article by NASA astronaut sums up the problems
- The biggest problems I see with the sorry state of “climate science,” as the public comes to know it through the media, are the alarmist claims, unsupported by data and history, being presented as facts. When these claims cannot be validated by empirical data, they attempt to justify them by equally dishonest claims of proof by “consensus”. These alarmist claims create unwarranted fear in order to promote their political and profiteering agendas, while establishing regulatory policies that kill business and grow government – all at a terrific cost to taxpayers and energy consumers. - See more
NASA MISTAKES was allowing its science to be politicized
- including unproven claims in public releases and on websites.
(Stew : isn't skepticsm
being precautionary about the precautionary principle)
"The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.
Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.
Shouldn’t we be emphasizing that models are not data, and that climate models have never successfully predicted anything?
they should be honest about what they actually do and don’t know.
Most of those who study climate are specialists in one special discipline or another. They are not “big picture” people who see and connect all of the dots.
- compliant fright factories like NASA’s GISS where Gavin Schmidt works
What's the state of Climate ?
Qn are we on the path to a runaway changes in climate?
Ans .. Global temperatures have remained about same levels for 15 years ..and all other factors are within the range of recent natural variability with the exception of measured atmospheric CO2
My testable model : I predict that for the next 3,5 & 10 years temperatures and sea levels will not rise at any alarming level & other factors will stay within the range of recent natural variability ..with the exception of measured atmospheric CO2
What do I say to the "scientists say" headline ? - "scientists say" is just opinion.. and peer review is just scientists mates checking each other : VALIDATED science is the gold standard, nothing else really counts
- just peer reviewed science is NOT TRUSTWORTHY Ionnaninis proved that more than 50% of published science does not stand trhe test of time
PEER reviewed science is just NOT good enough, 50%+ proved wrong by time IONNASIS , VALIDATED SCIENCE comes from multiple indep replication ,
- That is How science works
The Ten Tests to Determine Whether You Should Be Concerned about Climate Change
- See 40th minute for 10 point rundown
- Main one is UHI
- and adjustments ..which always push the readings upwards ..he believes 50% of reported Global waming is due to those
spot the error in this phrase :
...."In the UK wind and solar PV are Alternative Energy"
... "In the UK wind and solar PV are Alternatives to Energy"
Whats's strange about "zero carbon"
..well except ...they certainly don't mean "zero"
..... and they certainly aren't talking about "carbon" (they mean CO2)
sounds like we need a new page Archive of Green Groups wasting Taxpayers Money - be good on the taxpayers alliance website . They already have a page showing how the Taxpayer funds green groups
- "What happened to the Co-op ?" I told you 10 pages back , it's a standard activist trick ..start a charity and raise money, no it's much easier to infiltrate a big charity with 1000s of exisiting members and hijack it from the inside. (e.g. RSPCA)
- Co-op bank is the UK's biggest lender to windfarm projects ... I'm sure they haven't wasted any money and got themselves in the cr&p ..have they ?
|Does wind save CO2 ? - just brainstorming
Guys fault my logic here I was just looking at Tory Advaarks's cartoon Renewables Give with one hand and Take with the other and it inspired this thinking
- 2010 Your electricity bill is £1000
I Lord Wind go to gov with my new windfarm proposal and say I can drop your CO2 by 10% *
- 2013 Your bill is £1200 cos of my £200 subsidy
... but what happens to that £200 ? It works the same way as fake efficiciency savings it actually gets spent
..So I will buy my new Ferrari, which cost a lot of CO2 to make.
....So what happens is that CO2 "savings" to the customer can often be changed into CO2 spending by the subsidy profiteers.
- So maybe we'll have a new law that Renew-unables profiteers cannot spend their profits.
* It's only a pretend saving cos actually the construction of the windfarm concrete etc. uses magnitudes more CO2 than any genuine saving.
- oh I got it that £200 in Lord Wind's pocket came from your pocket
so you have less to spend on CO2 producing stuff and he has more.
- Now since you are poor and spend most of your income, and he is so rich that he spends a much smaller percentage ..then there can be a net saving in CO2
- but why bother with the wind farm we could just take 50% of the poor's income and give in to the rich, and thus we'd save a lot of CO2.
- Some-one tried to hype this ..oh wind turbine fell on school. Yes but it was a hurricane the whole town got detroyed, so it's not particularly a windpower issue ..if there was a chimney next to the school it would have fallen also.
|renewables not making progress
| Our drive for renewables isan't making a difference to the global.
This graph show that percentage of energy which comes from renewables is not increasing