I can’t believe I’m still writing about climate change. I’d have stopped long ago were it not for persistent calls to blow up the U.S. economy in order to save the planet.
The cult-like demand for action permeates every part of public life, government, media, academia, even K-12. Rep. Among the draconian policy solutions, Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would have an enormous negative impact on our economy.
For the record, climate does vary — think ice ages. And a combination of natural climate variability and measurement problems make the likelihood of singling out a human fingerprint very low. I look here at how climate alarmism is being sold in a distinctly unscientific manner.
The term ‘science’ properly refers to the scientific method, which is a system of inference designed to weed out incorrect ideas in favor of those supported by experiment and observation.
The crux of the scientific method is the rejection of theory rather than proof of it. From Bacon to Hopper and Feinman, it has been well understood that scientific theory must be “falsifiable,” that is, subject to test and rejection.
Falsifiability depends on narrow and specific conditions imposed by theory. If the conditions fail, the theory is wrong.
On the other hand, we hear a lot these days about consensus, skepticism, and denial. Warmists often cite the “97-percent consensus” that man-made climate change is true and “settled.”
This claim stems from a single study of article abstracts dealing with climate. The study suffers from a number of serious method flaws and has been roundly debunked.
A more reasonable conclusion from the study is that 3% of the abstracts support man-made warming, not 97%. In reality, science is not at all settled.
What else is wrong with climate change alarm?
First, how did global warming get to be climate change? At least with warming, there is a scientific theory: increase CO2 levels and get two or three degrees of direct and indirect warming.
Why the switch to talking about too cold/too hot and other severe weather? Perhaps it’s because satellite and weather balloon data have failed to bear out GW theory for almost 20 years.
Well, says NASA, surface weather station data do show warming as expected. But this picture emerges only as a result of serial and unexplained fudging of the data.
Plus, NASA is from the government and has made such a mess of land and sea surface temperature data, making it useless as evidence for anything but data manipulation.
Second, there’s an awful lot of argument from authority going on in the alarmist camp. The researchers there call themselves climate scientists and make the ostentatious claim that only they can understand the atmosphere.
Did you get what I said about the scientific method? What in that description suggests that only experts can be critics? Not to mention, the most powerful cohort in the warmist universe is the computer modelers.
These guys design code that reflects theory, what they think is going on in the air. CO2 is in; solar is out. Then they run the models to get a whole bunch of curves and say, well then, that proves it. The models did just what we told them to do. Anything funny about this logic?
SEE ALSO: Climate Models Of Incompetence
The climate wonks have a receptive audience. A couple of generations of smart people who learned about science stuff in school say: if scientists say it’s going to be bad then by golly it will be bad.
One of these smart people, presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, declares climate change to be existential and demanding of action, no matter the cost.
Existential? A couple of hypothetical degrees Celsius is existential? How do you think your petition to lighten up would fare in her office?
How about Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse calling for RICO prosecution of deniers. Or former President Obama implying that climate change deniers don’t believe in the moon or think it is made of green cheese. I’m pretty sure we did away with the green cheese theory a long time ago.
It kind of sorts out into curious folks who aren’t much impressed with the historical record of Malthusian doom-casting and smart people who just know that our evil species is bad for the planet.
The curious folks think about the evidence and the smart people just don’t understand why curious folks don’t like science. What? If I don’t believe in string theory I don’t like science?
But what if it isn’t about science in the first place?
The question of greenhouse gas warming has been around a bit more than 100 years, working its way through Fourier, Arrhenius, Callender, and Revelle.
But the political interest in CO2 is relatively recent. The global warming juggernaut began in the mid-70s as a crisis epiphany under the leadership of the late UN diplomat Maurice Strong.
Mr. Strong served as the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Program and recognized the potential value of CO2-induced warming theory as a tool to proselytize for globalization.
Strong was the driving force behind Agenda 21, a program to enforce sustainable energy development through public education and training.
The scientific arm of Agenda 21 is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which name telegraphs its staff of bureaucrats. IPCC has published Summaries for Policy Makers (SPM) based on existing refereed science papers.
One of IPCC’s noteworthy accomplishments has been to assure that its SPMs are unencumbered by underlying technical detail. Translation: the SPMs say whatever the bureaucrats want them to.
Mr. Strong believed that pending environmental disaster required a globalist solution. His thinking was bold and not necessarily restricted to scientific inference:
“… in order to save the planet, [a group of world leaders] decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Later on, German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III Mitigation of Climate Change, opined:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy, … We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” (Philosophy and position on climate change)
And more recently, Christiana Figueres, a former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and a leader of the 2015 Paris Accords said in an official UN press release:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Wait a minute! You mean to tell us we’ve been pouring tens of billions down a climate-change rat hole for a couple of decades and what you really want to do is screw up the economy? We’ve been robbed!
Read more at American Thinker
There have been thousands of scientific papers written by researchers that prove global warming.
According to the GND… We have the technology to transition to 100% clean energy, and the science shows us that we must” (The “science shows us that we must” claim is all politics. No scientific proof to support this claim has yet been presented.)
But what about the technology claim??? What “nuggets” are lurking out there?
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-renewable-energy-battery-storage-need-worst-case-polar-vortex-wind-solar
“In the depths of the deep freeze late last month, nearly every power plant in the Eastern and Central U.S. that could run was running.”
“Energy analysts saw a useful experiment in that week of extreme cold:” (not a real experiment but an “I think” kind of “what if” we did this ??? based on data from just THIS ONE POLAR VORTEX “weather” event)
“Using energy production and power demand data, they showed how a 100 percent renewable energy grid, powered half by wind and half by solar, would have had significant stretches without enough wind or sun to fully power the system, meaning a large volume of energy storage would have been necessary to meet the high demand.”
“the analysts test case of 50 percent wind, 50 percent solar would have had gaps of up to 18 hours in which renewable sources were not producing enough electricity to meet the high demand, so storage systems would need to fill in.”
“YOU WOULD NEED A LOT MORE BATTERIES IN A LOT MORE PLACES.,” (we have no battery “storage” except for maintenance and start-up functions purposes at “renewable” sites) said Wade Schauer, a research director for Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, who co-wrote the report.”**
Golly gee… how much is “a lot”?
“Schauer’s analysis shows storage would need to go from about 11 gigawatts (no idea where this 11GW storage site is) today to 277.9 gigawatts in the grid regions that include New England, New York, the Mid-Atlantic, the Midwest and parts of the South. That’s roughly double Wood Mackenzie’s current forecast for energy storage nationwide in 2040.” (double what was originally forecast 20 years out!!)
And……….. We’ll Need More Than Just Today’s Batteries (Uh-oh!)
“A grid that relies entirely on wind and solar needs to be ready for times when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.” “The country would need to (radically) transform its grid in a way that could meet demand on the hottest and coldest days, a task that would involve a HUGE BUILD-OUT of wind, solar and energy storage, PLUS interstate power lines.”
While fossil fuel power plants can be ramped up or down as needed, (that’s convenient!) solar and wind are LESS CONTROLLABLE (So it would be much less “less controllable” if we reduce CO2???) which is why energy storage is an essential part of planning for a grid that relies on solar and wind.
The grid would have to be designed (grossly over engineered) to best use wind and solar when they’re available, and to store the excess when (if) those resources are providing more electricity than needed, a fundamental (and illogical) shift from the way most of the system is managed today.
“In a (new world order) modern power grid, all these advanced technologies are driving (up costs and reducing reliability because) the need for more flexibility (requires complex management and lots of additional hardware) at all levels,”
To handle a big increase in wind, solar and storage, communities would need to be willing (to give up valuable land assets and significant loss in tax revenue) to host those projects along with the transmission lines that would move the electricity.
Interstate power lines are essential for moving electricity from places with the best solar and wind resources to the population centers. As more solar and wind farms are built, more lines will be needed. Schauer’s analysis ASSUMES that (magically) there would be enough transmission capacity.
“I’m not here to say any of this is impossible, (aside from not having the technology, systems or hardware designs available) but there are some basic challenges to pull this off in a short period of time, mainly NIMBYism,” he said, referring to the not-in-by-backyard sentiment that fuels opposition to transmission lines.”…….. ??What about other things that “fuel opposition” like A LOT MORE solar panel farms, turbines, battery farms, grid control facilities, lack of reliability and the F,.<ing COST!?
Schauer points out that advances in energy storage will need to be more than just batteries to meet demand and likely will include technologies that have not yet been developed.
The scenario’s 50-50 renewable energy grid for the region includes 575 gigawatts of utility-scale solar capacity (compared to 3.4 gigawatts today, according to Wood Mackenzie’s analysis) and 194 gigawatts of wind capacity (compared to 47.8 gigawatts today).
While the report focuses on a few cold days this year, Schauer has also done this type of analysis based on data for all of 2018, including summer heat waves.
“It gets even more challenging when you extrapolate to the entire year,” he said.(more nuggets I bet!)
“The Wood Mackenzie analysis shows that continuing to use nuclear power plants would dramatically decrease the amount of wind, solar and storage needed to get to a grid that no longer burns fossil fuels” EXCEPT this whole cocked GND renewables mess is based in BS. A total LIE!
**The “Report is available here : https://www.woodmac.com/reports/power-markets-performance-review-nuclear-fossil-fuels-and-renewables-during-the-2019-polar-vortex-99948
I settled for the summary but you can pony up the $1,050 for the report. But you will have to print it out to get any real use out of it………… Parakeets cage or litter box liner.
Report summary
The extreme cold (Polar Vortex) event that hit the US during the last week of January 2019 was a good test of Midwest/Northeast power grid resiliency. It appears the power grid survived the event without major customer disruptions or extreme pricing, outside of some isolated real-time action, compared to past Polar Vortex events.
“Turbine shutdowns in polar vortex stoke Midwest debate” UH OH!
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2019/03/04/turbine-shutdowns-in-polar-vortex-stoke-midwest-debate/
“Within days of the polar vortex, a lobbyist for Dairyland Power Cooperative, a generation and transmission cooperative, told a Minnesota legislative committee hearing on the bill that wind energy didn’t show up when it was needed.”
“The lights stayed on “only because of fossil fuel power plants that (were not decommissioned but already shut down) could be called upon and dispatched,” he said.”
Wood Mackenzie poured through mountains of hourly data to assess the performance of different generating technologies. For the most part, they all performed “as expected”, but we discovered many interesting nuggets of information buried deep in the data mountain.
Those nuggets of information buried deep in the data mountain??? We’ll Need More Than Just Today’s Batteries.
So they are lying about the technology too. Surprised?
Why keep regurgiating all the above stuff we just encourage the nutters to get even nuttier, their brain power is insufficient to understand real scientific reasoning or even read a history book so don’t waste our time…what we should be discussing is how to mitigate the next little/large iceage and survive. sadly we would have to take the nutters with us…selective survival would not be PC!
I think you meant FEYNMAN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
This 97% of the scientists beleive in Man Made Global Warming/Climate Change(Manbearpig)is a total lie being fed to us by the Eco-Freaks and the Globalists its all about controling our lives from cradle to grave and when you pass on they throw your body into a massive incinterator do provide power so some persons can watch their mindless Earth Day Special