.
Not at all. The real issue, that Adam Morton misses, is that so much of the country is horribly misinformed. All the key questions in the survey depend on what would happen to electricity prices, and nearly half the country lives under the delusion that “renewables” make our electricity prices cheaper.
All Malcolm Turnbull has to do to turn these figures around is to tell the fact [...]
Spot the effect of man-made CO2 in this graph.
Terror, terror I tell you — as the accumulated energy of cyclones in the southern half of the planet reaches a new low, far below anything seen in records that go back to 1971.
From the Daily Caller, and @Ryan Maue
Meteorologist Ryan Maue of Weatherbell Analytics noted tropical cyclone activity in the Southern Hemisphere for the 2016-2017 season is the “quietest on record, by far” based on records going back nearly five decades.
So far, the Southern Hemisphere has seen 13 named storms, including four hurricane-strength storms. Only two of those storms became major hurricanes, Category 3 or higher, according to data compiled by Colorado State University.
I don’t think Al Gore will be mentioning this in his inconvenient advertising.
Check out the book for yourself :- )
The Heartland Institute sent a round of 25,000 books to science teachers across the US. Knowing Heartland, the book Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming is loaded with dangerous material — peer reviewed references, graphs with both axes, stuff like that. Because it will have been checked, cross checked and subjected to twenty years of non-stop criticism it will be packed with facts. And that’s why the Climate Religion is so terribly, awfully scared of it.
The NSTC took the extraordinary step of writing to teachers and naming all the errors they could find, which was none. In lieu of that, they said it was false information anyway because, hey, they could still spell both words.
NSTC warns of an unprecedented attack:
David L. Evans (no relation) sets out his best three reasons:
“First, scientists don’t disagree about climate change or its causes,”
What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists themselves agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty. The “97% consensus” is a marketing ploy some journalists (and science teachers) will fall for.
“Second, labeling propaganda as science does not make it so.
Exactly, just what I [...]
I nearly headlined this: Climate grief group meets at someone’s house, Grist covers it. That’s pretty much all this program is. No one even counts to nine in this story.
Depressed about climate change? There’s a 9-step program for that.
Imagine Alcoholics Anonymous mixed with an environmental humanities course, and you’ll begin to get a sense of the “good grief” group started by Schmidt. Its goal is to help people cope with what’s been called “climate grief” — anxiety, sadness, depression, and other emotions provoked by awareness of the planet’s march toward a hotter,… future…
What she found was that feelings of sadness and anxiety, and even literal nightmares, were common. Last year, with the help of her partner, Aimee Reau, Schmidt developed a nine-step program for building resiliency loosely modeled on AA…
But this is big:
About a dozen people attend each session and 50 subscribe to its mailings.
If I get 12 people to my house, and have 12,000 subscribers, do you think Grist will write it up?
Perhaps they have some good results?
Schmidt, who now works as an outreach coordinator at the environmental group HEAL Utah, hopes to soon [...]
The Arctic is the most sensitive place to man-made emissions on Earth, which is why it has barely warmed since 1944? Well, it makes sense if CO2 is largely irrelevant. Humans have made 90% of all their CO2 in the last 70 years and nothing much happened in the place where it was supposed to hurt the most.
The WMO apparently missed the first 30 years of data. But Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt are here to help them out. : -)
“Heat waves in the Arctic – climate scientists sound the alarm“
Area weighted Arctic (70-90N) monthly surface air temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4) since 1920 in relation to the WMO normal period 1961-1990. Fig. 2: Arctic temperature since 1920. Data: HadCRUT4, Chart: Climate4You.
These heat waves look a lot like the last heat waves.
Read it all thanks to Pierre Gosselins translation:
Learning from the climate’s history: the Arctic heat waves of the 1930s and 40s
Good afternoon Prime Minister and Premier,
Before we move on to your new partnership, let us think about Scott Morrison’s words:
“Governments must do no harm”.
As a political thinker he is “out there”, our Scotty isn’t he Gentlemen?
Perhaps we need him on the home team in the energy market do you think?
National Electricity Market Grid 4th April 2017 (Click to enlarge)
The solid basis on which the Turnbull/Andrews partnership needs to be formed has to originate with the achievements you have both made so far. Let’s list them:
Through your deliberate actions (and failure to act) of shutting Hazelwood, you have reduced mankind’s contribution of CO2 by a factor of 0.0002. That reduction, when compared with the CO2 produced by animals consuming vegetation and microbes consuming vegetation is a ratio of 0.000025. Hmmmm…….. You have just put at least 1,000 people out of work in the Latrobe Valley. You will bankrupt many businesses in the Latrobe Valley and devastate a whole slab of the Nation’s economy. You have placed the viability of every single manufacturing business in Eastern and South Australia under threat – with the certainty of unemployment for hundreds of thousands [...]
Would you like racism with your results?
Therefore Science with Intersectional Feminism is Black Supremacy?
Lets jog down the road to Apartheid science?
What Does “Intersectionality” Mean? (I knew you’d ask)
Originally, intersectionality referred to the discrimination faced by black women that is not only sexism and racism, but an experience that is more than the sum of its parts (now referred to as “misogynoir” in black feminist and womanist circles). Intersectionality has since been expanded to include the analysis of discrimination faced by anyone who identifies with the multiple social, biological, and cultural groups that are not favored in a patriarchal, capitalist, white supremacist society.
i.e. translated: Intersectionality is the study of discrimination which discriminates against older white men.
Science used to be about measurements and observations. Seemed to work.
h/t Scott of the Pacific.
Université de Montréal.
For a long time it was thought the first people arrived in the Americas around 13,000 years ago. Jacques Cinq-Marc found a set of caves in the Yukon called the Bluefish Caves laden with bones marked with cuts from human butchering. They were radiocarbon dated as 24,000 years old. Cinq-Marcs published a series of papers between 1979-2001.
This is a topic that doesn’t have a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry riding on it. No political careers are made or broken if humans arrived in the Americas millenia earlier. Yet still, the smug scoffing of the consensus slowed progress in science for decades.
What Happens When an Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking?
Heather Pringer, Smithsonian.com
Cinq-Mars… work at Bluefish Caves suggested that Asian hunters roamed northern Yukon at least 11,000 years before the arrival of the Clovis people. And other research projects lent some support to the idea. At a small scattering of sites, from Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania to Monte Verde in Chile, archaeologists had unearthed hearths, stone tools and butchered animal remains that pointed to an earlier migration to the Americas. But rather than launching a major new search for more early [...]
Fantastic to finally see real scientists get a voice in a considered, official forum. This should have happened 20 years ago. I expect only climate-tragics will watch a 2 hour dry Congressional testimony, but it is so very rare that both sides of the debate get questioned in the same forum and almost never that skeptical scientists outnumber the unskeptical ones. Michael Mann has little more than namecalling, unscientific social speculation, allusions about “motivations” and political labels. Improbably, Mann the media-climate-celebrity tries to make out he is the victim of bullying and silencing. At 1:10 Mann twists, exaggerates and abuses like a Greenpeace activist and Congressman Lamar Smith pulls him up…
Judith Curry talks about why she changed her mind starting at 20 minutes, and why she resigned.
“… I realized the premature consensus was harming the progress of science”
“Scientists who demonize opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics for enforcing a premature theory for political purpose.”
21 contributors have published
2622 posts that generated