Sunday, April 7, 2013

The Science is Settled!

Even the super hyper Climate Warming partisans at The Economist finally note what people with brains have noticed for many years now: Climate is not warming.  In fact, every single climate model that has been used to prove Global Warming, and justify massive governmental intrusion and taxation in our lives (mostly through the Green Power initiatives) has been proven grossly wrong.  And, as you may expect with people putting an agenda before the science - they all err in exactly the same way - overestimating climate warming.  Looking at the graph, and understanding a limited amount of statistics, you can see how horribly bad the predictions are.  Even though we have continued to fill our atmosphere with more and more killer Carbon Dioxide, the temperatures refuse to budge.  The studies were mostly made in the late 90's and the data, when not skewed by the scamsters, refuses to track the predictions.

The point isn't that global climate doesn't change.  Of course it does and always has.  The point is that the big hype of pushing man's increasing production of carbon dioxide as the true environmental killer has been shown to be completely without foundation in fact.  Which means all our money-wasting initiatives to create less carbon dioxide have been done without an ounce of real-world justification:  all the shutting down of coal plants, development of expensive 'renewable' electrical generation plants, hybrid and electric cars, and every other effort to reduce our material wealth via the global warming boogeyman is money and life-alteration is just money sucked out of our pockets and into the pockets of scamsters
It's very ironic that in the late '90's, when all the studies were published showing global temperatures going through the roof, Gaia decided to play a joke on the scammers and flatline the temperatures. 

I'm sure another scam will come along soon to replace Global Warming.  Global Climate Change!  It will be too easy to mock them if they turn back to the Global Cooling of the '70's.   Too many of us remember when they tried that the first time.

But just remember, our God-King Obama, Al Gore, and all our betters, who of course have degrees from Ivy League schools, know better than we do.  So, be sure to listen to them when they try this again.  And of course this current scam is still -practically speaking- going full-speed ahead, as carbon caps are still in effect for the power industry, and you still are paying higher and higher power bills etc, etc. 

5 comments:

  1. I don't think it really matters whether you call it anthropogenic global warming, anthropogenic climate change, or just climate change. At the end of the day, the climate is changing. I think you should go with the adjective that you like. I am biased for anthropogenic global warming because this theory reminds me of the 90's and 2000's. It is nice to be reminded of that time period, they were a great time. Although if the science does say that man is not causing the climate to change, I could very well see why you would be uncomfortable with calling it anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change. I don't think science should get in the way of your choice of adjective.

    The article makes a point and then walks it back: "This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique."[...]

    "So the explanation may lie in the air—but then again it may not. Perhaps it lies in the oceans. But here, too, facts get in the way."

    Bud-D is looking at the subject through the lense of what is true and what is not. This is not the way that politicans look at the subject. The truth does not matter. What matters is that enough people in the developed world believe in AGW, and it seems that a significant majority do, to be able to use this crisis to advance political agendas. Facts can not get in the way of advancing their agenda. Even after Climate Gate, Obama recently talked about the need to fight AGW in the SOTU. Hank Paulson said in his book "On the Brink" that it takes a crisis to get anything done in Washingon. AGW is a very good crisis and will continue to be used to bring about the globalist's agenda, UN agenda 21 being one agenda. "The battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme of the new world order". "The environmental movement was created by the CFR. It is a substitue for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government." I have to hand it to those that came up with AGW. It is a cleaver idea and has worked very well in achieving their goals.

    This video sums the environmental movement fairly well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's right Jeff. One good thing about the Obama adminstrations reign: it's brought the hypocricy and tactics of the left in clear view for all to see who care to look.

    Another example of how we are paying for already-debunked global warming is the biofuels program for the Navy:
    http://www.qando.net/?p=13335

    From last summer, but still, massive amounts of money spent on something that has no justification in fact. Only because it's a favorite agenda item for Obama and his ilk. We have posted about the biofuels scam in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How viable is methane as a source of alternative energy?

    I went to the waste water treatment facility for Milwaukee and there was a huge machine that burnt the methane from all of the poop. The guy giving the tour said that the energy conversion machine was temporarily broken or not working and that they normally sell the energy to the power companies. I didn't ask the guy any thing else but I wondered if it was a costly process trying to convert the methane to usable energy. Which would explain why they weren't using the machine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Methane is used as a fuel for generators. Normally, it's cowshit rather than peopleshit that is the fuel source. However, it is a small-scale generator, and small scale generators cost more on an installation cost/kWh generated than large scale. For example, methane generators are in the, say 800 kiloWatt range of generation, while coal plants are in the 1-5 GigaWatt range. But the costs to connect the methane plant to the grid are much higher, for the amount of electricity it generates, than the coal plant. Economy of scale.

    I couldn't say how reliable the methane generators are, but the generation would be far more dependable than wind. Again, even if methane is a better deal than wind, it doesn't get built without healthy grants and tax incentives from the govt.

    If a power company wants to build an electrical generation plant based purely on economics, it builds a coal plant or a hydro. Maybe a nuke if the govt backs off the regulation a bit. A power company wanting to to make the economically correct choice goes with economies of scale which no green technology can do, at least not yet.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, I should add natural gas to plants that power companies will build of their own accord. Evidently, natural gas is much cleaner from a CO2 perspective than coal, and large-output plants are built. Note that natural gas is not a Green technology pushed by the govt, but is actually fairly green and an economic choice by power companies.

    ReplyDelete