Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Follow the money?
The hoax that costs $4bn per day
"The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion"
"The equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, wind turbines."
"Jo Nova notes it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping."
Boooker vs Delingpole fighting for the top spot? I mean, common it's all about the "pop feast" IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY IT's ABOUT THE PRICE TAGThe hoax that costs $4bn per day
"The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion"
"The equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, wind turbines."
"Jo Nova notes it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping."
Great when you are creaming it in not paying the creamers.
Unlike the 'When will the Euro die thread, I'be got a feeling that a "When will the lights go out out" thread might be more relevant.
I reckon once the song writers actually have a bit of a clue and educate the 'kids' then it might be OK.
Any way it's not about the money - juat make the world dance.
More brilliance from politicos, this time over the pond.
http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.icecap.us/
Paul Driessen said:
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency just issued its deceptively named “Clean Power Plan.” Mangling and twisting 280 words in the Clean Air Act, EPA devised 1,560 pages of regulations (plus appendices and technical materials), demanding that states slash their electric utility sector carbon dioxide emissions 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. That means returning CO2 emissions almost to 1975 levels, while our population increases by 40 million.
What is begining to p***s me of, is the amount of data readily avaliable to cast extreme doubt on supposed climate change, and how it is studiously being ignored. One can only come to the conclusion it's being orchestrated somehow. I haven't seen the Guardian telling it's readers that climate change costs are now £4b per day across the planet !!! Or that the bloody planet temperature isn't rising !!
Someone's done the maths, if all the made up science is correct, Obama will save a hundredth of a degree or suchlike.
Meanwhile the EPA has accidentally caused massive river heavy metal pollution whilst fiddling about with an old mine.
Nothing like getting your priorities right is there.
Meanwhile the EPA has accidentally caused massive river heavy metal pollution whilst fiddling about with an old mine.
Nothing like getting your priorities right is there.
turbobloke said:
"The equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, wind turbines."
Crazy.ITER - one of the leading fusion research programs has cost a mere $15 billion over it's 7 year lifespan to date. That's almost 100 times less than we spend on carbon trading, wind turbines etc in a single year.
Climate change is a money spinner - of that there is no doubt. Some people have got very rich of the back of the doom mongering and the gravy train doesn't look set to stop any-time soon.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 11th August 10:53
motco said:
Nice to hear from him again. Good, simple message. Now, how can we sneak it under the radar and onto the BBC..? turbobloke said:
More brilliance from politicos, this time over the pond.
http://www.icecap.us/
Yep the squeaky clean EPA........................http://www.icecap.us/
Paul Driessen said:
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency just issued its deceptively named “Clean Power Plan.” Mangling and twisting 280 words in the Clean Air Act, EPA devised 1,560 pages of regulations (plus appendices and technical materials), demanding that states slash their electric utility sector carbon dioxide emissions 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. That means returning CO2 emissions almost to 1975 levels, while our population increases by 40 million.
"The Environmental Protection Agency accidentally released millions of gallons of pollutants into the water last week, turning the typically blue water to the color of mustard."
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/epa-river-spi...
Big ball of fire up in the sky. Nothing to do with it.
Research nixes link between solar activity, climate change
The revelation makes it more difficult for climate deniers to claim a long-term increase in solar activity is responsible for rising global temperatures.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/08/11/Researc...
Pesty said:
Big ball of fire up in the sky. Nothing to do with it.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/08/11/Researc...
It's absurd but they're desperate and rentapapers are going to appear through to Paris. Recalibration of temperatures check, what other recalibrations might we see...http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/08/11/Researc...
"In a new study, researchers argue that a sunspot counting method called the Group Sunspot Number is fundamentally flawed. The flaw is responsible for the discrepancy between the Group Sunspot Number and the numbers tallied by another, older counting method called the Wolf Sunspot Number."
Although this recalibration study needs some time to examine in detail, sunspot number is not 'the' solar-climate link.
The visible aurora frequency pattern over many decades/centuries and in particular the UK all-sky aurora borealis near peak solar activity in 1989 (also visible from Malta and Cuba) are instantly sidelined. Aurorae are due to the active Sun and relate to the solar eruptivity climate forcing.
It was obvious enough from historical data prior to 1989-90s peak solar period.
Abstract from Scafetta 2011 said:
Herein we show that the historical records of mid-latitude auroras from 1700 to 1966 present oscillations with periods of about 9, 10–11, 20–21, 30 and 60 years. The same frequencies are found in proxy and instrumental global surface temperature records since 1650 and 1850, respectively, and in several planetary and solar records. We argue that the aurora records reveal a physical link between climate change and astronomical oscillations. Likely in addition to a Soli-Lunar tidal effect, there exists a planetary modulation of the heliosphere, of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth and/or of the electric properties of the ionosphere. The latter, in turn, has the potentiality of modulating the global cloud cover that ultimately drives the climate oscillations through albedo oscillations. In particular, a quasi-60-year large cycle is quite evident since 1650 in all climate and astronomical records herein studied, which also include a historical record of meteorite fall in China from 619 to 1943. These findings support the thesis that climate oscillations have an astronomical origin. We show that a harmonic constituent model based on the major astronomical frequencies revealed in the aurora records and deduced from the natural gravitational oscillations of the solar system is able to forecast with a reasonable accuracy the decadal and multidecadal temperature oscillations from 1950 to 2010 using the temperature data before 1950, and vice versa. The existence of a natural 60-year cyclical modulation of the global surface temperature induced by astronomical mechanisms, by alone, would imply that at least 60–70% of the warming observed since 1970 has been naturally induced. Moreover, the climate may stay approximately stable during the next decades because the 60-year cycle has entered in its cooling phase.
turbobloke said:
It's absurd but they're desperate and rentapapers are going to appear through to Paris. Recalibration of temperatures check, what other recalibrations might we see...
wow, what a shockingly crass response to years of collaborative work by the solar physics community.The issues with the historic sunspot count (and the faulty corrections that have been applied along the way) is a well known subject and this work to sort it out has been in the pipeline for years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/counting-sun...
I think you must know it as well - shameful.
plunker said:
turbobloke said:
It's absurd but they're desperate and rentapapers are going to appear through to Paris. Recalibration of temperatures check, what other recalibrations might we see...
wow, what a shockingly crass response to years of collaborative work by the solar physics community.Welcome back
is Paris really that close?With no warming for ~19 to ~20 years ongoing, how long before a recalibration of carbon dioxide measurements becomes tempting?
plunker said:
The issues with the historic sunspot count (and the faulty corrections that have been applied along the way) is a well known subject and this work to sort it out has been in the pipeline for years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/counting-sun...
I think you must know it as well - shameful.
That enormous degree of sincere angst comes through so clearly in the above post, as in others before it.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/counting-sun...
I think you must know it as well - shameful.
Incidentally, yes I read all about it including at WUWT again this morning.
It is indeed shameful to claim that sunspot number revisions make a solar case for climate forcing more difficult. It's as though these people, and you, have never heard of coronal holes, and on top of that lack the most basic understanding of heliomagnetic and geomagnetic effects.
A school level science fail by so many people. I'd read all about coronal holes at school, but accept that others may not have had the same quality education at that stage or afterwards...particularly the vast majority of politicians who are both clueless on the basics and clueless as to who to listen to.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff