Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.
Let us hope that President Trump acts quickly on Dr. Lindzen’s request.
If anyone you know claims the climate debate is over, show them a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s petition.
I am not a climate “scientist.” I don’t have a degree in “climatology.” I’ve never stepped foot through the doors of NOAA, NASA GISS or HadCRUT. I am not an expert on the climate. Therefore I should not be able to write an article today that will prove 100% correct 10 years in the future, rejecting the climate models built by the “experts” who are backed by billions and billions of dollars in funding. If climate “science” is truly a valid science, an amateur climatologist shouldn’t be able to make better forecasts than the experts. That is a testable hypothesis. If climate “science” is a valid science, and the ground measurements are not being manipulated to get a predetermined answer, then over the next 10 years, both satellite and ground measurements should fall in line with the “expert” IPCC climate model predictions. In my amateur opinion, there is a 0% chance of that…
View original post 3,857 more words
Green Lunacy #1: £450 Million Lost Over Failed Green Power That Is Worse Than Coal
The Times, 23 February 2017
Northeast of Drax, author Paul Glazzard, source Wikimedia
Britain is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds subsidising power stations to burn American wood pellets that do more harm to the climate than the coal they replaced, a study has found.
Green subsidies for wood pellets were championed by Chris Huhne when he was energy and climate change secretary. Mr Huhne, 62, was jailed in 2013 for perverting the course of justice/ LEON NEAL/ AFP/ GETTY IMAGES
Chopping down trees and transporting wood across the Atlantic Ocean to feed power stations produces more greenhouse gases than much cheaper coal, according to the report. It blames the rush to meet EU renewable energy targets, which resulted in ministers making the false assumption that burning trees was carbon-neutral.
Green subsidies for…
View original post 821 more words
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova – just in case you thought the climate community had run out of absurd ideas to waste taxpayer’s money, here is an academic plan to rebuild Arctic ice, by deploying 100 million wind turbines into the Arctic Ocean.
Save the Arctic with $5 trillion of floating, wind-powered ice machines, researchers recommend
Tristin Hopper | February 16, 2017 | Last Updated: Feb 17 9:34 AM ET
With the Arctic warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, a new scientific paper is proposing a radical scheme to thicken the ice cap: millions upon millions of autonomous ice machines.
Specifically, between 10 and 100 million floating, wind-powered pumps designed to spray water over sea ice during the winter.
“These are expensive propositions, but within the means of governments to carry out on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project,” reads the paper published in the Jan…
View original post 590 more words
Update: Post publishing this article new relevant data was released. It looks like much of the data used to support these spending projects is fraudulent, “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” The question now becomes, do we want to spend a fortune based upon GIGO models and forecasts?
Before reading this article, watch this video to put things in perspective. Remember, there are two aspects to cost and benefits. The real question is, are we getting our monies worth for what we are spending or the climate alarmists hope to spend.
According to the SPPI’s original paper “Climate Money,” the US Government alone spent $79 billion between 1989 and 2009 fighting “climate change,” with the spending accelerating. The “Climate Policy Initiative” states that in 2013 global spending on fighting climate change reached $331 billion…
View original post 814 more words
By Paul Homewood
Booker weighs in on the latest NOAA scandal:
Two years ago last week, I wrote a column given the provocative heading “The fiddling of temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. It was the second of two articles which attracted a record 42,000 comments from all over the world, reporting on the discovery by expert bloggers in half a dozen countries – led in Britain by Paul Homewood on his site “Not a lot of people know that” – that something very odd appeared to have been done to the official land surface temperature records on which, more than anything else, the entire alarm over man-made global warming has rested.
These derive from the record known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), run by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). By comparing archived data with that now being published…
View original post 404 more words