« Yes, There Were FBI Informants, But They Were Paid by the CIA by Larry C Johnson | Main | "Eco-Holocaust Denial" - Crime or Illness? »

29 November 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

turcopolier

Dan

Do you have a particular century that you would like to live in?

turcopolier

jjackson
A lot of the data is phony nonsense interpreted by hysterics.

Degringolade

I guess I am a little on the fence on this. I don't see an apocalypse anytime soon, but I think that there is enough to the concept of "Climate Change" and "Peak Oil" that the long term implications cannot simply be dismissed.

I do see change coming, I just can't for the life of me figure out what will be the actual trigger and what will simply be trotted out as an excuse to make the changes.

For that matter, I can't even say that the data presented by the folks in the white lab coats is valid or invalid. At this point here it is just data and the hypotheses and theories being worked out to explain the data are not really all that satisfying.

Mostly I am in the "denialist" camp by default. I don't think that the apocalypse is coming soon, so that puts me in the opposition camp in the eyes of the true believers.

In the immortal words of Zhou Enlai; "It's too early to say".

Jack

Precisely. Are the temperature data apples-to-apples comparisons? What are the actual environmental changes around these weather gauges over the past century?

As I have noted previously, I have over a century of weather data at our ranch and can’t plot any trend lines. The extremes show a rather random distribution.

Terence Gore

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/new-yorks-unstable-electric-grid/

"One of the bill’s mandates requires utilities to buy 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind-generated electricity by 2035. That would result in 900 10-megawatt turbines to be constructed off the coast of New York City and Long Island. Offshore wind is expensive. Based on current state estimates for similar projects, the capital costs for these wind turbines will total $48 billion, which the ratepayers will have to pay. If this and other targets are not met for new renewables and energy storage capacity, the Public Service Commission (PSC) will demand that the utilities buy renewable energy credits or pay penalties."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

"..Lysenkoism aims at legitimizing pseudoscience at the government level, for political reasons."

https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/

"The impacts of subsidized wind upon electricity markets are highly uncertain, and in many cases demonstrably harmful. Wind serves to raise costs, complicate scheduling, destabilize markets, and adversely impact reliability all in a hopeless effort to receive “free” energy that is actually quite costly.

The potential for wind is limited. Any sub area can have a high penetration of renewables if those resources are diluted into a larger area. Wind can provide adequate performance when correctly integrated with hydro and fossil resources. But the challenges are significant at this time to reach high penetration levels within most standalone resource mixes in most system grids."


Article makes the following points

1) Wind farms are not built where there are not subsidies.
2) They wear out quickly so hidden capital costs are higher
3) They need substantial back up generation for when winds are too low high
4) The larger the wind farm larger back up capacity needed

Jack

Hydrocarbons are what disproved Malthus.

The greenies want to move us to an electric future with the majority being produced by renewables. Utility-scale solar power purchasing agreements are currently being bid in the US at $0.025/kWh. Substantially cheaper than coal. Unfortunately neither wind or solar can provide base load unless there is sufficient storage capacity and Lithium chemistry has it’s downsides. Nuclear which can produce base load and has no carbon emission is shunned by the same greenies.

IMO, the focus should be on pollution. Plastic pollution, chemical pollution in our waterways and ground water, particulates in the air especially in places like Beijing and New Delhi and of course the massive quantities of solid waste that we generate.

Factotum

Apparently it took 35,000 years for human migrations to cross the "climate change" land bridge between Russia and Alaska and populate North America.

We have time. Adapt or die.

Factotum

For what purpose is this climate hysteria ginned up. And why does the Green New Deal demand all jobs become mandatory union jobs? Or else we are all gonna die.

Stephanie

"Science? Hah! For every study you can produce in support of this fantasy I will find you one to rebut it. All you ecofreaks! Don't send me material about this. I will not help you support the hysteric fantasy. Send money to the Democratic Party. They believe this crap. pl."

November 30, 2019

By the way you can't. And you know you can't.

Seamus Padraig

+1000

Fred

Jjackson,

Can I get the raw data and run my own calculations? Can I question the placement of thermometers and adjustments to recorded temperatures from decades ago, or do I only get to see the pretty graph put together by those reviving government money? Do you have co2 data prior to 1958 that is not calculate by proxy?

Seamus Padraig

You don't have to like the hysteria, and exact predictions are impossible because there are 1000 interrelated factors.
And any one of those "1000 interrelated factors" could prove decisive, which is the point: the earth represents far too complex a system to go making any authoritative predictions of such a radical nature. This is not a rifle-bullet-wood problem from you high-school physics class; no sir! This is an immensely complex problem that involves lots of computer simulation, non-discrete math, stochastic analysis, and not a whole lot of certainty. At the very least, the hysteria and Greta-Thunberg theatrics need to go.

Seamus Padraig

And a child shall lead them ...

But seriously, if anyone here's up for a longish read, this is a fabulous and enlightening article:

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

The author, Corey Morningstar, is actually a real environmentalist (not a 'right-winger,' whatever that label means to you) who's been with the movement for many years. She has enough experience to know that Wall Street never subsidizes any movement unless it benefits Wall Street, which is Reason #1 why we should all be skeptical of this latest round of global-warming hysteria.

Enjoy!

scott s.

If the problem is energy availability, a solution is nuclear power but that brings its own hysteria.

Babak Makkinejad

And inside every man is a crppled child.

Babak Makkinejad

Excellente, que todos aceptarlo.

Babak Makkinejad

All:
The rea science:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/8617066199/?coliid=ITOJJQUI6MR2P&colid=2PF8RPB6J6NU&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/3540437797/ref=ox_sc_saved_image_1?smid=A137N5PCRAJMCA&psc=1

Babak Makkinejad

For ice core samples, Dr. Mueller has all thr data as well as Matlab code posted at his web site. Google it.

Fred

Elora,

To quote the great climate expert, Greta, "How dare you!"

Dabbler

My research agrees with E. D. Here is a link to a non-technical article with a useful graph of CO2 and temperature levels over the last 600 million years.

https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-and-temperature-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046

(Sorry, can’t activate the link)

It’s occurred to me that given the last 3 million years have been 80% +/- ice ages with 10,000 to 20,000 year enter glaciation periods, we might be near the end of a normal interglacial period at present. A little warming may not be a bad thing over the next several thousand years. Nevertheless, it would probably be better not to dump large volumes of various gases into the atmosphere and oceans, and it probably would be wise to be prepared to adapt to changes in fisheries, regional climate patterns, etc., without the fear and hysteria. After all, things change.

different clue

If this is true . . . that the climate change we are experiencing is just part of the naturally changing climate's changing changes . . . then we are presented with some major contrarian investing opportunities.

For example, if the current slow-creeping rise in sea level is just a phase in the cycles, and the next phase will be a sea-level freeze-in-place, or even a slow-creeping fall in sea level back to before; then contrarian investors can buy sea-adjacent property from panicked seasiders-in-flight at a very low price. They can then hang onto it, or pass it to heirs, until the next cycle phase makes clear that it is safe to go back to the seaside again. At which point, people who bought property from seasiders-in-flight for a low price will be able to sell it back to seasiders-in-return for a high price. Maybe a very high price.

The same principle would apply to anything which the man-made global warming theory predicts will fail or disappear in due course. Simply invest in that thing at low prices and sell that thing back at high prices to panicked sellers who will have come to terms with their sellers remorse.

I am not advising anyone to do this. I am merely noting that if this view is correct, then this contrarian investing opportunity exists and will persist for some time.

turcopolier

Stephanie

"By the way you can't. And you know you can't." You can't send money to the DNC?

catherine


I am not a hysteric on climate change but do think that human activity can 'add' to the effects of the 'natural cycles' of climate.

So on the question of ignore or take some actions to protect earth I am exactly like the mob boss who when confronted with keeping or getting rid of a member who may or may not squeal on the family said..'why take the chance'.

Boomer

AOC or Pompeo equally dangerous but easily Fixable $$$$. The dollar (money) always makes people suddenly come to their senses

Factotum

Rollo May in 1965 predicted the Age of Aquarius would become the Age of Addiction in his book (a college favorite at the time) "Love and Will". Indeed, this addiction to "climate change" is the fated outcome when feelings took over fact.

Let's say all 100,000 "scientists" lived in the US- that is about 2000 for every state and I think this number includes dentists. These "scientists" can be easily out-voted. 2000 voices of "science" can get drowned out within California's population of 40 million.

Hard to believe the mantra from the 1960's's was "Question Authority". What happened? What brought about the total opposite mantra - question authority and you go to jail. What was the progression from one spectrum to the other?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad