Re: Anti Warming News
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:10 pm
They will engineer the climate to change, you will have to believe and be assimilated into the borg. Or is it Gorb?
Home of Racing's Best and Brightest
A new incendiary blog by Dr. Duane Thresher and Dr. Claudia Kubatzki unleashes on NASA Goddard Institute (one of the two main motherlodes of climate activism), calling for them to be defunded because they are “ignoble”, with “herds of do-gooders”, and “NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket.”
They are a husband and wife team, both producing peer-reviewed climate papers. He worked at NASA GISS for seven years. Since they came out as skeptics in California, they’ve had to move house. Thanks to Marc Morano for the tip.
His latest post calls on the new NASA head, appointed by Trump, to just turn off the tap, cut the cash:
Bridenstine, Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them
Everyone assumes climate scientists are noble. Fighting to save the planet. What nonsense. Not even close.
They write about a wave of new money into climate science and the decay of the field:
Enter opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble.
What to do? Stop paying climate scientists. The good ones are so into their science they will work for food, maybe less, maybe even pay to do it. French President Macron has invited the rest to move to France so they will be fine.
Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson.
Thresher is an MIT graduate in electrical engineering, and went on to study Atmospheric Science (climate modeling), has done Antarctic research, got a PhD from Columbia and worked for James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt at NASA GISS. His wife Kubatzki, is a meteorologist, climate modeler, pollen proxy analyst and a a native German. She’s worked at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany.
Being a whistleblower is always risky:
Gavin Schmidt “couldn’t make it” in maths so he became a climate scientistIf you think neo-Nazis are bad, try being a global warming skeptic in the Bay Area of California, where we had to move from for our own safety.
Read the rest of this article HERE!
The List Rev AWeather.com published an article noting that the two Cat 4 hurricane strikes this year (Harvey and Irma) is a new record. Here’s a nice graphic they used showing both storms at landfall.
But the statistics of rare events (like hurricanes) are not very well behaved. Let’s look at this new record, and compared it to the 11+year period of no major hurricane strikes that ended when Harvey struck Texas.
The Probability of Two Cat 4 Strikes in One Year
By my count, we have had 24 Cat 4 or Cat 5 landfalls in the U.S. between 1851 and 2016. This gives a probability (prior to Harvey and Irma) of one Cat4+ strike every 7 years. It also leads to an average return period of two Cat4+ strikes of about 50 years (maybe one of you statiticians out there can correct me if I’m wrong).
So, since the average return period is once every 50 years, we were overdue for two Cat4+ strikes in the same year over the entire 166 period of record. (Again, for rare events, the statistics aren’t very well behaved.)
The Probability of the 11-Year “Drought” in Major Landfalling Hurricane
In 2015, a NASA study was published which calculated how unlikely the (then) 9-year stretch with no major hurricane landfalls was. They came up with a 177 year return period for such an event.
I used that statistic to estimate what eventually happened, which was 11 years with no major hurricane strikes.
I get a return period of 560 years!
Now, which seems more unusual and potentially due to climate change: something that should happen only once every 50 years, or every 560 years?
Maybe global warming causes fewer landfalling major hurricanes.
Read the rest of this article HERE.Overview
Earlier this year, there were signs that a weak El Nino in the tropical Pacific Ocean could continue through the fall and even into the upcoming winter season, but there is now substantial agreement amongst numerous computer forecast models that La Nina conditions are likely to become established over the next couple of months and current observations back this notion. La Nina is a naturally occurring oceanic cycle that produces colder-than-normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean whereas El Nino is associated with warmer-than-normal SSTs. The formation of La Nina in the tropical Pacific Ocean will likely have important ramifications around the world including significant impacts on the upcoming winter season, next summer’s tropical season, and global temperatures.
The List Rev AThe Environmental Protection Agency, under President Obama, acted well beyond its authority when it implemented the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration suggests in a new proposal. The document is expected to be revealed in its entirety by next week.
The Clean Power Plan was introduced in 2015 to minimize power plants' carbon dioxide emissions. It came with a list of regulations intended to steer states away from coal and toward natural gas. It is, Politico notes, President Obama's "most important climate regulation." But, the Trump White House argues it comes with too high a price.
The Trump administration is set to rescind former President Barack Obama’s most important climate regulation, arguing that the greenhouse gas standards for power plants violated federal law and could cost consumers as much as $33 billion, according to a draft proposal obtained by POLITICO.
Think the Trump administration were the only ones to disapprove of the plan? Think again. More than half the country sued the Obama administration over the rule. In April, the Supreme Court suspended the lawsuits, suggesting the plan was nearing its end.
In its draft proposal, the EPA explains that the agency's mission is still to “protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources,” but they must act within the bounds of Congress. The Clean Power Plan does not fit the bill.
“The EPA is proposing to repeal the CPP in its entirety. The EPA proposes to take this action because it proposes to determine that the rule exceeds its authority under the statute, that those portions of the rule which arguably do not exceed its authority are not severable and separately implementable, and that it is not appropriate for a rule that exceeds statutory authority — especially a rule of this magnitude and with this level of impact on areas of traditional state regulatory authority — to remain in existence pending a potential, successive rulemaking process.”
From THIS article.
The List Rev AFinally the green madness that’s threatening our ability to turn on the lights and airconditioners is being exposed as a con.
Global temperatures have risen nowhere near the rate at which even the most conservative models predicted, and finally a group of warmist scientists have admitted same in the Nature Geoscience journal last month.
Bear in mind the current mess Australia finds itself in with regards to power generation and business-killing high prices is a result of blindly following these flawed models.
What’s worse is that sceptics have been saying for years the models were wrong, and these people were not only ignored but savaged by warmists, Labor, The Greens and the media.
Don’t hold your breath for an apology from these attack dogs though, that’s never been their style.
Even in Queensland, the story broke this week about the Labor government: “Households and businesses face being told to set their airconditioners to 26C and having power to some hot water systems and pool pumps switched off to save the state from blackouts this summer.”
All because green groups have bluffed politicians into throwing the rest of the population under the bus in a misguided belief we can reverse the world’s temperatures.
The folly of this madness was exposed by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a speech this week to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
He said: “Even if reducing emissions is necessary to save the planet, our effort… is barely-better-than-futile because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.”
So due to global warming alarmism, Australia has sacrificed a huge competitive edge of some of the lowest power prices in the world, to now having among the highest.
And yet all this pain and billions of dollars to cut emissions will have absolutely no effect on global climate.
The List Rev AA green energy company heavily incentivized by Mississippi is shutting down, raising questions about whether the state will get repaid. It’s the fourth green subsidy company to go bust recently.
Solar panel maker Stion notified the state Tuesday that it would close its Hattiesburg plant Dec. 13, laying off 137 employees.
“Intense, non-market competition from foreign solar panel manufacturers, especially those based in China and proxy countries, has severely impacted the viability of our business,” the San Jose, California, company said in a statement released by spokesman Frank Yang.
Stion is the fourth green energy deal made by former Gov. Haley Barbour to flop. Earlier, solar equipment maker Twin Creeks and biofuel maker KiOR went out of business. Electric car maker GreenTech Automotive has ceased production. Mississippi’s state government is owed at least $92 million by those companies.
Mississippi initially loaned Stion $74.8 million, and state and local governments have given millions more in other tax breaks and subsidies. The company, for example, owes more than $2.1 million in property tax payments, even though tax rates on the plant are two-thirds lower than normal. Stion agreed to start paying down those bills in May, but Forrest County Attorney David Miller said Stion only made three $75,000-a-month payments. […]
Stion raised more than $200 million from private investors, in addition to Mississippi’s loan. It promised 1,000 jobs in Hattiesburg when it announced its plans in 2011. But the company was already struggling in 2013 when venture capital firm Khosla Ventures took a controlling interest. That’s the same company that was the lead investor in KiOR, whose biofuel failure sparked an ongoing lawsuit by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood in state court. read more here
Yes, the only solar/wind that will survive are those owned by the big oil companies. This in another one of those where the people are pitted against each other and the solar/wind lovers think they are defeating the big oil companies without realizing that they are actually donating and protesting for the company's that they actually hate.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste...but very useful to manipulate and control.Name the biggest oil company in the world. ExxonMobil? British Petroleum? Royal Dutch Shell? In fact, the 13 largest energy companies on Earth, measured by the reserves they control, are now owned and operated by governments. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), China National Petroleum Corp., National Iranian Oil Co., Petróleos de Venezuela, Petrobras (Brazil) and Petronas (Malaysia) are all larger than ExxonMobil, the largest of the multinationals. Collectively, multinational oil companies produce just 10% of the world's oil and gas reserves. State-owned companies now control more than 75% of all crude oil production....
I think assuming that anybody who likes solar or wind is an oil hater is very misguided.GARY C wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:39 pmYes, the only solar/wind that will survive are those owned by the big oil companies. This in another one of those where the people are pitted against each other and the solar/wind lovers think they are defeating the big oil companies without realizing that they are actually donating and protesting for the company's that they actually hate.
Here is one example. https://us.sunpower.com/
Note who the parent co is with 66% holdings
Solar and wind energy are designed to save us money no matter how much it costs.I think assuming that anybody who likes solar or wind is an oil hater is very misguided.
Thats not my point.sanfordandson wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:39 pmI think assuming that anybody who likes solar or wind is an oil hater is very misguided.GARY C wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:39 pmYes, the only solar/wind that will survive are those owned by the big oil companies. This in another one of those where the people are pitted against each other and the solar/wind lovers think they are defeating the big oil companies without realizing that they are actually donating and protesting for the company's that they actually hate.
Here is one example. https://us.sunpower.com/
Note who the parent co is with 66% holdings