Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Two weeks ago, Flagstaff, Arizona joined the fight against global warming. They were immediately rewarded with the largest one day snowfall on record, and rescued Minneapolis from global warming at the same time.
Someone left this comment on the blog earlier today :
The author states but doesn’t prove that “The reality is that there is no legitimate evidence extreme weather is increasing or sea level rise is accelerating.” His graph (% day above 90F) doesn’t show the data for % day above 95F or 105F, or something else. What if the % of day above 95F would show an upward trend? His example is not enough to convince me that he hasn’t engaged in cherry picking.
While possible mathematically, it is difficult to imagine how (in the real world) you could have fewer 90 degree days, and more 95 degree days. In fact, the same downwards trend is seen for 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 and 105 degree days.
The US used to be much hotter and drier, which was why millions of people fled the Great Plains and moved to California during the 1930s. At one time, California was a great place to live.
Toto went hiking in Prescott, Arizona with an old friend last November.
This is what her place looked like yesterday, after 28 inches of snow.
That was nowhere near the record of 60 inches set in 1967.
Toto’s friend tells me that her next door neighbor was there for the 1967 storm, and that it was a man-made disaster. The city had sold their snow plows earlier in the year, because they never used them. Apparently, lack of snow is a thing of the past in Arizona.
I was a studying computer science at Northern Arizona University thirty years ago, when CO2 just passed 350 PPM. It snowed a lot then, and it snows a lot now. Nothing has changed.
Eight weeks ago, the Arizona
Republic Repulsive announced the end of snow in Flagstaff, due to global warming.
These pictures were taken near Phoenix this morning.
I’ve been warning climate alarmists about this for a year. Their Arctic sea ice melting scam is dead.
Scott Adams asked me to put together the five best arguments against climate alarmism. This involves a huge amount of information, and fortunately Scott gave me more than six minutes to do it.
I have been summarizing the arguments in a series of blog posts over the past couple of weeks. The details are primarily in the links provided below.
1. Climate alarmism is based mainly around fear of extreme weather. This concept is deeply rooted in human nature, and has its roots in ancient stories of giant floods, famines and plagues – caused (of course) by man’s sins. Climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, and pushing the same idea of extreme weather and floods caused by mankind’s carbon sins.
The reality is that there is no legitimate evidence extreme weather is increasing or sea level rise is accelerating. The fears are baseless.
Details in the link below :
2. Climate alarmism is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. People may not see any evidence of catastrophic climate change or sea level rise, but their opinion is irrelevant because 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global warming. Only a small handful of people whom the press and politicians quote over and over again are allowed to state an opinion, and they are claimed to represent 97% of the world’s millions of scientists.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
– Michael Crichton
Obama’s claims are baseless, yet politicians want to prosecute climate heretics.
There has never been any survey done of actual scientists which showed anything remotely like Obama’s claims. Obama made his claim in 2013, but a survey of professional members of the American Meteorological Society made that year, showed that only 52% of their members believed global warming is primarily man-made – much less dangerous. (I am not aware of any broad survey of scientists where they were even asked if the one part per ten thousand increase in CO2 over the past century is dangerous.) No group in the AMS survey came close to 97%, and among professional forecasters – less than half believed global warming is primarily man-made.
What little consensus there is, is based around intimidation of academics and censorship, as I detail in this video.
3. Academics have been making apocalyptic predictions for decades. All have failed miserably, yet they keep repeating the same misinformation over and over again. Had their forecasts been correct, we wouldn’t be here now to have this discussion.
4. Climate alarmism is completely dependent on graphs and useless climate models generated by a small handful of people. The graphs are generated through scientifically corrupt processes of data tampering and hiding data.
A large amount of detail is provided in the blog posts below.
61% Fake Data
Overwhelming Evidence Of Collusion
Extreme Fraud In The National Climate Assessment
Extreme Wildfire Fraud In The National Climate Assessment
Doubling The Hockey Stick Fraud
Fraud In The National Climate Assessment (Part 1)
Fraud In The National Climate Assessment (Part 2)
And climate models have shown zero skill, when compared against reliable tropospheric temperatures.
5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable, dangerous and useless. They were made without consulting engineers, and have zero chance of success. A robust discussion about our energy future is needed, but that discussion is censored in favor of propaganda.
We need to have a serious discussion about our energy future, but news agencies like the New York Times and the LA Times have an openly stated policy of censoring anyone with a dissenting opinion. This is dangerous, un-American and threatens our survival. Climate change is not an imminent threat, but the proposed solutions are.
If there was an actual climate crisis, it would be obvious. Alarmists wouldn’t have to hide and tamper with data.
The most important argument against climate alarmism centers around the proposed solutions.
“Solar is only during the day, solar only works best in places where it’s warm.
There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables and be able to use battery storage in order to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind
Power is about reliability. We need to get something that works reliably.”
– Bill Gates
We live in a society which is completely dependent on fossil fuels and/or nuclear energy. Our heat, water, power, transportation, manufacturing, food production and distribution systems; communication, medical, financial and every other critical system depend on an “always on” supply of energy.
As an example, at the turn of the last century, there was tremendous fear that the Y2K bug would make computers non-functional and collapse society. An intermittent computer network due to a lack of reliable energy would have the same effect. Medical and financial services would be non-functional.
Most Americans have never gone without essential commodities, and take them for granted. And many, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seem to have no understanding of the catastrophic consequences of running short of energy. People of her generation have never had to do without food, warmth, light or communications. They can’t function if they don’t have a strong phone signal, and have no concept of what a shortage of food, transportation or energy would be like.
The US has been experiencing record cold this winter. What would the people of Illinois have done without continuously available heat, light and communications during the record cold snap of -38 degrees two weeks ago? I flew over the Midwest on January 6, 2018 during a similar cold snap. The air was dead calm and wind turbines were useless. People were completely dependent on fossil fuels and nuclear energy for their survival.
The reason winter is cold, is because of a lack of solar energy. The sun is low in the sky, days are short, and it is cloudy much of the time. Yet climate alarmists want people to be dependent on solar energy for their survival. They imagine that there is some storage technology which can store huge amounts of energy for long periods of time when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But as Bill Gates pointed out, that technology doesn’t exist.
I have degrees in science and engineering, and have worked for most of the last 45 years as both. The job of scientists is to come up with ideas. By contrast, the primary job of engineers is to make things that work. If a bridge or a microprocessor, doesn’t work – very bad things will happen. Bad engineering is fatal to humans, companies and civilizations.
We need to have engineers making the technology decisions, not academic scientists and politicians – who have never had to deliver anything which works, and don’t have any understanding or experience with the processes required to make things work. Most academics and politicians have no clue what is going on behind the scenes of a technologically functional society.
An analogy would be climate forecasters vs weather forecasters. If a climate forecaster is wrong, few people remember or care in 30 years. But if a weather forecaster is wrong, everyone knows and there are immediate consequences.
If the people of New York City (who elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) believe that we don’t need fossil fuels, why don’t they prove it to the world by eliminating fossil fuels usage in their own city? They can end skepticism of their plan by eliminating gasoline, jet fuel and natural gas sales in their city. They should ban all electricity usage from sources other than solar, wind and nuclear. They should ban sale of all products manufactured or transported using fossil fuels.
Why didn’t Michael Bloomberg do this while he was mayor? The reason is simple – it is impossible. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal is impossible, and people in countries like China and India understand that. That is why they are building more than 1,000 new coal fired power plants.
The US could disappear off the face of the Earth, and it would have minimal impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. China produces more than twice as much CO2 as the US, and under the deal they made with President Obama, they will continue to increase their CO2 emissions until the year 2030.
US emissions have been declining for a decade due to fracking, while Chinese emissions increased rapidly.
The UN has been making the same claim that we only have twelve years to save the planet from global warming, for the past 30 years.
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
The claim is nonsense, the proposed solutions are unworkable, the US has minimal control over the level of atmospheric CO2, and the only viable conclusion is that the powerful people behind the scenes of the New Green Deal have extremely malicious intent. They refuse to allow any debate, censor all skepticism, and run academics out who resist climate alarmism.
We need to have a robust discussion about our energy future centered around engineers – not decisions based on hysteria by politicians and academics who don’t know the first thing about climate or energy. The American people need to be educated, not fed propaganda and have their information sources censored. Our survival depends on an adequate supply of energy, not mindless hysteria and fear over an essential trace gas. Without carbon dioxide, life itself can not exist.
Without a reliable supply of energy, modern civilization can’t exist.
Thirty years ago, the UN said we only had until the year 2000 to save ourselves from global warming.
But after decades of fear mongering about global warming, five years ago the global warming pause forced climate alarmists in a new direction.
Alarmists quit talking about warming, and started talking about “climate change” “climate disruption” and “extreme weather.” Now every weather disaster is shown over and over again on television, and emotionally linked to rising greenhouse gas concentrations – just as Pavlov conditioned dogs to drool when they heard a bell ring.
The brainwashing has been very successful. The Washington Post says the world will end in the year 2o31, unless we give up our cars, fuel supply, freedom, money, democracy and meat. Note that this is a 31 year reprieve from the UN’s 1989 forecast.
And the New York Times says it is time to panic.
This sort of insanity used to be the banter of isolated cults, but has gone fully mainstream among progressive circles.
Without any perspective of history, many young people have no way to filter climate propaganda. How would Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know any better? She is a child who has heard nothing but propaganda for her entire short life.
The only way to know if climate is getting more extreme is to compare current weather with past weather. Claims are being made that heatwaves are increasing, along with fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, sea level rise, earthquakes and just about every other imaginable complaint of the human condition.
This is nothing new – every generation imagines they live in the most extreme climate ever, and have experts and statistics to prove it.
IMAGINARY CHANGES OF CLIMATE.
(Pall Mall Gazette.)
a plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities.
every season is sure to be “extraordinary,” almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it.
– Brisbane Courier, January 10 1871
So are hurricanes actually becoming worse? Of the ten deadliest Pacific cyclones, nine occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM. Two of the ten deadliest occurred in 1881. The third deadliest occurred in 1780, and killed 100,000 people.
The deadliest Atlantic hurricane also occurred in 1780. Of the ten deadliest Atlantic hurricanes, nine occurred with CO2 below 350 PPM, and three occurred during the Revolutionary War.
The deadliest cyclone of all occurred in 1970, and killed half a million people.
Imagery like this from Florida is shown over and over again on television, and linked to rising carbon dioxide concentrations.
But how many young people know about the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which killed 10,000 people and destroyed the city?
Or the 1926 hurricane, which destroyed Miami?
Or the 1815 New England Hurricane?
It is safe bet that school children aren’t being taught about this, but are instead being exposed to Nobel laureate Al Gore’s sci-fi flick. Ten years ago, Gore released a book with the satellite imagery below, showing lots of hurricanes including one off the east coast of the United States which was circulating the wrong direction (clockwise) for the Northern Hemisphere. This sort of junk science and fakery is what school children have been taught as science.
The United States has the best long term hurricane records of any place on Earth, and shows a long term decline in hurricane strikes – down 25% since the 19th century. The peak year was 1886, when the US was hit by seven hurricanes. Four of them hit Texas, and three hit Florida that year.
It is snowing in Malibu, Las Vegas and just outside Phoenix – and climate alarmists are predictably blaming the cold on global warming. That implies global cooling would be characterized by heat.
Arizona is having an epic snowstorm today which is breaking one day snowfall records, but the December 1967 storm lasted for seven days and brought 83 inches of snow to Flagstaff.