Where is the climate fall of France to trigger WW2 scale climate mobilization ?

The Paris Agreement was empty goals with empty and insufficient promises followed by less action and even less results. The IPCC 2018 is calling for a larger than WW2 economic mobilization and transformation without the equivalent of a climate fall of France or Europe. IPCC 2018 is talking about loss of coral and summer ice in the Arctic.

Arctic Ice has been stable from 2007 to 2018. There was a decrease in ice from 1979 to 2007. The sea level rise has been minimal. All of the Arctic Ice and all of the Greenland glacier is not projected to completely melt by 2100. Sea level rise depends more upon overall water swelling from higher temperatures.

What IPCC is calling for is a larger than WW2 scale economic mobilization. But with a predicted somewhere around 2080 to 2200 not even really scary story.

Here I will describe that the motivating climate event will have to truly large and repeated and directly and obviously connection to climate change.

Also, the re-action will not be spending $3 trillion per year on a multi-decade plan to change energy and transportation. By the IPCC projection such actions would only bend temperature curves 40+ years out. Would the world wait 40 years to start turning back the Nazis. The generals with those plans would be fired. The response would be geoengineering.

The Fall of France involved allied losses of 360,000 and 1.9 million captured. 66,000 were killed and 134,000 were wounded in the invasion of Poland. The invasion did not trigger the full-scale mobilization. It kicked off a 4 year ramp up. The Soviets lost over 4 million in the first 6 months of 1941.

The main combatants in WW2 (Germany, Soviets, Japan, UK, USA and others) mobilized about 50-70% of their economies for 3-4 years with about 3-4 years of ramping up.

IPCC is calling for over 20 years of buildup and effort across the entire world economy and that maintenance at near that level for over 60 years. The IPCC is calling for transition from fossil fuels which provide 81% of the power for the world economy to almost none by 2050.

This is for a predicted fall of France or Fall of Europe style climate events somewhere in 2080-2200.

Damage to coral has already happened. Australia is willing to spend about $400 million per year to save or preserve the Great Barrier reef with research and on the water surface sun-screen for coral. This will try to preserve a $6-7 billion tourism and fishing business.

The IPCC telling a story that there is a gun to the head of world coral is meaningless. Most people did not and did not care about bleaching events over the last few years to half of the world coral. The IPCC has a statistical story about the danger to world coral by 2040-2100.

Boo – statistical risks over 40-100 years – spend tens of trillions

How strongly did and have IPCC scientists come out to try to save nuclear reactors in Japan, Germany or the USA? The nuclear reactors were mostly replaced by coal in Japan and Germany. The IPCC scientist recommendations and actions are not consistent and not focused on the fastest and lowest cost and major impact actions for the next twenty years.

China is spending about $100 billion per year to combat air pollution because is costs China about $1 trillion in economic damage (agricultural, medical, business and 1.6 million shortened lives).

What triggered the prior anti-pollution action in the UK, Europe, US and Canada?

12,000 people dying in the London Fog air pollution event of 1952, started the talk of more serious pollution controls despite having visible air and air pollution for many years. There were many other mass dyings caused by air pollution.

China had to get to about the same levels of air pollution and people coughing up black all the time for many years.

It seems to get $2-5 trillion per year in action will require $5 to 20 trillion per year in past and sustainable damage. However, it also requires in your face clear and obvious mass deaths. And few thousand will not be enough and the connection to climate change must be very obvious and urgent. Mass deaths from an event in Africa or on some islands will not cut it either.

The 2003 heat wave in Europe caused about 70,000 deaths. France had 14,800 heat wave deaths.

The US has had heat waves but not so many deaths because of widespread air conditioning. There was some increase in air conditioning demand in France and Europe but not a mass adoption.

The heat wave is not something which can be pinned directly on climate change.

There has been no need to create dams and levies around US and Europe or Asian coastal cities.

Air pollution indoor and outdoor causes 7 million deaths per year. China has responded with a large program but India, the rest of Asia and Africa have far less response. India’s air is as bad if not worse than China’s.

The US does not respond to a calculated trillion dollar per year loss from urban sprawl. So it is not just theoretical money.

The Paris climate agreement set a goal of no more than 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures, but a stretch goal of no more than 1.5°C.

Each country that signed onto the Paris Agreement wrote the promises they were going to try to keep by 2030.

The Paris Agreement climate promises if fully kept would have the world emitting a cumulative 745 billion tons of CO2 between the beginning of 2017 and the end of 2030 instead of 770 billions tons of CO2. This is the max if commitments were met. Currently we would be very lucky to get to 5 billion tons of total lower emissions because most countries are falling well short of slowing the increased CO2 emissions.

The total emissions since the last 2014 IPCC report and the 2018 IPCC report have increased.

Paris group of overweight people and two still growing whales (China and India). There is another whale (the USA) who did not sign up for the diet promise and challenge.

Collectively everyone is over 20% heavier in 2018 than in 2010 and collectively everyone is still gaining weight.

The empty Paris goals of 2 degrees of 1.5 degrees are dependent upon the next generation post-2030 making vastly serious deep cuts in emissions. The new IPCC is saying the world has to go to one-third of the emissions that the world was tracking to in 2030. Half of the 2010 level. Ten times more than the mostly unkept promises of the Paris Agreement by 2030. This would be fifty times more than what might actually be on track to being done in the Paris Agreement. This is uncertain because of the actions that are being taken have more results closer to 2030 in the Paris promises.

This would followed by getting to 0 emissions by about 2040 and then negative thereafter.

The IPCC recommended plans are vastly more expensive and slower than alternatives.

– Geoengineering is 1000 times cheaper and faster and at least 1% of the requested funds should be spent on these options
– There needs to be more research and scaled action on Black carbon (aka soot and particulates)
– There needs to be accelerated research on factory mass produced nuclear power. Molten salt nuclear seems like the best option here.

385 thoughts on “Where is the climate fall of France to trigger WW2 scale climate mobilization ?”

  1. Not quite. People keep thinking this is a science and tech blog, and then getting confused because Brian keeps addressing stuff that doesn’t fit. But it is a FUTURE blog, and so it does fit.

    Reply
  2. All of the Arctic Ice and all of the Greenland glacier is not projected to completely melt by 2100. -> So we will wait until 2099 before doing something Just as some fat – buttocks american wants to keep their SUV as he is insecure and wants to watch people from upside down ? I key cars. See a SUV and go go with the key Luca Mazza

    Reply
  3. Not quite. People keep thinking this is a science and tech blog and then getting confused because Brian keeps addressing stuff that doesn’t fit.But it is a FUTURE blog and so it does fit.

    Reply
  4. All of the Arctic Ice and all of the Greenland glacier is not projected to completely melt by 2100.-> So we will wait until 2099 before doing something Just as some fat – buttocks american wants to keep their SUV as he is insecure and wants to watch people from upside down ? I key cars. See a SUV and go go with the key Luca Mazza

    Reply
  5. Actually around 50% of US citizens would be very happy for the government to implement carbon tax, which would address the long term build up of CO2 in the most efficient way according to those who should know, i.e. economists. Look it up for yourself – 2017 National Survey on Energy and Environment (NSEE). Note that such a tax is technology neutral and thus should favour Nuclear if it is really more cost effective than other options. Those that don’t agree with a tax are mostly those who also state they don’t believe warming is happening or that its not happening because of humans. If you look at the trend in poll results though we have gone from 22% in favour of such a tax to 50% in only the last five years. So change can happen fast. Of course a lot of people are beyond help – there are still moon landing skeptics, Flat Earthers and Adam and Eve believers but at least they are a minority. The same will eventuate for climate change. In the end geo-engineering may well be part of the solution. However if you allow business as usual until mid century or so when it truly starts to get ugly your job in trying to get things better has become exponentially harder.

    Reply
  6. Actually around 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of US citizens would be very happy for the government to implement carbon tax which would address the long term build up of CO2 in the most efficient way according to those who should know i.e. economists. Look it up for yourself – 2017 National Survey on Energy and Environment (NSEE).Note that such a tax is technology neutral and thus should favour Nuclear if it is really more cost effective than other options. Those that don’t agree with a tax are mostly those who also state they don’t believe warming is happening or that its not happening because of humans. If you look at the trend in poll results though we have gone from 22{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in favour of such a tax to 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} in only the last five years. So change can happen fast. Of course a lot of people are beyond help – there are still moon landing skeptics Flat Earthers and Adam and Eve believers but at least they are a minority. The same will eventuate for climate change.In the end geo-engineering may well be part of the solution. However if you allow business as usual until mid century or so when it truly starts to get ugly your job in trying to get things better has become exponentially harder.

    Reply
  7. I am surprised that so few demand studies that show increased greenhouse effect as a function of increased carbon dioxide levels. The truth is, no one has managed to detect such a thing, but we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The fact that the earth does not radiate less energy in the IR band, the carbon dioxide molecule act as greenhouse gas is known since first measurements from space. The saturation drops towards the ground as it increases and it would give hotspots over the tropics if the saturation 20 years ago was over 7 km which it does not. Quite interesting with such an expensive phenomenon that is not allowed scientific review. However, I would like the climate war if it was fought with shiny weapons. mass production of nuclear power GenIV, which is the only technology we know now, works for global welfare by 2050, which is the minimum requirement for global environmental protection and a friendly stop of population. No geo-engineering no focus on technicians with the potential to compete globally against oil and coal, but massive support for increased taxes, extinct rules and increasing numbers of soldiers in the climate war, tell me with the desirable clarity that the climate war is not about climate or the environment.

    Reply
  8. I am surprised that so few demand studies that show increased greenhouse effect as a function of increased carbon dioxide levels. The truth is no one has managed to detect such a thing but we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The fact that the earth does not radiate less energy in the IR band the carbon dioxide molecule act as greenhouse gas is known since first measurements from space. The saturation drops towards the ground as it increases and it would give hotspots over the tropics if the saturation 20 years ago was over 7 km which it does not. Quite interesting with such an expensive phenomenon that is not allowed scientific review. However I would like the climate war if it was fought with shiny weapons. mass production of nuclear power GenIV which is the only technology we know now works for global welfare by 2050 which is the minimum requirement for global environmental protection and a friendly stop of population. No geo-engineering no focus on technicians with the potential to compete globally against oil and coal but massive support for increased taxes extinct rules and increasing numbers of soldiers in the climate war tell me with the desirable clarity that the climate war is not about climate or the environment.

    Reply
  9. I think terrorism merits the death penalty well. Particularly terrorism done is service to the human extinction promoting AGW pro-death cult.

    Reply
  10. I think shooting someone for a minor crime like keying a car will bring you to death penalty So people are not going to do it

    Reply
  11. I already know about it. There is nothing remarkable about a reinforced for ice steel ship transiting the NW passage. ” If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves

    Reply
  12. While other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year, Maersk’s new ice class container vessel, Venta Maersk, has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes. Just google it and you find a dozen articles about it. If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves since scientists, from what ever discipline, are in competition with one another all over the world. This is how science self-corrects over time and I have been involved in this type of exercise myself.

    Reply
  13. Doesn’t matter when it’s projected it might melt, A) it won’t, B) those Viking settlements being uncovered–they were ice free to become settlements without any noticeable human released “magically evil” CO2 to make it so. ” I key cars. See a SUV and go go with the key ” I hope I hear someday of you being shot dead. You are one of those going through life screaming, “Killl me, kill me.

    Reply
  14. No, it ain’t. Last time a bunch of boats tried tog o that way they needed an, wait for it… …icebreaker. And the Venta Meersk is specially constructed to deal with ice, at that. It has always been true throughout recorded history you might, even with a wooden boat, get through the NW passage. What you are pretending is new and different, is same old, same old.

    Reply
  15. It’s quite possible half the population think they’d be happy for the government to implement a carbon tax. But I guarantee that if the government DID implement one, they’d be very unhappy indeed, because they’re not thinking about how much it would hurt them.

    Reply
  16. Damage to coral has already happened. ” But it has yet to be established that it’s related to warming. Apparently bleaching of coral is a fairly routine thing, that they recover from. Somewhat similar to the polar ozone hole, which we found the first time we ever looked, and inexplicably assumed was new… Except that it has probably been forming every winter for thousands of years. I guess the key point here is correct: These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming, to the extent it is happening, is a really bad thing. The real question, of course, is if such an event happened, would it even make sense to do the insanely expensive things the IPCC is demanding? Rather than spending the same money on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy, and doing a bit of ocean fertilization?

    Reply
  17. Well it’s been decades for climate change as well with at least as much if not more scrutiny paid to it than evolution quantum physics and general relativity. Small relatively insignificant fraudulent claims are understandably less likely to get caught. Anyone with half a brain can see this. willing to do great evil””? I have to say you are sounding a bit wacky.”””

    Reply
  18. I think terrorism merits the death penalty well. Particularly terrorism done is service to the human extinction promoting AGW pro-death cult.

    Reply
  19. I already know about it. There is nothing remarkable about a reinforced for ice steel ship transiting the NW passage. If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves “” “””

    Reply
  20. While other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year Maersk’s new ice class container vessel Venta Maersk has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes. Just google it and you find a dozen articles about it. If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves since scientists from what ever discipline are in competition with one another all over the world. This is how science self-corrects over time and I have been involved in this type of exercise myself.

    Reply
  21. Doesn’t matter when it’s projected it might melt A) it won’t B) those Viking settlements being uncovered–they were ice free to become settlements without any noticeable human released magically evil”” CO2 to make it so.”””” I key cars. See a SUV and go go with the key “”””I hope I hear someday of you being shot dead. You are one of those going through life screaming”””” “”””Killl me”””” kill me.”””””””

    Reply
  22. No it ain’t. Last time a bunch of boats tried tog o that way they needed an wait for it……icebreaker.And the Venta Meersk is specially constructed to deal with ice at that. It has always been true throughout recorded history you might even with a wooden boat get through the NW passage. What you are pretending is new and different is same old same old.

    Reply
  23. It’s quite possible half the population think they’d be happy for the government to implement a carbon tax. But I guarantee that if the government DID implement one they’d be very unhappy indeed because they’re not thinking about how much it would hurt them.

    Reply
  24. Damage to coral has already happened. “”But it has yet to be established that it’s related to warming. Apparently bleaching of coral is a fairly routine thing”” that they recover from.Somewhat similar to the polar ozone hole which we found the first time we ever looked and inexplicably assumed was new… Except that it has probably been forming every winter for thousands of years.I guess the key point here is correct: These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming to the extent it is happening is a really bad thing.The real question of course is if such an event happened would it even make sense to do the insanely expensive things the IPCC is demanding? Rather than spending the same money on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy”” and doing a bit of ocean fertilization?”””

    Reply
  25. I have to say, you endorsing the “solutions” which the AGW fraudsters want is you adopting what for many will be a final solution.

    Reply
  26. And the human CO2 = AGW fraud is only about 30 years old and it has money and prestige furthering it’s reinforcement. They have “been caught” the whole of the “evidence for AGW comes not from measurement but from adjustments to the measurements which can not be justified.

    Reply
  27. Well it’s been decades for climate change as well, with at least as much, if not more scrutiny paid to it than evolution, quantum physics and general relativity. Small, relatively insignificant fraudulent claims are understandably less likely to get caught. Anyone with half a brain can see this. “willing to do great evil”? I have to say you are sounding a bit wacky.

    Reply
  28. I have to say you endorsing the solutions”” which the AGW fraudsters want is you adopting what for many will be a final solution.”””

    Reply
  29. And the human CO2 = AGW fraud is only about 30 years old and it has money and prestige furthering it’s reinforcement. They have been caught”” the whole of the “”””evidence for AGW comes not from measurement but from adjustments to the measurements which can not be justified.”””

    Reply
  30. ⊕1… with there being a spate of low-visibility articles in the last 24 hours citing that warmer equatorial waters in general favor the kind of reef predator fish that chomp happily on the coral-nibbler species that constantly put pressure on those precious corals. BTW — again in the same line — you’re correct in echoing the ‘news’ that the world’s sadly “bleached corals” are well on their way to recovery AND that such bleaching events appear to have a difficult-to-tease-out-but-still-there-if-you-look-hard-enough sedimentary record over the whole of the Holocene. Basically Ol Mudder Earth has thrown a lot more climate upset at the world’s corals every interglacial than the present +1° warming (in the last 75 years) has brought. A lot more. Giant volcanoes, enormous undersea magma release events, you name it. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  31. Wait, what? You mean the US actually “did the right thing” e’en though they didn’t sign the PARIS tûrd? Umm…. what’s a libtard to do? Arrgghhhhhh! Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  32. The “Russians” are having a hard time profiting from pretty much everything except their prodigious crude oil and natural gas exploitation. And their heritage population continues to shrink. Not a good formula. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  33. You’re right – it’s all about control – and graft. Too many times we’ve seen expensive solutions touted that end up lining SOMEONE’S pockets, and not providing anything of real use. How much energy is needed to put up a massive windmill versus what it’ll end up providing? How much energy is needed to make a massive solar panel array – and how much is recouped over the lifetime of said array? How many businesses have sprung up, then gone BK like Solyndra? It’s never seemed to me like they’re actually worried about taking care of the problem, but milking the possibility as a cash cow and an excuse to use private jets to vacation in exotic locales for ‘climate conferences’. Actual workable solutions seem jettisoned in favor of ‘carbon credits’, ‘carbon taxes’, and ‘sustainability initiatives’ that never seem to be sustainable. (See the UK going to a wood fired power plant, and IMPORTING wood pellets from the US. By ship. This is somehow better for the environment than nuclear power.) Germany shuts down nuclear power plants after the Fukushima tsunami, citing safety concerns… but Germany isn’t exactly noted for being either earthquake or tsunami-prone. What are they building instead? BROWN COAL power plants – nice and dirty. All to the drumbeat that “We only have 5 years to save the planet!”… which apparently requires the US pay for everyone else – while countries like China pollute like crazy. Well, I’ve heard the ‘Only 5 years to save the planet’ thing for 30 years now. We still have icecaps, we still have polar bears, we still have penguins and we still have the Maldives, who were supposed to be underwater a decade ago. At some point, fatigue sets in because the predictions don’t come to pass.

    Reply
  34. Obviously, simply calling the cops would work well. He must obviously pay for the paint work who can fast be some thousand dollars. And that is obviously just an start. Luca I assume you are trolling, if not you probably don’t know how deep shit you are into. Have you thought about stuff like CVC cameras or cell phone tracking, have you posted this other places? By your statement again if you are not trolling you are behind an large series of vandalism. No police or insurance companies don’t use resources on that until the got an culprit. So you are either an troll or an idiot who has been lucky so far.

    Reply
  35. more bs. “However, Maersk said in a statement: “Currently, we do not see the Northern Sea Route as a commercial alternative to our existing network… Today, the passage is only feasible for around three months a year which may change with time.” Your definition “open for business” is wrong. The NSR has ben open for a long time, in the summers, since at least 1872. Wait – isn’t that WAY BEFORE global warming??

    Reply
  36. Problem with carbon tax is that either its low and mostly raises tax level and prices a bit while giving the government more income. Yes it has some effects but not much. Or make it high then you loose lots of industry who moves to China there its powered by coal.

    Reply
  37. Hold on there, I call your bs. Here is the exact question from the poll “Consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this type of system?” They surveyed 455 people on the phone and 20% said “strongly support” and 27% said “somewhat support”. Now imagine asking the same question differently: “consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing fuel at the pump by $20 per gallon and increasing your utility bill by 50%. Would you…..” You think the respondents would answer differently? It is easy to agree to tax someone else, like “coal”, but not so easy to agree to pay more yourself. This is a classic “headfake” question to avoid getting a “wrong” answer. It’s the exact same approach the Bernie Sanders of the world are taking with “medicare for all”. Of course, who wouldn’t support that? Except when you also ask “do you support medicare for all if you have to pay 50% more income tax?”

    Reply
  38. IPCC recommends we spend about 3% of global GDP per year – starting now – on a problem that they themselves said will cost about 0.04 to 0.16% of annual GDP (to stay below 2c), sometime in the future. I’m very sorry for being a dunce, but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? Stupidity like this is why no one will believe this agenda for much longer. Certainly not the signers of the Paris Agreement. Agenda-setting goes through predictable phases. We have now reached peak AGM scaremongering. Once the rest of the public gets they’ve been fleeced, the agenda will viewed by historians as an interlude of hysteria. Many papers and books will be written about “how could this happen” and the “power of persuasion for monetary and political gain”. AGM is a perfect topic to test human gullibility. It’s got the FUD factor (fear, uncertainty, dread), it has Community, it has Offspring, it has Sense of Good. These are extremely strong human persuasion triggers and very difficult to take apart once they are established.

    Reply
  39. As for today I look like pretty alive If I stop comment here you may think that I could have got caught or maybe got bored of you, Warren Regards

    Reply
  40. Apparently bleaching of coral is a” fairly routine thing, that they recover from. ” Where did you read this? Fox news? Disney Channel? Not that thre is much difference

    Reply
  41. ⊕1… with there being a spate of low-visibility articles in the last 24 hours citing that warmer equatorial waters in general favor the kind of reef predator fish that chomp happily on the coral-nibbler species that constantly put pressure on those precious corals. BTW — again in the same line — you’re correct in echoing the ‘news’ that the world’s sadly “bleached corals” are well on their way to recovery AND that such bleaching events appear to have a difficult-to-tease-out-but-still-there-if-you-look-hard-enough sedimentary record over the whole of the Holocene. Basically Ol Mudder Earth has thrown a lot more climate upset at the world’s corals every interglacial than the present +1° warming (in the last 75 years) has brought. A lot more. Giant volcanoes enormous undersea magma release events you name it. Just sayingGoatGuy”

    Reply
  42. Wait what?You mean the US actually “did the right thing” e’en though they didn’t sign the PARIS tûrd?Umm…. what’s a libtard to do?Arrgghhhhhh!Just sayingGoatGuy”

    Reply
  43. The “Russians” are having a hard time profiting from pretty much everything except their prodigious crude oil and natural gas exploitation. And their heritage population continues to shrink. Not a good formula.Just sayingGoatGuy”

    Reply
  44. You’re right – it’s all about control – and graft. Too many times we’ve seen expensive solutions touted that end up lining SOMEONE’S pockets and not providing anything of real use. How much energy is needed to put up a massive windmill versus what it’ll end up providing? How much energy is needed to make a massive solar panel array – and how much is recouped over the lifetime of said array? How many businesses have sprung up then gone BK like Solyndra?It’s never seemed to me like they’re actually worried about taking care of the problem but milking the possibility as a cash cow and an excuse to use private jets to vacation in exotic locales for ‘climate conferences’. Actual workable solutions seem jettisoned in favor of ‘carbon credits’ ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘sustainability initiatives’ that never seem to be sustainable. (See the UK going to a wood fired power plant and IMPORTING wood pellets from the US. By ship. This is somehow better for the environment than nuclear power.) Germany shuts down nuclear power plants after the Fukushima tsunami citing safety concerns… but Germany isn’t exactly noted for being either earthquake or tsunami-prone. What are they building instead? BROWN COAL power plants – nice and dirty.All to the drumbeat that We only have 5 years to save the planet!””… which apparently requires the US pay for everyone else – while countries like China pollute like crazy. Well”” I’ve heard the ‘Only 5 years to save the planet’ thing for 30 years now. We still have icecaps we still have polar bears we still have penguins and we still have the Maldives who were supposed to be underwater a decade ago.At some point”” fatigue sets in because the predictions don’t come to pass.”””

    Reply
  45. Obviously simply calling the cops would work well. He must obviously pay for the paint work who can fast be some thousand dollars. And that is obviously just an start. Luca I assume you are trolling if not you probably don’t know how deep shit you are into. Have you thought about stuff like CVC cameras or cell phone tracking have you posted this other places?By your statement again if you are not trolling you are behind an large series of vandalism. No police or insurance companies don’t use resources on that until the got an culprit. So you are either an troll or an idiot who has been lucky so far.

    Reply
  46. more bs. However Maersk said in a statement: “Currently we do not see the Northern Sea Route as a commercial alternative to our existing network… Today” the passage is only feasible for around three months a year which may change with time.”Your definition “”open for business”””” is wrong. The NSR has ben open for a long time”” in the summers”” since at least 1872. Wait – isn’t that WAY BEFORE global warming??”””””””

    Reply
  47. Problem with carbon tax is that either its low and mostly raises tax level and prices a bit while giving the government more income. Yes it has some effects but not much. Or make it high then you loose lots of industry who moves to China there its powered by coal.

    Reply
  48. Hold on there I call your bs. Here is the exact question from the poll “Consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon based fuels such as coal oil and natural gas. Would youstrongly support somewhat support somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this type of system?” They surveyed 455 people on the phone and 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} said strongly support”” and 27{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} said “”””somewhat support””””. Now imagine asking the same question differently: “”””consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing fuel at the pump by $20 per gallon and increasing your utility bill by 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. Would you…..””””You think the respondents would answer differently? It is easy to agree to tax someone else”””” like “”””coal”””””””” but not so easy to agree to pay more yourself. This is a classic “”””headfake”””” question to avoid getting a “”””wrong”””” answer. It’s the exact same approach the Bernie Sanders of the world are taking with “”””medicare for all””””. Of course”””” who wouldn’t support that? Except when you also ask “”””do you support medicare for all if you have to pay 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} more income tax?”””””””””””

    Reply
  49. IPCC recommends we spend about 3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of global GDP per year – starting now – on a problem that they themselves said will cost about 0.04 to 0.16{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of annual GDP (to stay below 2c) sometime in the future. I’m very sorry for being a dunce but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? Stupidity like this is why no one will believe this agenda for much longer. Certainly not the signers of the Paris Agreement. Agenda-setting goes through predictable phases. We have now reached peak AGM scaremongering. Once the rest of the public gets they’ve been fleeced the agenda will viewed by historians as an interlude of hysteria. Many papers and books will be written about how could this happen”” and the “”””power of persuasion for monetary and political gain””””. AGM is a perfect topic to test human gullibility. It’s got the FUD factor (fear”” uncertainty dread) it has Community it has Offspring”” it has Sense of Good. These are extremely strong human persuasion triggers and very difficult to take apart once they are established.”””

    Reply
  50. As for today I look like pretty alive If I stop comment here you may think that I could have got caught or maybe got bored of you Warren Regards

    Reply
  51. Apparently bleaching of coral is a”” fairly routine thing”””” that they recover from. “””” Where did you read this? Fox news? Disney Channel? Not that thre is much difference”””

    Reply
  52. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire to come” thinking. Anyone in Physics has booked up on or performed experiments on gas systems using simplified atmospheric models. Without excitement, increasing CO₂ increases shortwave infrared absorption, and simultaneously increases longwave IR emission. The net effect is a slight warming of Ol’ Planet Dirt’s atmosphere. Adding CO₂ — with nothing else changing — increases T of Earth. However, “with nothing else changing” is empty. Earth’s atmosphere is an enormously dynamic fluid, consisting of 10 distinct ‘weather related’ layers. It is chaotic, it is a poor mixing system, has daily heating and cooling cycles, and carries a completely capricious load of water vapor — a powerful greenhouse gas — partially mixed up with the rest. Then there are aerosols and particulate loads. Which change our average albedo (reflectivity) as a planet. Stuff we make (industrial, vehiclar and domestic exhausts), stuff we by-produce (refining, coatings degradation, manufactured product decay), and stuff we haven’t any hand in creating at all: volcanic emissions, seasonal plant ‘breathing’, rock weathering, multidecadal oceanic gyres and streams moving equatorial heat (and arctic chill) all over the place. CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist movement since it became known in the 1970s that there was a seemingly inexorable increase in the world’s CO₂ loading as instrumentally measured famously at Moana Loa in Hawaii, and another couple of dozen academic sites around the world. Every year, more. ENVIRONMENTALISTS: a grassroots awareness of Planet Earth ecosystems. One could see the poisoned rivers, garbage strewn wetlands, sloughs, byways. Industry brought disposable and nasty product by-streams to the public on a prodigious basis, and the environmentalists wanted if fixed. Hence the EPA — Environmental PROTECTION Agency. However, after

    Reply
  53. We don’t need a war effort mobilization. Simple economics will take care of things. In the US, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal, and competitive with natural gas. They have also *not stopped falling in costs*. Given a few more years, they will be cheaper than natural gas too. Most electric utilities are run for profit. As they have already demonstrated with the switch from coal to natural gas as the #1 electric source, they follow the money. Electric vehicles are just becoming competitive, but they also are not done getting cheaper. Again, people will follow the money. For the remaining fossil fuel users, we can promote synthesized sources (biofuels, hydrogen), or plant trees and grow kelp to offset the residual carbon. Those things will require effort, but not war-level effort

    Reply
  54. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke there’s usually fire to come” thinking. Anyone in Physics has booked up on or performed experiments on gas systems using simplified atmospheric models. Without excitement increasing CO₂ increases shortwave infrared absorption and simultaneously increases longwave IR emission. The net effect is a slight warming of Ol’ Planet Dirt’s atmosphere.Adding CO₂ — with nothing else changing — increases T of Earth. However with nothing else changing”” is empty. Earth’s atmosphere is an enormously dynamic fluid”” consisting of 10 distinct ‘weather related’ layers. It is chaotic it is a poor mixing system has daily heating and cooling cycles and carries a completely capricious load of water vapor — a powerful greenhouse gas — partially mixed up with the rest. Then there are aerosols and particulate loads. Which change our average albedo (reflectivity) as a planet. Stuff we make (industrial vehiclar and domestic exhausts) stuff we by-produce (refining coatings degradation manufactured product decay) and stuff we haven’t any hand in creating at all: volcanic emissions seasonal plant ‘breathing’ rock weathering multidecadal oceanic gyres and streams moving equatorial heat (and arctic chill) all over the place. CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist movement since it became known in the 1970s that there was a seemingly inexorable increase in the world’s CO₂ loading as instrumentally measured famously at Moana Loa in Hawaii and another couple of dozen academic sites around the world. Every year more. ENVIRONMENTALISTS: a grassroots awareness of Planet Earth ecosystems. One could see the poisoned rivers garbage strewn wetlands sloughs byways. Industry brought disposable and nasty product by-streams to the public on a prodigious basis and the environmentalists wanted if fixed. Hence the EPA — Environmental PROTECTION Agency. Howeve”

    Reply
  55. We don’t need a war effort mobilization. Simple economics will take care of things. In the US solar and wind are already cheaper than coal and competitive with natural gas. They have also *not stopped falling in costs*. Given a few more years they will be cheaper than natural gas too.Most electric utilities are run for profit. As they have already demonstrated with the switch from coal to natural gas as the #1 electric source they follow the money.Electric vehicles are just becoming competitive but they also are not done getting cheaper. Again people will follow the money.For the remaining fossil fuel users we can promote synthesized sources (biofuels hydrogen) or plant trees and grow kelp to offset the residual carbon. Those things will require effort but not war-level effort

    Reply
  56. As I wrote below, while other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year, Maersk’s new ice class container vessel, Venta Maersk, has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes. WHy is it the first do you think? Is it because global warming is a croc? Or could it be because they are seriously considering their near-term future commercial options because of reductions in sea ice that are already obvious?

    Reply
  57. Now lets imaging asking the same question again in an even different way. “consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon but offsetting this tax by reductions in income tax, payroll tax or GST.” What do you think?

    Reply
  58. These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming, to the extent it is happening, is a really bad thing” AND then there is the Boy Who Cried Wolf! problem the Watermelons have after blaming every hurricane, tropical storm and cow fart on Global Warming…especially if the current POTUS has an (R) labelled after his name. People have begun to just roll their eyes.

    Reply
  59. Adn a whole host of inconvenient facts.” What a load of hot air. And the heat island effect? C’mon that was a debated topic 10 years ago. “CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist”?? On what basis? Really you sound like every other irrational denialist. I would have thought that at least you would know that competition within science globally promotes calling out any BS that is published, assuming it gets past peer review.

    Reply
  60. Did you just say, “libtard”? Hahahahahahahahahah….I have brainwashed ya! Took me years, but I did it! Woot! Gotta go mark this day down on the calendar!

    Reply
  61. THAT is a good idea. I also saw a meme. Top part shows Trump saying, “I am all for Oxygen…Sweet, beautiful oxygen!”. Bottom part shows a libtarded protestor with a plastic bag over her entire head, suffocating.

    Reply
  62. I’m very sorry for being a dunce, but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? ” Why yes they do! It is a special calculator! This special calculator is called the “How much can we guilt-trip scam those idiots in the first world out of their wealth with all this BS?

    Reply
  63. I think utility scale solar farms are definitely competitive compared to their nat gas counter parts. There is of course the lack-of-economical-storage issue that requires them to have (usually) a nat gas turbine plant as backup, but those costs will eventually drop. And those the the costs I think of when people refer to total fixed costs of total solar energy production. Others refer to the not-so-elastic costs of solar panel installation – labor and other things than the solar cells themselves. Those pretty fixed costs will mean that utility solar farms will probably always be a better investment option than rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is not competitive with utility nat gas in my view because of that. Plus, grid investments necessary for handling distributive feed-in will need to soar and usually the non-homeowner rate-payers (apartment dwellers) get left holding the bag for that one. Utility scale Solar/wind would be great for providing cheap power to biofuel processing plants. Butanol is my fav: has 90% of the energy content of gasoline, can be made from cellulosic materials (grasses, wood, algae, etc) and can be pipelined.

    Reply
  64. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire to come” thinking. ” And…you can’t have a witch hunt w/o witches, too. The Establishment Science Grant Whoring industry depend on that latter quite heavily, in order to keep the Scam going.

    Reply
  65. As I wrote below while other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year Maersk’s new ice class container vessel Venta Maersk has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes.WHy is it the first do you think? Is it because global warming is a croc? Or could it be because they are seriously considering their near-term future commercial options because of reductions in sea ice that are already obvious?

    Reply
  66. Now lets imaging asking the same question again in an even different way. consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon but offsetting this tax by reductions in income tax” payroll tax or GST.””What do you think?”””

    Reply
  67. These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming to the extent it is happening” is a really bad thing””AND then there is the Boy Who Cried Wolf! problem the Watermelons have after blaming every hurricane”””” tropical storm and cow fart on Global Warming…especially if the current POTUS has an (R) labelled after his name.People have begun to just roll their eyes.”””

    Reply
  68. Adn a whole host of inconvenient facts.”” What a load of hot air. And the heat island effect? C’mon that was a debated topic 10 years ago. “”””CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist””””??On what basis? Really you sound like every other irrational denialist. I would have thought that at least you would know that competition within science globally promotes calling out any BS that is published”””” assuming it gets past peer review.”””””””

    Reply
  69. Did you just say libtard””?Hahahahahahahahahah….I have brainwashed ya! Took me years”””” but I did it! Woot! Gotta go mark this day down on the calendar!”””

    Reply
  70. THAT is a good idea.I also saw a meme. Top part shows Trump saying I am all for Oxygen…Sweet”” beautiful oxygen!””.Bottom part shows a libtarded protestor with a plastic bag over her entire head”””” suffocating.”””

    Reply
  71. I’m very sorry for being a dunce” but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? “”Why yes they do! It is a special calculator!This special calculator is called the “”””How much can we guilt-trip scam those idiots in the first world out of their wealth with all this BS?”””””””

    Reply
  72. I think utility scale solar farms are definitely competitive compared to their nat gas counter parts. There is of course the lack-of-economical-storage issue that requires them to have (usually) a nat gas turbine plant as backup but those costs will eventually drop. And those the the costs I think of when people refer to total fixed costs of total solar energy production. Others refer to the not-so-elastic costs of solar panel installation – labor and other things than the solar cells themselves. Those pretty fixed costs will mean that utility solar farms will probably always be a better investment option than rooftop solar.Rooftop solar is not competitive with utility nat gas in my view because of that. Plus grid investments necessary for handling distributive feed-in will need to soar and usually the non-homeowner rate-payers (apartment dwellers) get left holding the bag for that one.Utility scale Solar/wind would be great for providing cheap power to biofuel processing plants. Butanol is my fav: has 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the energy content of gasoline can be made from cellulosic materials (grasses wood algae etc) and can be pipelined.

    Reply
  73. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke” there’s usually fire to come” thinking. “”And…you can’t have a witch hunt w/o witches”” too.The Establishment Science Grant Whoring industry depend on that latter quite heavily”” in order to keep the Scam going.”””””””

    Reply
  74. Yep. Its a good word. Mark it in your diary. Bûllsnot always rises to the top of the cream first! Conservatoad din’t get the same traction. ‘Cuz there certainly are conservatıve toads. GoatGuy

    Reply
  75. We are going to nothing, that is what humans do, they see the meteorite and they let it hit earth, only in movies humans do something, humans are lazy and only act in self interest.

    Reply
  76. That’s why the rhetoric is increasing its volume and appeals to emotion. The plight of the poor countless victims of not seeing a rainbow or a flower bloom due to AGW can’t be measured with your cool metrics and indicators. Their tears and anguish can’t be calmed down with mere technology and policies based on reason. No, we need a complete paradigm change of our behavior and consciousness, towards a planet aware ethical framework that takes into account the feelings and perceptions of the countless (they can’t be counted if you include the animals and plants) victims. Something that perfectly fits the Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked approach.

    Reply
  77. So… echoing our Fine Leader’s cue, what would be the Paris Moment event(s) that’d convince the majority of people to fast-track substantial cuts to our individual and societal carbon fuel burning CO₂ emissions? I’m afraid tho’ I read the cover article end-to-end, I also did so lightly enough to have missed Brian’s central causal point if there was one. What would it be? Mmmmm… let’s see… • rapid rise in CAT–5 or higher hurricanes • regular hurricanes hitting Europe • 120°+ F (50°+ C) heatwaves in temperate America, Europe, Asia • Snowless Sierras in winter; rain only • Failure of Switzerland’s ski resorts and others across Europe • Substantial increase in size of world’s deserts • Monumental typhoons, 2× the normal yearly agency • Either profound monsoons, regularly, or near-complete fail-to-show • Pan-African equatoral drought • Rapid heat-stress extinction of pelagic fish species • +5° C or greater mid-Pacific whole-ocean warming • Extension of The Citrus Belt into Canada • Failure of the Gulf Stream, unaccountably Yep, these in whole would do it. The ESSENCE of a good call-to-arms is the rapid impostion of hardship … and the broad multidisciplinary agreement as to its bad actor agents … and in turn a pölïtical “mood” to step up funding and leadership on addressing the causal agents head on. For that you need a Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.™) narrative to grab headlines and keep people banging on the bronze gates of governments around the world, demanding full on change. You need piles of old people stacked in frozen European cities due to the Gulf Stream failure, and mile-long lines of people hoping for a bowl of soup at the government soup-kitchen outlets. You need videos of youth overturning ICE cars, and burning them in barricades. And you need pontificating drones (ah, em… academics) reminding that we’re all in it together, and we need to separate only a handful of heads from their menda

    Reply
  78. Yep. Its a good word. Mark it in your diary.Bûllsnot always rises to the top of the cream first!Conservatoad din’t get the same traction.’Cuz there certainly are conservatıve toads. GoatGuy

    Reply
  79. We are going to nothing that is what humans do they see the meteorite and they let it hit earth only in movies humans do something humans are lazy and only act in self interest.

    Reply
  80. That’s why the rhetoric is increasing its volume and appeals to emotion.The plight of the poor countless victims of not seeing a rainbow or a flower bloom due to AGW can’t be measured with your cool metrics and indicators.Their tears and anguish can’t be calmed down with mere technology and policies based on reason. No we need a complete paradigm change of our behavior and consciousness towards a planet aware ethical framework that takes into account the feelings and perceptions of the countless (they can’t be counted if you include the animals and plants) victims.Something that perfectly fits the Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked approach.”

    Reply
  81. So… echoing our Fine Leader’s cue what would be the Paris Moment event(s) that’d convince the majority of people to fast-track substantial cuts to our individual and societal carbon fuel burning CO₂ emissions? I’m afraid tho’ I read the cover article end-to-end I also did so lightly enough to have missed Brian’s central causal point if there was one.What would it be?Mmmmm… let’s see…• rapid rise in CAT–5 or higher hurricanes• regular hurricanes hitting Europe• 120°+ F (50°+ C) heatwaves in temperate America Europe Asia• Snowless Sierras in winter; rain only• Failure of Switzerland’s ski resorts and others across Europe• Substantial increase in size of world’s deserts• Monumental typhoons 2× the normal yearly agency• Either profound monsoons regularly or near-complete fail-to-show• Pan-African equatoral drought• Rapid heat-stress extinction of pelagic fish species• +5° C or greater mid-Pacific whole-ocean warming• Extension of The Citrus Belt into Canada• Failure of the Gulf Stream unaccountablyYep these in whole would do it. The ESSENCE of a good call-to-arms is the rapid impostion of hardship … and the broad multidisciplinary agreement as to its bad actor agents … and in turn a pölïtical “mood” to step up funding and leadership on addressing the causal agents head on. For that you need a Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.™) narrative to grab headlines and keep people banging on the bronze gates of governments around the world demanding full on change. You need piles of old people stacked in frozen European cities due to the Gulf Stream failure and mile-long lines of people hoping for a bowl of soup at the government soup-kitchen outlets. You need videos of youth overturning ICE cars and burning them in barricades. And you need pontificating drones (ah em… academics) reminding that we’re all in it together and we need to separate only a handful of h

    Reply
  82. without the equivalent of a climate fall of France””France surrendered. AFTER they sold out the Poles.Remember?”””

    Reply
  83. Know how the westerners living in the ARAMCO Saudi Arabian closed communities get bacon imported? The Saudis simply allowed the meat to be called ‘breakfast beef’ and that was that. People will find ways around. Rent seeking will be real popular so soon you will find ‘breakfast beef’ exemptions in any Carbon Tax. This is America….:)

    Reply
  84. Know how the westerners living in the ARAMCO Saudi Arabian closed communities get bacon imported? The Saudis simply allowed the meat to be called ‘breakfast beef’ and that was that. People will find ways around. Rent seeking will be real popular so soon you will find ‘breakfast beef’ exemptions in any Carbon Tax. This is America….:)

    Reply
  85. If they’re competitive, let’s see them compete: Remove the subsidies and mandates, and see if utilities still buy the power.

    Reply
  86. If they’re competitive let’s see them compete: Remove the subsidies and mandates and see if utilities still buy the power.

    Reply
  87. NOW THAT is a good point. Green economists (what few that there are as most Greentards don’t seem to know a thing about economics) have promoted just that idea for a couple of decades now. I believe Amory Lovins and Lester Brown were big proponents of this idea. …strange how every politician who promotes a carbon tax does not promote tax neutrality by cutting/eliminating those other taxes, tho. No. I take that back. Not strange at all.

    Reply
  88. I read on Matteo Martini’s Facebook page that a) the world is flat and b) all Americans should be genocidally exterminated. Does that count?

    Reply
  89. I have. I have even been told by one that he was expressly instructed to keep whatever views he held on global warming to himself. Why? Because it might threaten the funding of the ‘climate research’ grant folks in other departments at the university he works at. He himself was a physics instructor. And then there is retired scientist after retired scientist that have blown the whistle, too.

    Reply
  90. They actually would profit from climate change, because they have a lot of frozen land in the north part of their country. It will be soggy for a while, until the permafrost melt drains away, but it will be good farmland and places to live afterwards.

    Reply
  91. Trump’s solar tariff cancels out the tax credit, and both are scheduled to phase out the next several years. So solar is already standing on its own feet. Coal doesn’t pay for its non-CO2 pollution (particulates, contamination of streams, etc.), so it is still getting away without full costing.

    Reply
  92. NOW THAT is a good point. Green economists (what few that there are as most Greentards don’t seem to know a thing about economics) have promoted just that idea for a couple of decades now. I believe Amory Lovins and Lester Brown were big proponents of this idea….strange how every politician who promotes a carbon tax does not promote tax neutrality by cutting/eliminating those other taxes tho.No. I take that back. Not strange at all.

    Reply
  93. I read on Matteo Martini’s Facebook page that a) the world is flat and b) all Americans should be genocidally exterminated. Does that count?

    Reply
  94. I have. I have even been told by one that he was expressly instructed to keep whatever views he held on global warming to himself. Why? Because it might threaten the funding of the ‘climate research’ grant folks in other departments at the university he works at. He himself was a physics instructor.And then there is retired scientist after retired scientist that have blown the whistle too.

    Reply
  95. They actually would profit from climate change because they have a lot of frozen land in the north part of their country. It will be soggy for a while until the permafrost melt drains away but it will be good farmland and places to live afterwards.

    Reply
  96. Trump’s solar tariff cancels out the tax credit and both are scheduled to phase out the next several years. So solar is already standing on its own feet. Coal doesn’t pay for its non-CO2 pollution (particulates contamination of streams etc.) so it is still getting away without full costing.

    Reply
  97. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006. Then, “In 2009, Bob Inglis, then a Republican representative from South Carolina, introduced H.R. 2380, or the “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act,” an upstream carbon tax that would have used all revenue to reduce payroll taxes. In the 2010 primary, he was challenged by a Tea Party candidate and defeated. (McCain was also challenged from the right that year, and subsequently backed away from climate policy.)” New Yorker Nov 2015.

    Reply
  98. Tom this post basically proves you have absolutely no credibility. Z. Hausfather, M.J. Menne, C.N. Williams, T. Masters, R. Broberg, and D. Jones, “Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 118, pp. 481-494, 2013. Quansheng Ge, Fang Wang and Juerg Luterbacher, Improved estimation of average warming trend of China from 1951–2010 based on satellite observed land-use data, Climatic Change, 121, 2, (365), (2013). V. Capparelli, C. Franzke, A. Vecchio, M. P. Freeman, N. W. Watkins and V. Carbone, A spatiotemporal analysis of U.S. station temperature trends over the last century, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118, 14, (7427-7434), (2013). Gilbert P. Compo, Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Jeffrey S. Whitaker, Philip Brohan, Philip D. Jones and Chesley McColl, Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 12, (3170-3174), (2013). Kevin Gallo and George Xian, Application of spatially gridded temperature and land cover data sets for urban heat island analysis, Urban Climate, 8, (1), (2014). Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way, Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 140, 683, (1935-1944), (2014). Brian V. Smoliak, Peter K. Snyder, Tracy E. Twine, Phillip M. Mykleby and William F. Hertel, Dense Network Observations of the Twin Cities Canopy-Layer Urban Heat Island*, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0239.1, 54, 9, (1899-1917), (2015). Ping YANG, Zi-Niu XIAO and Meng-Shu YE, Cooling effect of urban parks and their relationship with urban heat islands, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 9, 4, (298), (2016). Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Matthew J. Menne and Claude N. Williams, Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network

    Reply
  99. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.ThenIn 2009″ Bob Inglis then a Republican representative from South Carolina introduced H.R. 2380 or the “Raise Wages Cut Carbon Act” an upstream carbon tax that would have used all revenue to reduce payroll taxes. In the 2010 primary he was challenged by a Tea Party candidate and defeated. (McCain was also challenged from the right that year” and subsequently backed away from climate policy.)””New Yorker Nov 2015.”””””””

    Reply
  100. Tom this post basically proves you have absolutely no credibility.Z. Hausfather M.J. Menne C.N. Williams T. Masters R. Broberg and D. Jones Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records””” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres vol. 118 pp. 481-494 2013. Quansheng Ge Fang Wang and Juerg Luterbacher Improved estimation of average warming trend of China from 1951–2010 based on satellite observed land-use data Climatic Change1212-365 (2013).V. Capparelli C. Franzke A. Vecchio M. P. Freeman N. W. Watkins and V. Carbone A spatiotemporal analysis of U.S. station temperature trends over the last century Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres11814 (7427-7434) (2013).Gilbert P. Compo Prashant D. Sardeshmukh Jeffrey S. Whitaker Philip Brohan Philip D. Jones and Chesley McColl Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures Geophysical Research Letters4012 (3170-3174) (2013).Kevin Gallo and George Xian Application of spatially gridded temperature and land cover data sets for urban heat island analysis Urban Climate8-1 (2014).Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society140683 (1935-1944) (2014).Brian V. Smoliak Peter K. Snyder Tracy E. Twine Phillip M. Mykleby and William F. Hertel Dense Network Observations of the Twin Cities Canopy-Layer Urban Heat Island* Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0239.1549 (1899-1917) (2015).Ping YANG Zi-Niu XIAO and Meng-Shu YE Cooling effect of urban parks and their relationship with urban heat islands Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters94-298 (2016).Zeke Hausfather Kevin Cowtan Matthew J. Menne and Claude N. Williams Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the U.S. Climate Reference Network Geophysic”

    Reply
  101. EVERY politician/party never talks of revenue neutrality. Oh whoops, ok well if they do, then its not in their actual legislation they propose. Oh ok, well when it is in their legislation it gets shot down. What is your point? Why does it get shot down? In fact people are still trying to get such a thing through. Only this year the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act (S. 2368 and H.R. 4926), which would implement a carbon tax, was introduced into the House and Senate by Senators Whitehouse (D-RI) and Schatz (D-HI), and Congressmen Blumenauer (D-OR) and Cicilline (D-RI). This act sets a fee starting at $50 per metric ton of emissions in 2019 to increase annually by two percent, It also requires that the revenue generated from the tax be used to give individuals an annual $800 refundable tax credit, meaning that the carbon tax revenue would be subtracted from the amount U.S. citizens pay for taxes. And elsewhere, such a thing has gone through. Ever heard of BC Canada? While these implementations may not be perfect they are steps in the right direction. At the moment Trump is finding every possible way he can ramp up GHGs. WTF? If I was religious I’d be calling him the antichrist.

    Reply
  102. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. ” WRONG. EVERY politician/party that pushes the carbon tax never talk about revenue neutrality. Both here as well as in Europe. Or worse, they ‘talk’ alright…but its not in any of their actual white papers or even legislation that they propose. Or for the few boy scouts who are the exception…like your Bob Inglis…it goes nowhere or gets cut out (same thing as going nowhere) of said proposed legislation. Or it is in there but it doesn’t matter, because the legislation is still not going anywhere but the politician in question gets to cynically claim that he pushed it. That might have happened to poor Bob also. Who knows? “Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.” Gore never promoted revenue neutrality as far as I know. He may have said something about it. But none of his proposals he actually pushed had it. He didn’t for this BTU tax proposal he tried to get pushed in Clinton’s first year in office nor for carbon taxation. Besides, he’d rather sell bogus ‘carbon credits’ than push for carbon taxes. He made most of his money that way, remember?

    Reply
  103. EVERY politician/party never talks of revenue neutrality. Oh whoops ok well if they do then its not in their actual legislation they propose. Oh ok well when it is in their legislation it gets shot down.What is your point?Why does it get shot down?In fact people are still trying to get such a thing through.Only this year the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act (S. 2368 and H.R. 4926) which would implement a carbon tax was introduced into the House and Senate by Senators Whitehouse (D-RI) and Schatz (D-HI) and Congressmen Blumenauer (D-OR) and Cicilline (D-RI).This act sets a fee starting at $50 per metric ton of emissions in 2019 to increase annually by two percent It also requires that the revenue generated from the tax be used to give individuals an annual $800 refundable tax credit meaning that the carbon tax revenue would be subtracted from the amount U.S. citizens pay for taxes.And elsewhere” such a thing has gone through. Ever heard of BC Canada?While these implementations may not be perfect they are steps in the right direction. At the moment Trump is finding every possible way he can ramp up GHGs. WTF? If I was religious I’d be calling him the antichrist.”

    Reply
  104. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. “”WRONG. EVERY politician/party that pushes the carbon tax never talk about revenue neutrality. Both here as well as in Europe. Or worse”” they ‘talk’ alright…but its not in any of their actual white papers or even legislation that they propose. Or for the few boy scouts who are the exception…like your Bob Inglis…it goes nowhere or gets cut out (same thing as going nowhere) of said proposed legislation. Or it is in there but it doesn’t matter”” because the legislation is still not going anywhere but the politician in question gets to cynically claim that he pushed it. That might have happened to poor Bob also. Who knows?””””Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.””””Gore never promoted revenue neutrality as far as I know. He may have said something about it. But none of his proposals he actually pushed had it. He didn’t for this BTU tax proposal he tried to get pushed in Clinton’s first year in office nor for carbon taxation. Besides”” he’d rather sell bogus ‘carbon credits’ than push for carbon taxes. He made most of his money that way”” remember?”””

    Reply
  105. EVERY politician/party never talks of revenue neutrality. Oh whoops, ok well if they do, then its not in their actual legislation they propose. Oh ok, well when it is in their legislation it gets shot down. What is your point? Why does it get shot down? In fact people are still trying to get such a thing through. Only this year the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act (S. 2368 and H.R. 4926), which would implement a carbon tax, was introduced into the House and Senate by Senators Whitehouse (D-RI) and Schatz (D-HI), and Congressmen Blumenauer (D-OR) and Cicilline (D-RI). This act sets a fee starting at $50 per metric ton of emissions in 2019 to increase annually by two percent, It also requires that the revenue generated from the tax be used to give individuals an annual $800 refundable tax credit, meaning that the carbon tax revenue would be subtracted from the amount U.S. citizens pay for taxes. And elsewhere, such a thing has gone through. Ever heard of BC Canada? While these implementations may not be perfect they are steps in the right direction. At the moment Trump is finding every possible way he can ramp up GHGs. WTF? If I was religious I’d be calling him the antichrist.

    Reply
  106. EVERY politician/party never talks of revenue neutrality. Oh whoops ok well if they do then its not in their actual legislation they propose. Oh ok well when it is in their legislation it gets shot down.What is your point?Why does it get shot down?In fact people are still trying to get such a thing through.Only this year the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act (S. 2368 and H.R. 4926) which would implement a carbon tax was introduced into the House and Senate by Senators Whitehouse (D-RI) and Schatz (D-HI) and Congressmen Blumenauer (D-OR) and Cicilline (D-RI).This act sets a fee starting at $50 per metric ton of emissions in 2019 to increase annually by two percent It also requires that the revenue generated from the tax be used to give individuals an annual $800 refundable tax credit meaning that the carbon tax revenue would be subtracted from the amount U.S. citizens pay for taxes.And elsewhere” such a thing has gone through. Ever heard of BC Canada?While these implementations may not be perfect they are steps in the right direction. At the moment Trump is finding every possible way he can ramp up GHGs. WTF? If I was religious I’d be calling him the antichrist.”

    Reply
  107. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. ” WRONG. EVERY politician/party that pushes the carbon tax never talk about revenue neutrality. Both here as well as in Europe. Or worse, they ‘talk’ alright…but its not in any of their actual white papers or even legislation that they propose. Or for the few boy scouts who are the exception…like your Bob Inglis…it goes nowhere or gets cut out (same thing as going nowhere) of said proposed legislation. Or it is in there but it doesn’t matter, because the legislation is still not going anywhere but the politician in question gets to cynically claim that he pushed it. That might have happened to poor Bob also. Who knows? “Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.” Gore never promoted revenue neutrality as far as I know. He may have said something about it. But none of his proposals he actually pushed had it. He didn’t for this BTU tax proposal he tried to get pushed in Clinton’s first year in office nor for carbon taxation. Besides, he’d rather sell bogus ‘carbon credits’ than push for carbon taxes. He made most of his money that way, remember?

    Reply
  108. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. “”WRONG. EVERY politician/party that pushes the carbon tax never talk about revenue neutrality. Both here as well as in Europe. Or worse”” they ‘talk’ alright…but its not in any of their actual white papers or even legislation that they propose. Or for the few boy scouts who are the exception…like your Bob Inglis…it goes nowhere or gets cut out (same thing as going nowhere) of said proposed legislation. Or it is in there but it doesn’t matter”” because the legislation is still not going anywhere but the politician in question gets to cynically claim that he pushed it. That might have happened to poor Bob also. Who knows?””””Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.””””Gore never promoted revenue neutrality as far as I know. He may have said something about it. But none of his proposals he actually pushed had it. He didn’t for this BTU tax proposal he tried to get pushed in Clinton’s first year in office nor for carbon taxation. Besides”” he’d rather sell bogus ‘carbon credits’ than push for carbon taxes. He made most of his money that way”” remember?”””

    Reply
  109. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006. Then, “In 2009, Bob Inglis, then a Republican representative from South Carolina, introduced H.R. 2380, or the “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act,” an upstream carbon tax that would have used all revenue to reduce payroll taxes. In the 2010 primary, he was challenged by a Tea Party candidate and defeated. (McCain was also challenged from the right that year, and subsequently backed away from climate policy.)” New Yorker Nov 2015.

    Reply
  110. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.ThenIn 2009″ Bob Inglis then a Republican representative from South Carolina introduced H.R. 2380 or the “Raise Wages Cut Carbon Act” an upstream carbon tax that would have used all revenue to reduce payroll taxes. In the 2010 primary he was challenged by a Tea Party candidate and defeated. (McCain was also challenged from the right that year” and subsequently backed away from climate policy.)””New Yorker Nov 2015.”””””””

    Reply
  111. Tom this post basically proves you have absolutely no credibility. Z. Hausfather, M.J. Menne, C.N. Williams, T. Masters, R. Broberg, and D. Jones, “Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 118, pp. 481-494, 2013. Quansheng Ge, Fang Wang and Juerg Luterbacher, Improved estimation of average warming trend of China from 1951–2010 based on satellite observed land-use data, Climatic Change, 121, 2, (365), (2013). V. Capparelli, C. Franzke, A. Vecchio, M. P. Freeman, N. W. Watkins and V. Carbone, A spatiotemporal analysis of U.S. station temperature trends over the last century, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118, 14, (7427-7434), (2013). Gilbert P. Compo, Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Jeffrey S. Whitaker, Philip Brohan, Philip D. Jones and Chesley McColl, Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 12, (3170-3174), (2013). Kevin Gallo and George Xian, Application of spatially gridded temperature and land cover data sets for urban heat island analysis, Urban Climate, 8, (1), (2014). Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way, Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 140, 683, (1935-1944), (2014). Brian V. Smoliak, Peter K. Snyder, Tracy E. Twine, Phillip M. Mykleby and William F. Hertel, Dense Network Observations of the Twin Cities Canopy-Layer Urban Heat Island*, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0239.1, 54, 9, (1899-1917), (2015). Ping YANG, Zi-Niu XIAO and Meng-Shu YE, Cooling effect of urban parks and their relationship with urban heat islands, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 9, 4, (298), (2016). Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Matthew J. Menne and Claude N. Williams, Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network

    Reply
  112. Tom this post basically proves you have absolutely no credibility.Z. Hausfather M.J. Menne C.N. Williams T. Masters R. Broberg and D. Jones Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records””” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres vol. 118 pp. 481-494 2013. Quansheng Ge Fang Wang and Juerg Luterbacher Improved estimation of average warming trend of China from 1951–2010 based on satellite observed land-use data Climatic Change1212-365 (2013).V. Capparelli C. Franzke A. Vecchio M. P. Freeman N. W. Watkins and V. Carbone A spatiotemporal analysis of U.S. station temperature trends over the last century Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres11814 (7427-7434) (2013).Gilbert P. Compo Prashant D. Sardeshmukh Jeffrey S. Whitaker Philip Brohan Philip D. Jones and Chesley McColl Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures Geophysical Research Letters4012 (3170-3174) (2013).Kevin Gallo and George Xian Application of spatially gridded temperature and land cover data sets for urban heat island analysis Urban Climate8-1 (2014).Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society140683 (1935-1944) (2014).Brian V. Smoliak Peter K. Snyder Tracy E. Twine Phillip M. Mykleby and William F. Hertel Dense Network Observations of the Twin Cities Canopy-Layer Urban Heat Island* Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0239.1549 (1899-1917) (2015).Ping YANG Zi-Niu XIAO and Meng-Shu YE Cooling effect of urban parks and their relationship with urban heat islands Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters94-298 (2016).Zeke Hausfather Kevin Cowtan Matthew J. Menne and Claude N. Williams Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the U.S. Climate Reference Network Geophysic”

    Reply
  113. NOW THAT is a good point. Green economists (what few that there are as most Greentards don’t seem to know a thing about economics) have promoted just that idea for a couple of decades now. I believe Amory Lovins and Lester Brown were big proponents of this idea. …strange how every politician who promotes a carbon tax does not promote tax neutrality by cutting/eliminating those other taxes, tho. No. I take that back. Not strange at all.

    Reply
  114. NOW THAT is a good point. Green economists (what few that there are as most Greentards don’t seem to know a thing about economics) have promoted just that idea for a couple of decades now. I believe Amory Lovins and Lester Brown were big proponents of this idea….strange how every politician who promotes a carbon tax does not promote tax neutrality by cutting/eliminating those other taxes tho.No. I take that back. Not strange at all.

    Reply
  115. I read on Matteo Martini’s Facebook page that a) the world is flat and b) all Americans should be genocidally exterminated. Does that count?

    Reply
  116. I read on Matteo Martini’s Facebook page that a) the world is flat and b) all Americans should be genocidally exterminated. Does that count?

    Reply
  117. I have. I have even been told by one that he was expressly instructed to keep whatever views he held on global warming to himself. Why? Because it might threaten the funding of the ‘climate research’ grant folks in other departments at the university he works at. He himself was a physics instructor. And then there is retired scientist after retired scientist that have blown the whistle, too.

    Reply
  118. I have. I have even been told by one that he was expressly instructed to keep whatever views he held on global warming to himself. Why? Because it might threaten the funding of the ‘climate research’ grant folks in other departments at the university he works at. He himself was a physics instructor.And then there is retired scientist after retired scientist that have blown the whistle too.

    Reply
  119. They actually would profit from climate change, because they have a lot of frozen land in the north part of their country. It will be soggy for a while, until the permafrost melt drains away, but it will be good farmland and places to live afterwards.

    Reply
  120. They actually would profit from climate change because they have a lot of frozen land in the north part of their country. It will be soggy for a while until the permafrost melt drains away but it will be good farmland and places to live afterwards.

    Reply
  121. Trump’s solar tariff cancels out the tax credit, and both are scheduled to phase out the next several years. So solar is already standing on its own feet. Coal doesn’t pay for its non-CO2 pollution (particulates, contamination of streams, etc.), so it is still getting away without full costing.

    Reply
  122. Trump’s solar tariff cancels out the tax credit and both are scheduled to phase out the next several years. So solar is already standing on its own feet. Coal doesn’t pay for its non-CO2 pollution (particulates contamination of streams etc.) so it is still getting away without full costing.

    Reply
  123. “EVERY politician/party never talks of revenue neutrality. Oh whoops, ok well if they do, then its not in their actual legislation they propose. Oh ok, well when it is in their legislation it gets shot down.

    What is your point?

    Why does it get shot down?

    In fact people are still trying to get such a thing through.

    Only this year the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act (S. 2368 and H.R. 4926), which would implement a carbon tax, was introduced into the House and Senate by Senators Whitehouse (D-RI) and Schatz (D-HI), and Congressmen Blumenauer (D-OR) and Cicilline (D-RI).

    This act sets a fee starting at $50 per metric ton of emissions in 2019 to increase annually by two percent, It also requires that the revenue generated from the tax be used to give individuals an annual $800 refundable tax credit, meaning that the carbon tax revenue would be subtracted from the amount U.S. citizens pay for taxes.

    And elsewhere, such a thing has gone through. Ever heard of BC Canada?

    While these implementations may not be perfect they are steps in the right direction.

    At the moment Trump is finding every possible way he can ramp up GHGs. WTF? If I was religious I’d be calling him the antichrist.

    Reply
  124. “The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters. ”

    WRONG.

    EVERY politician/party that pushes the carbon tax never talk about revenue neutrality. Both here as well as in Europe. Or worse, they ‘talk’ alright…but its not in any of their actual white papers or even legislation that they propose. Or for the few boy scouts who are the exception…like your Bob Inglis…it goes nowhere or gets cut out (same thing as going nowhere) of said proposed legislation. Or it is in there but it doesn’t matter, because the legislation is still not going anywhere but the politician in question gets to cynically claim that he pushed it. That might have happened to poor Bob also. Who knows?

    “Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.”

    Gore never promoted revenue neutrality as far as I know. He may have said something about it. But none of his proposals he actually pushed had it.

    He didn’t for this BTU tax proposal he tried to get pushed in Clinton’s first year in office nor for carbon taxation. Besides, he’d rather sell bogus ‘carbon credits’ than push for carbon taxes. He made most of his money that way, remember?

    Reply
  125. If they’re competitive, let’s see them compete: Remove the subsidies and mandates, and see if utilities still buy the power.

    Reply
  126. If they’re competitive let’s see them compete: Remove the subsidies and mandates and see if utilities still buy the power.

    Reply
  127. The only politicians not mentioning tax neutrality are those that are distorting the truth to appease their fossil fuel lobbyists and denialist supporters.

    Your buddy Gore was probably the biggest proponent back in 2006.

    Then,

    “In 2009, Bob Inglis, then a Republican representative from South Carolina, introduced H.R. 2380, or the “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act,” an upstream carbon tax that would have used all revenue to reduce payroll taxes. In the 2010 primary, he was challenged by a Tea Party candidate and defeated. (McCain was also challenged from the right that year, and subsequently backed away from climate policy.)”

    New Yorker Nov 2015.

    Reply
  128. Tom this post basically proves you have absolutely no credibility.

    Z. Hausfather, M.J. Menne, C.N. Williams, T. Masters, R. Broberg, and D. Jones, “Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 118, pp. 481-494, 2013.

    Quansheng Ge, Fang Wang and Juerg Luterbacher, Improved estimation of average warming trend of China from 1951–2010 based on satellite observed land-use data, Climatic Change, 121, 2, (365), (2013).

    V. Capparelli, C. Franzke, A. Vecchio, M. P. Freeman, N. W. Watkins and V. Carbone, A spatiotemporal analysis of U.S. station temperature trends over the last century, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118, 14, (7427-7434), (2013).

    Gilbert P. Compo, Prashant D. Sardeshmukh, Jeffrey S. Whitaker, Philip Brohan, Philip D. Jones and Chesley McColl, Independent confirmation of global land warming without the use of station temperatures, Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 12, (3170-3174), (2013).

    Kevin Gallo and George Xian, Application of spatially gridded temperature and land cover data sets for urban heat island analysis, Urban Climate, 8, (1), (2014).

    Kevin Cowtan and Robert G. Way, Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 140, 683, (1935-1944), (2014).

    Brian V. Smoliak, Peter K. Snyder, Tracy E. Twine, Phillip M. Mykleby and William F. Hertel, Dense Network Observations of the Twin Cities Canopy-Layer Urban Heat Island*, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0239.1, 54, 9, (1899-1917), (2015).

    Ping YANG, Zi-Niu XIAO and Meng-Shu YE, Cooling effect of urban parks and their relationship with urban heat islands, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 9, 4, (298), (2016).

    Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Matthew J. Menne and Claude N. Williams, Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the U.S. Climate Reference Network, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 4, (1695-1701), (2016).

    Vahid Rahimpour Golroudbary, Yijian Zeng, Chris M. Mannaerts and Zhongbo (Bob) Su, Detecting the effect of urban land use on extreme precipitation in the Netherlands, Weather and Climate Extremes, 10.1016/j.wace.2017.07.003, 17, (36-46), (2017).

    J. Wang, S. F. B. Tett and Z. Yan, Correcting urban bias in large‐scale temperature records in China, 1980–2009, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 1, (401-408), (2017).

    Reply
  129. NOW THAT is a good point. Green economists (what few that there are as most Greentards don’t seem to know a thing about economics) have promoted just that idea for a couple of decades now. I believe Amory Lovins and Lester Brown were big proponents of this idea.

    …strange how every politician who promotes a carbon tax does not promote tax neutrality by cutting/eliminating those other taxes, tho.

    No. I take that back. Not strange at all.

    Reply
  130. I have. I have even been told by one that he was expressly instructed to keep whatever views he held on global warming to himself. Why? Because it might threaten the funding of the ‘climate research’ grant folks in other departments at the university he works at. He himself was a physics instructor.

    And then there is retired scientist after retired scientist that have blown the whistle, too.

    Reply
  131. They actually would profit from climate change, because they have a lot of frozen land in the north part of their country. It will be soggy for a while, until the permafrost melt drains away, but it will be good farmland and places to live afterwards.

    Reply
  132. Trump’s solar tariff cancels out the tax credit, and both are scheduled to phase out the next several years. So solar is already standing on its own feet. Coal doesn’t pay for its non-CO2 pollution (particulates, contamination of streams, etc.), so it is still getting away without full costing.

    Reply
  133. Know how the westerners living in the ARAMCO Saudi Arabian closed communities get bacon imported? The Saudis simply allowed the meat to be called ‘breakfast beef’ and that was that. People will find ways around. Rent seeking will be real popular so soon you will find ‘breakfast beef’ exemptions in any Carbon Tax. This is America….:)

    Reply
  134. Know how the westerners living in the ARAMCO Saudi Arabian closed communities get bacon imported? The Saudis simply allowed the meat to be called ‘breakfast beef’ and that was that. People will find ways around. Rent seeking will be real popular so soon you will find ‘breakfast beef’ exemptions in any Carbon Tax. This is America….:)

    Reply
  135. Conservatoad din’t get the same traction””Yup. Pissed the libtards off that it didn’t”””” too.”””

    Reply
  136. Yep. Its a good word. Mark it in your diary. Bûllsnot always rises to the top of the cream first! Conservatoad din’t get the same traction. ‘Cuz there certainly are conservatıve toads. GoatGuy

    Reply
  137. Yep. Its a good word. Mark it in your diary.Bûllsnot always rises to the top of the cream first!Conservatoad din’t get the same traction.’Cuz there certainly are conservatıve toads. GoatGuy

    Reply
  138. We are going to nothing, that is what humans do, they see the meteorite and they let it hit earth, only in movies humans do something, humans are lazy and only act in self interest.

    Reply
  139. We are going to nothing that is what humans do they see the meteorite and they let it hit earth only in movies humans do something humans are lazy and only act in self interest.

    Reply
  140. That’s why the rhetoric is increasing its volume and appeals to emotion. The plight of the poor countless victims of not seeing a rainbow or a flower bloom due to AGW can’t be measured with your cool metrics and indicators. Their tears and anguish can’t be calmed down with mere technology and policies based on reason. No, we need a complete paradigm change of our behavior and consciousness, towards a planet aware ethical framework that takes into account the feelings and perceptions of the countless (they can’t be counted if you include the animals and plants) victims. Something that perfectly fits the Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked approach.

    Reply
  141. That’s why the rhetoric is increasing its volume and appeals to emotion.The plight of the poor countless victims of not seeing a rainbow or a flower bloom due to AGW can’t be measured with your cool metrics and indicators.Their tears and anguish can’t be calmed down with mere technology and policies based on reason. No we need a complete paradigm change of our behavior and consciousness towards a planet aware ethical framework that takes into account the feelings and perceptions of the countless (they can’t be counted if you include the animals and plants) victims.Something that perfectly fits the Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked approach.”

    Reply
  142. So… echoing our Fine Leader’s cue, what would be the Paris Moment event(s) that’d convince the majority of people to fast-track substantial cuts to our individual and societal carbon fuel burning CO₂ emissions? I’m afraid tho’ I read the cover article end-to-end, I also did so lightly enough to have missed Brian’s central causal point if there was one. What would it be? Mmmmm… let’s see… • rapid rise in CAT–5 or higher hurricanes • regular hurricanes hitting Europe • 120°+ F (50°+ C) heatwaves in temperate America, Europe, Asia • Snowless Sierras in winter; rain only • Failure of Switzerland’s ski resorts and others across Europe • Substantial increase in size of world’s deserts • Monumental typhoons, 2× the normal yearly agency • Either profound monsoons, regularly, or near-complete fail-to-show • Pan-African equatoral drought • Rapid heat-stress extinction of pelagic fish species • +5° C or greater mid-Pacific whole-ocean warming • Extension of The Citrus Belt into Canada • Failure of the Gulf Stream, unaccountably Yep, these in whole would do it. The ESSENCE of a good call-to-arms is the rapid impostion of hardship … and the broad multidisciplinary agreement as to its bad actor agents … and in turn a pölïtical “mood” to step up funding and leadership on addressing the causal agents head on. For that you need a Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.™) narrative to grab headlines and keep people banging on the bronze gates of governments around the world, demanding full on change. You need piles of old people stacked in frozen European cities due to the Gulf Stream failure, and mile-long lines of people hoping for a bowl of soup at the government soup-kitchen outlets. You need videos of youth overturning ICE cars, and burning them in barricades. And you need pontificating drones (ah, em… academics) reminding that we’re all in it together, and we need to separate only a handful of heads from their menda

    Reply
  143. So… echoing our Fine Leader’s cue what would be the Paris Moment event(s) that’d convince the majority of people to fast-track substantial cuts to our individual and societal carbon fuel burning CO₂ emissions? I’m afraid tho’ I read the cover article end-to-end I also did so lightly enough to have missed Brian’s central causal point if there was one.What would it be?Mmmmm… let’s see…• rapid rise in CAT–5 or higher hurricanes• regular hurricanes hitting Europe• 120°+ F (50°+ C) heatwaves in temperate America Europe Asia• Snowless Sierras in winter; rain only• Failure of Switzerland’s ski resorts and others across Europe• Substantial increase in size of world’s deserts• Monumental typhoons 2× the normal yearly agency• Either profound monsoons regularly or near-complete fail-to-show• Pan-African equatoral drought• Rapid heat-stress extinction of pelagic fish species• +5° C or greater mid-Pacific whole-ocean warming• Extension of The Citrus Belt into Canada• Failure of the Gulf Stream unaccountablyYep these in whole would do it. The ESSENCE of a good call-to-arms is the rapid impostion of hardship … and the broad multidisciplinary agreement as to its bad actor agents … and in turn a pölïtical “mood” to step up funding and leadership on addressing the causal agents head on. For that you need a Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.™) narrative to grab headlines and keep people banging on the bronze gates of governments around the world demanding full on change. You need piles of old people stacked in frozen European cities due to the Gulf Stream failure and mile-long lines of people hoping for a bowl of soup at the government soup-kitchen outlets. You need videos of youth overturning ICE cars and burning them in barricades. And you need pontificating drones (ah em… academics) reminding that we’re all in it together and we need to separate only a handful of h

    Reply
  144. without the equivalent of a climate fall of France””France surrendered. AFTER they sold out the Poles.Remember?”””

    Reply
  145. As I wrote below, while other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year, Maersk’s new ice class container vessel, Venta Maersk, has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes. WHy is it the first do you think? Is it because global warming is a croc? Or could it be because they are seriously considering their near-term future commercial options because of reductions in sea ice that are already obvious?

    Reply
  146. As I wrote below while other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year Maersk’s new ice class container vessel Venta Maersk has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes.WHy is it the first do you think? Is it because global warming is a croc? Or could it be because they are seriously considering their near-term future commercial options because of reductions in sea ice that are already obvious?

    Reply
  147. Now lets imaging asking the same question again in an even different way. “consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon but offsetting this tax by reductions in income tax, payroll tax or GST.” What do you think?

    Reply
  148. Now lets imaging asking the same question again in an even different way. consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon but offsetting this tax by reductions in income tax” payroll tax or GST.””What do you think?”””

    Reply
  149. These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming, to the extent it is happening, is a really bad thing” AND then there is the Boy Who Cried Wolf! problem the Watermelons have after blaming every hurricane, tropical storm and cow fart on Global Warming…especially if the current POTUS has an (R) labelled after his name. People have begun to just roll their eyes.

    Reply
  150. These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming to the extent it is happening” is a really bad thing””AND then there is the Boy Who Cried Wolf! problem the Watermelons have after blaming every hurricane”””” tropical storm and cow fart on Global Warming…especially if the current POTUS has an (R) labelled after his name.People have begun to just roll their eyes.”””

    Reply
  151. Adn a whole host of inconvenient facts.” What a load of hot air. And the heat island effect? C’mon that was a debated topic 10 years ago. “CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist”?? On what basis? Really you sound like every other irrational denialist. I would have thought that at least you would know that competition within science globally promotes calling out any BS that is published, assuming it gets past peer review.

    Reply
  152. Adn a whole host of inconvenient facts.”” What a load of hot air. And the heat island effect? C’mon that was a debated topic 10 years ago. “”””CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist””””??On what basis? Really you sound like every other irrational denialist. I would have thought that at least you would know that competition within science globally promotes calling out any BS that is published”””” assuming it gets past peer review.”””””””

    Reply
  153. Did you just say, “libtard”? Hahahahahahahahahah….I have brainwashed ya! Took me years, but I did it! Woot! Gotta go mark this day down on the calendar!

    Reply
  154. Did you just say libtard””?Hahahahahahahahahah….I have brainwashed ya! Took me years”””” but I did it! Woot! Gotta go mark this day down on the calendar!”””

    Reply
  155. THAT is a good idea. I also saw a meme. Top part shows Trump saying, “I am all for Oxygen…Sweet, beautiful oxygen!”. Bottom part shows a libtarded protestor with a plastic bag over her entire head, suffocating.

    Reply
  156. THAT is a good idea.I also saw a meme. Top part shows Trump saying I am all for Oxygen…Sweet”” beautiful oxygen!””.Bottom part shows a libtarded protestor with a plastic bag over her entire head”””” suffocating.”””

    Reply
  157. I’m very sorry for being a dunce, but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? ” Why yes they do! It is a special calculator! This special calculator is called the “How much can we guilt-trip scam those idiots in the first world out of their wealth with all this BS?

    Reply
  158. I’m very sorry for being a dunce” but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? “”Why yes they do! It is a special calculator!This special calculator is called the “”””How much can we guilt-trip scam those idiots in the first world out of their wealth with all this BS?”””””””

    Reply
  159. I think utility scale solar farms are definitely competitive compared to their nat gas counter parts. There is of course the lack-of-economical-storage issue that requires them to have (usually) a nat gas turbine plant as backup, but those costs will eventually drop. And those the the costs I think of when people refer to total fixed costs of total solar energy production. Others refer to the not-so-elastic costs of solar panel installation – labor and other things than the solar cells themselves. Those pretty fixed costs will mean that utility solar farms will probably always be a better investment option than rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is not competitive with utility nat gas in my view because of that. Plus, grid investments necessary for handling distributive feed-in will need to soar and usually the non-homeowner rate-payers (apartment dwellers) get left holding the bag for that one. Utility scale Solar/wind would be great for providing cheap power to biofuel processing plants. Butanol is my fav: has 90% of the energy content of gasoline, can be made from cellulosic materials (grasses, wood, algae, etc) and can be pipelined.

    Reply
  160. I think utility scale solar farms are definitely competitive compared to their nat gas counter parts. There is of course the lack-of-economical-storage issue that requires them to have (usually) a nat gas turbine plant as backup but those costs will eventually drop. And those the the costs I think of when people refer to total fixed costs of total solar energy production. Others refer to the not-so-elastic costs of solar panel installation – labor and other things than the solar cells themselves. Those pretty fixed costs will mean that utility solar farms will probably always be a better investment option than rooftop solar.Rooftop solar is not competitive with utility nat gas in my view because of that. Plus grid investments necessary for handling distributive feed-in will need to soar and usually the non-homeowner rate-payers (apartment dwellers) get left holding the bag for that one.Utility scale Solar/wind would be great for providing cheap power to biofuel processing plants. Butanol is my fav: has 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the energy content of gasoline can be made from cellulosic materials (grasses wood algae etc) and can be pipelined.

    Reply
  161. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire to come” thinking. ” And…you can’t have a witch hunt w/o witches, too. The Establishment Science Grant Whoring industry depend on that latter quite heavily, in order to keep the Scam going.

    Reply
  162. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke” there’s usually fire to come” thinking. “”And…you can’t have a witch hunt w/o witches”” too.The Establishment Science Grant Whoring industry depend on that latter quite heavily”” in order to keep the Scam going.”””””””

    Reply
  163. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire to come” thinking. Anyone in Physics has booked up on or performed experiments on gas systems using simplified atmospheric models. Without excitement, increasing CO₂ increases shortwave infrared absorption, and simultaneously increases longwave IR emission. The net effect is a slight warming of Ol’ Planet Dirt’s atmosphere. Adding CO₂ — with nothing else changing — increases T of Earth. However, “with nothing else changing” is empty. Earth’s atmosphere is an enormously dynamic fluid, consisting of 10 distinct ‘weather related’ layers. It is chaotic, it is a poor mixing system, has daily heating and cooling cycles, and carries a completely capricious load of water vapor — a powerful greenhouse gas — partially mixed up with the rest. Then there are aerosols and particulate loads. Which change our average albedo (reflectivity) as a planet. Stuff we make (industrial, vehiclar and domestic exhausts), stuff we by-produce (refining, coatings degradation, manufactured product decay), and stuff we haven’t any hand in creating at all: volcanic emissions, seasonal plant ‘breathing’, rock weathering, multidecadal oceanic gyres and streams moving equatorial heat (and arctic chill) all over the place. CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist movement since it became known in the 1970s that there was a seemingly inexorable increase in the world’s CO₂ loading as instrumentally measured famously at Moana Loa in Hawaii, and another couple of dozen academic sites around the world. Every year, more. ENVIRONMENTALISTS: a grassroots awareness of Planet Earth ecosystems. One could see the poisoned rivers, garbage strewn wetlands, sloughs, byways. Industry brought disposable and nasty product by-streams to the public on a prodigious basis, and the environmentalists wanted if fixed. Hence the EPA — Environmental PROTECTION Agency. However, after

    Reply
  164. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke there’s usually fire to come” thinking. Anyone in Physics has booked up on or performed experiments on gas systems using simplified atmospheric models. Without excitement increasing CO₂ increases shortwave infrared absorption and simultaneously increases longwave IR emission. The net effect is a slight warming of Ol’ Planet Dirt’s atmosphere.Adding CO₂ — with nothing else changing — increases T of Earth. However with nothing else changing”” is empty. Earth’s atmosphere is an enormously dynamic fluid”” consisting of 10 distinct ‘weather related’ layers. It is chaotic it is a poor mixing system has daily heating and cooling cycles and carries a completely capricious load of water vapor — a powerful greenhouse gas — partially mixed up with the rest. Then there are aerosols and particulate loads. Which change our average albedo (reflectivity) as a planet. Stuff we make (industrial vehiclar and domestic exhausts) stuff we by-produce (refining coatings degradation manufactured product decay) and stuff we haven’t any hand in creating at all: volcanic emissions seasonal plant ‘breathing’ rock weathering multidecadal oceanic gyres and streams moving equatorial heat (and arctic chill) all over the place. CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist movement since it became known in the 1970s that there was a seemingly inexorable increase in the world’s CO₂ loading as instrumentally measured famously at Moana Loa in Hawaii and another couple of dozen academic sites around the world. Every year more. ENVIRONMENTALISTS: a grassroots awareness of Planet Earth ecosystems. One could see the poisoned rivers garbage strewn wetlands sloughs byways. Industry brought disposable and nasty product by-streams to the public on a prodigious basis and the environmentalists wanted if fixed. Hence the EPA — Environmental PROTECTION Agency. Howeve”

    Reply
  165. We don’t need a war effort mobilization. Simple economics will take care of things. In the US, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal, and competitive with natural gas. They have also *not stopped falling in costs*. Given a few more years, they will be cheaper than natural gas too. Most electric utilities are run for profit. As they have already demonstrated with the switch from coal to natural gas as the #1 electric source, they follow the money. Electric vehicles are just becoming competitive, but they also are not done getting cheaper. Again, people will follow the money. For the remaining fossil fuel users, we can promote synthesized sources (biofuels, hydrogen), or plant trees and grow kelp to offset the residual carbon. Those things will require effort, but not war-level effort

    Reply
  166. We don’t need a war effort mobilization. Simple economics will take care of things. In the US solar and wind are already cheaper than coal and competitive with natural gas. They have also *not stopped falling in costs*. Given a few more years they will be cheaper than natural gas too.Most electric utilities are run for profit. As they have already demonstrated with the switch from coal to natural gas as the #1 electric source they follow the money.Electric vehicles are just becoming competitive but they also are not done getting cheaper. Again people will follow the money.For the remaining fossil fuel users we can promote synthesized sources (biofuels hydrogen) or plant trees and grow kelp to offset the residual carbon. Those things will require effort but not war-level effort

    Reply
  167. ⊕1… with there being a spate of low-visibility articles in the last 24 hours citing that warmer equatorial waters in general favor the kind of reef predator fish that chomp happily on the coral-nibbler species that constantly put pressure on those precious corals. BTW — again in the same line — you’re correct in echoing the ‘news’ that the world’s sadly “bleached corals” are well on their way to recovery AND that such bleaching events appear to have a difficult-to-tease-out-but-still-there-if-you-look-hard-enough sedimentary record over the whole of the Holocene. Basically Ol Mudder Earth has thrown a lot more climate upset at the world’s corals every interglacial than the present +1° warming (in the last 75 years) has brought. A lot more. Giant volcanoes, enormous undersea magma release events, you name it. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  168. ⊕1… with there being a spate of low-visibility articles in the last 24 hours citing that warmer equatorial waters in general favor the kind of reef predator fish that chomp happily on the coral-nibbler species that constantly put pressure on those precious corals. BTW — again in the same line — you’re correct in echoing the ‘news’ that the world’s sadly “bleached corals” are well on their way to recovery AND that such bleaching events appear to have a difficult-to-tease-out-but-still-there-if-you-look-hard-enough sedimentary record over the whole of the Holocene. Basically Ol Mudder Earth has thrown a lot more climate upset at the world’s corals every interglacial than the present +1° warming (in the last 75 years) has brought. A lot more. Giant volcanoes enormous undersea magma release events you name it. Just sayingGoatGuy”

    Reply
  169. Wait, what? You mean the US actually “did the right thing” e’en though they didn’t sign the PARIS tûrd? Umm…. what’s a libtard to do? Arrgghhhhhh! Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  170. Wait what?You mean the US actually “did the right thing” e’en though they didn’t sign the PARIS tûrd?Umm…. what’s a libtard to do?Arrgghhhhhh!Just sayingGoatGuy”

    Reply
  171. The “Russians” are having a hard time profiting from pretty much everything except their prodigious crude oil and natural gas exploitation. And their heritage population continues to shrink. Not a good formula. Just saying, GoatGuy

    Reply
  172. The “Russians” are having a hard time profiting from pretty much everything except their prodigious crude oil and natural gas exploitation. And their heritage population continues to shrink. Not a good formula.Just sayingGoatGuy”

    Reply
  173. You’re right – it’s all about control – and graft. Too many times we’ve seen expensive solutions touted that end up lining SOMEONE’S pockets, and not providing anything of real use. How much energy is needed to put up a massive windmill versus what it’ll end up providing? How much energy is needed to make a massive solar panel array – and how much is recouped over the lifetime of said array? How many businesses have sprung up, then gone BK like Solyndra? It’s never seemed to me like they’re actually worried about taking care of the problem, but milking the possibility as a cash cow and an excuse to use private jets to vacation in exotic locales for ‘climate conferences’. Actual workable solutions seem jettisoned in favor of ‘carbon credits’, ‘carbon taxes’, and ‘sustainability initiatives’ that never seem to be sustainable. (See the UK going to a wood fired power plant, and IMPORTING wood pellets from the US. By ship. This is somehow better for the environment than nuclear power.) Germany shuts down nuclear power plants after the Fukushima tsunami, citing safety concerns… but Germany isn’t exactly noted for being either earthquake or tsunami-prone. What are they building instead? BROWN COAL power plants – nice and dirty. All to the drumbeat that “We only have 5 years to save the planet!”… which apparently requires the US pay for everyone else – while countries like China pollute like crazy. Well, I’ve heard the ‘Only 5 years to save the planet’ thing for 30 years now. We still have icecaps, we still have polar bears, we still have penguins and we still have the Maldives, who were supposed to be underwater a decade ago. At some point, fatigue sets in because the predictions don’t come to pass.

    Reply
  174. You’re right – it’s all about control – and graft. Too many times we’ve seen expensive solutions touted that end up lining SOMEONE’S pockets and not providing anything of real use. How much energy is needed to put up a massive windmill versus what it’ll end up providing? How much energy is needed to make a massive solar panel array – and how much is recouped over the lifetime of said array? How many businesses have sprung up then gone BK like Solyndra?It’s never seemed to me like they’re actually worried about taking care of the problem but milking the possibility as a cash cow and an excuse to use private jets to vacation in exotic locales for ‘climate conferences’. Actual workable solutions seem jettisoned in favor of ‘carbon credits’ ‘carbon taxes’ and ‘sustainability initiatives’ that never seem to be sustainable. (See the UK going to a wood fired power plant and IMPORTING wood pellets from the US. By ship. This is somehow better for the environment than nuclear power.) Germany shuts down nuclear power plants after the Fukushima tsunami citing safety concerns… but Germany isn’t exactly noted for being either earthquake or tsunami-prone. What are they building instead? BROWN COAL power plants – nice and dirty.All to the drumbeat that We only have 5 years to save the planet!””… which apparently requires the US pay for everyone else – while countries like China pollute like crazy. Well”” I’ve heard the ‘Only 5 years to save the planet’ thing for 30 years now. We still have icecaps we still have polar bears we still have penguins and we still have the Maldives who were supposed to be underwater a decade ago.At some point”” fatigue sets in because the predictions don’t come to pass.”””

    Reply
  175. Obviously, simply calling the cops would work well. He must obviously pay for the paint work who can fast be some thousand dollars. And that is obviously just an start. Luca I assume you are trolling, if not you probably don’t know how deep shit you are into. Have you thought about stuff like CVC cameras or cell phone tracking, have you posted this other places? By your statement again if you are not trolling you are behind an large series of vandalism. No police or insurance companies don’t use resources on that until the got an culprit. So you are either an troll or an idiot who has been lucky so far.

    Reply
  176. Obviously simply calling the cops would work well. He must obviously pay for the paint work who can fast be some thousand dollars. And that is obviously just an start. Luca I assume you are trolling if not you probably don’t know how deep shit you are into. Have you thought about stuff like CVC cameras or cell phone tracking have you posted this other places?By your statement again if you are not trolling you are behind an large series of vandalism. No police or insurance companies don’t use resources on that until the got an culprit. So you are either an troll or an idiot who has been lucky so far.

    Reply
  177. more bs. “However, Maersk said in a statement: “Currently, we do not see the Northern Sea Route as a commercial alternative to our existing network… Today, the passage is only feasible for around three months a year which may change with time.” Your definition “open for business” is wrong. The NSR has ben open for a long time, in the summers, since at least 1872. Wait – isn’t that WAY BEFORE global warming??

    Reply
  178. more bs. However Maersk said in a statement: “Currently we do not see the Northern Sea Route as a commercial alternative to our existing network… Today” the passage is only feasible for around three months a year which may change with time.”Your definition “”open for business”””” is wrong. The NSR has ben open for a long time”” in the summers”” since at least 1872. Wait – isn’t that WAY BEFORE global warming??”””””””

    Reply
  179. Hold on there, I call your bs. Here is the exact question from the poll “Consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this type of system?” They surveyed 455 people on the phone and 20% said “strongly support” and 27% said “somewhat support”. Now imagine asking the same question differently: “consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing fuel at the pump by $20 per gallon and increasing your utility bill by 50%. Would you…..” You think the respondents would answer differently? It is easy to agree to tax someone else, like “coal”, but not so easy to agree to pay more yourself. This is a classic “headfake” question to avoid getting a “wrong” answer. It’s the exact same approach the Bernie Sanders of the world are taking with “medicare for all”. Of course, who wouldn’t support that? Except when you also ask “do you support medicare for all if you have to pay 50% more income tax?”

    Reply
  180. Hold on there I call your bs. Here is the exact question from the poll “Consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon based fuels such as coal oil and natural gas. Would youstrongly support somewhat support somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this type of system?” They surveyed 455 people on the phone and 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} said strongly support”” and 27{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} said “”””somewhat support””””. Now imagine asking the same question differently: “”””consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing fuel at the pump by $20 per gallon and increasing your utility bill by 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. Would you…..””””You think the respondents would answer differently? It is easy to agree to tax someone else”””” like “”””coal”””””””” but not so easy to agree to pay more yourself. This is a classic “”””headfake”””” question to avoid getting a “”””wrong”””” answer. It’s the exact same approach the Bernie Sanders of the world are taking with “”””medicare for all””””. Of course”””” who wouldn’t support that? Except when you also ask “”””do you support medicare for all if you have to pay 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} more income tax?”””””””””””

    Reply
  181. Problem with carbon tax is that either its low and mostly raises tax level and prices a bit while giving the government more income. Yes it has some effects but not much. Or make it high then you loose lots of industry who moves to China there its powered by coal.

    Reply
  182. Problem with carbon tax is that either its low and mostly raises tax level and prices a bit while giving the government more income. Yes it has some effects but not much. Or make it high then you loose lots of industry who moves to China there its powered by coal.

    Reply
  183. IPCC recommends we spend about 3% of global GDP per year – starting now – on a problem that they themselves said will cost about 0.04 to 0.16% of annual GDP (to stay below 2c), sometime in the future. I’m very sorry for being a dunce, but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? Stupidity like this is why no one will believe this agenda for much longer. Certainly not the signers of the Paris Agreement. Agenda-setting goes through predictable phases. We have now reached peak AGM scaremongering. Once the rest of the public gets they’ve been fleeced, the agenda will viewed by historians as an interlude of hysteria. Many papers and books will be written about “how could this happen” and the “power of persuasion for monetary and political gain”. AGM is a perfect topic to test human gullibility. It’s got the FUD factor (fear, uncertainty, dread), it has Community, it has Offspring, it has Sense of Good. These are extremely strong human persuasion triggers and very difficult to take apart once they are established.

    Reply
  184. IPCC recommends we spend about 3{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of global GDP per year – starting now – on a problem that they themselves said will cost about 0.04 to 0.16{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of annual GDP (to stay below 2c) sometime in the future. I’m very sorry for being a dunce but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? Stupidity like this is why no one will believe this agenda for much longer. Certainly not the signers of the Paris Agreement. Agenda-setting goes through predictable phases. We have now reached peak AGM scaremongering. Once the rest of the public gets they’ve been fleeced the agenda will viewed by historians as an interlude of hysteria. Many papers and books will be written about how could this happen”” and the “”””power of persuasion for monetary and political gain””””. AGM is a perfect topic to test human gullibility. It’s got the FUD factor (fear”” uncertainty dread) it has Community it has Offspring”” it has Sense of Good. These are extremely strong human persuasion triggers and very difficult to take apart once they are established.”””

    Reply
  185. As for today I look like pretty alive If I stop comment here you may think that I could have got caught or maybe got bored of you, Warren Regards

    Reply
  186. As for today I look like pretty alive If I stop comment here you may think that I could have got caught or maybe got bored of you Warren Regards

    Reply
  187. Apparently bleaching of coral is a” fairly routine thing, that they recover from. ” Where did you read this? Fox news? Disney Channel? Not that thre is much difference

    Reply
  188. Apparently bleaching of coral is a”” fairly routine thing”””” that they recover from. “””” Where did you read this? Fox news? Disney Channel? Not that thre is much difference”””

    Reply
  189. I have to say, you endorsing the “solutions” which the AGW fraudsters want is you adopting what for many will be a final solution.

    Reply
  190. I have to say you endorsing the solutions”” which the AGW fraudsters want is you adopting what for many will be a final solution.”””

    Reply
  191. And the human CO2 = AGW fraud is only about 30 years old and it has money and prestige furthering it’s reinforcement. They have “been caught” the whole of the “evidence for AGW comes not from measurement but from adjustments to the measurements which can not be justified.

    Reply
  192. And the human CO2 = AGW fraud is only about 30 years old and it has money and prestige furthering it’s reinforcement. They have been caught”” the whole of the “”””evidence for AGW comes not from measurement but from adjustments to the measurements which can not be justified.”””

    Reply
  193. Well it’s been decades for climate change as well, with at least as much, if not more scrutiny paid to it than evolution, quantum physics and general relativity. Small, relatively insignificant fraudulent claims are understandably less likely to get caught. Anyone with half a brain can see this. “willing to do great evil”? I have to say you are sounding a bit wacky.

    Reply
  194. Well it’s been decades for climate change as well with at least as much if not more scrutiny paid to it than evolution quantum physics and general relativity. Small relatively insignificant fraudulent claims are understandably less likely to get caught. Anyone with half a brain can see this. willing to do great evil””? I have to say you are sounding a bit wacky.”””

    Reply
  195. I think terrorism merits the death penalty well. Particularly terrorism done is service to the human extinction promoting AGW pro-death cult.

    Reply
  196. I think terrorism merits the death penalty well. Particularly terrorism done is service to the human extinction promoting AGW pro-death cult.

    Reply
  197. I think shooting someone for a minor crime like keying a car will bring you to death penalty So people are not going to do it

    Reply
  198. I think shooting someone for a minor crime like keying a car will bring you to death penalty So people are not going to do it

    Reply
  199. I already know about it. There is nothing remarkable about a reinforced for ice steel ship transiting the NW passage. ” If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves

    Reply
  200. I already know about it. There is nothing remarkable about a reinforced for ice steel ship transiting the NW passage. If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves “” “””

    Reply
  201. While other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year, Maersk’s new ice class container vessel, Venta Maersk, has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes. Just google it and you find a dozen articles about it. If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves since scientists, from what ever discipline, are in competition with one another all over the world. This is how science self-corrects over time and I have been involved in this type of exercise myself.

    Reply
  202. While other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year Maersk’s new ice class container vessel Venta Maersk has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes. Just google it and you find a dozen articles about it. If you understood how science works you would also realize that any falsification such as the type you claim would be taken apart by climate scientists themselves since scientists from what ever discipline are in competition with one another all over the world. This is how science self-corrects over time and I have been involved in this type of exercise myself.

    Reply
  203. Doesn’t matter when it’s projected it might melt, A) it won’t, B) those Viking settlements being uncovered–they were ice free to become settlements without any noticeable human released “magically evil” CO2 to make it so. ” I key cars. See a SUV and go go with the key ” I hope I hear someday of you being shot dead. You are one of those going through life screaming, “Killl me, kill me.

    Reply
  204. Doesn’t matter when it’s projected it might melt A) it won’t B) those Viking settlements being uncovered–they were ice free to become settlements without any noticeable human released magically evil”” CO2 to make it so.”””” I key cars. See a SUV and go go with the key “”””I hope I hear someday of you being shot dead. You are one of those going through life screaming”””” “”””Killl me”””” kill me.”””””””

    Reply
  205. No, it ain’t. Last time a bunch of boats tried tog o that way they needed an, wait for it… …icebreaker. And the Venta Meersk is specially constructed to deal with ice, at that. It has always been true throughout recorded history you might, even with a wooden boat, get through the NW passage. What you are pretending is new and different, is same old, same old.

    Reply
  206. No it ain’t. Last time a bunch of boats tried tog o that way they needed an wait for it……icebreaker.And the Venta Meersk is specially constructed to deal with ice at that. It has always been true throughout recorded history you might even with a wooden boat get through the NW passage. What you are pretending is new and different is same old same old.

    Reply
  207. Know how the westerners living in the ARAMCO Saudi Arabian closed communities get bacon imported? The Saudis simply allowed the meat to be called ‘breakfast beef’ and that was that.

    People will find ways around. Rent seeking will be real popular so soon you will find ‘breakfast beef’ exemptions in any Carbon Tax. This is America….:)

    Reply
  208. Yep. Its a good word.
    Mark it in your diary.

    Bûllsnot always rises to the top of the cream first!

    Conservatoad din’t get the same traction.
    ‘Cuz there certainly are conservatıve toads.
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  209. It’s quite possible half the population think they’d be happy for the government to implement a carbon tax. But I guarantee that if the government DID implement one, they’d be very unhappy indeed, because they’re not thinking about how much it would hurt them.

    Reply
  210. It’s quite possible half the population think they’d be happy for the government to implement a carbon tax. But I guarantee that if the government DID implement one they’d be very unhappy indeed because they’re not thinking about how much it would hurt them.

    Reply
  211. Damage to coral has already happened. ” But it has yet to be established that it’s related to warming. Apparently bleaching of coral is a fairly routine thing, that they recover from. Somewhat similar to the polar ozone hole, which we found the first time we ever looked, and inexplicably assumed was new… Except that it has probably been forming every winter for thousands of years. I guess the key point here is correct: These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming, to the extent it is happening, is a really bad thing. The real question, of course, is if such an event happened, would it even make sense to do the insanely expensive things the IPCC is demanding? Rather than spending the same money on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy, and doing a bit of ocean fertilization?

    Reply
  212. Damage to coral has already happened. “”But it has yet to be established that it’s related to warming. Apparently bleaching of coral is a fairly routine thing”” that they recover from.Somewhat similar to the polar ozone hole which we found the first time we ever looked and inexplicably assumed was new… Except that it has probably been forming every winter for thousands of years.I guess the key point here is correct: These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming to the extent it is happening is a really bad thing.The real question of course is if such an event happened would it even make sense to do the insanely expensive things the IPCC is demanding? Rather than spending the same money on replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy”” and doing a bit of ocean fertilization?”””

    Reply
  213. We are going to nothing, that is what humans do, they see the meteorite and they let it hit earth, only in movies humans do something, humans are lazy and only act in self interest.

    Reply
  214. That’s why the rhetoric is increasing its volume and appeals to emotion.

    The plight of the poor countless victims of not seeing a rainbow or a flower bloom due to AGW can’t be measured with your cool metrics and indicators.

    Their tears and anguish can’t be calmed down with mere technology and policies based on reason. No, we need a complete paradigm change of our behavior and consciousness, towards a planet aware ethical framework that takes into account the feelings and perceptions of the countless (they can’t be counted if you include the animals and plants) victims.

    Something that perfectly fits the Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked approach.

    Reply
  215. I am surprised that so few demand studies that show increased greenhouse effect as a function of increased carbon dioxide levels. The truth is, no one has managed to detect such a thing, but we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The fact that the earth does not radiate less energy in the IR band, the carbon dioxide molecule act as greenhouse gas is known since first measurements from space. The saturation drops towards the ground as it increases and it would give hotspots over the tropics if the saturation 20 years ago was over 7 km which it does not. Quite interesting with such an expensive phenomenon that is not allowed scientific review. However, I would like the climate war if it was fought with shiny weapons. mass production of nuclear power GenIV, which is the only technology we know now, works for global welfare by 2050, which is the minimum requirement for global environmental protection and a friendly stop of population. No geo-engineering no focus on technicians with the potential to compete globally against oil and coal, but massive support for increased taxes, extinct rules and increasing numbers of soldiers in the climate war, tell me with the desirable clarity that the climate war is not about climate or the environment.

    Reply
  216. I am surprised that so few demand studies that show increased greenhouse effect as a function of increased carbon dioxide levels. The truth is no one has managed to detect such a thing but we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The fact that the earth does not radiate less energy in the IR band the carbon dioxide molecule act as greenhouse gas is known since first measurements from space. The saturation drops towards the ground as it increases and it would give hotspots over the tropics if the saturation 20 years ago was over 7 km which it does not. Quite interesting with such an expensive phenomenon that is not allowed scientific review. However I would like the climate war if it was fought with shiny weapons. mass production of nuclear power GenIV which is the only technology we know now works for global welfare by 2050 which is the minimum requirement for global environmental protection and a friendly stop of population. No geo-engineering no focus on technicians with the potential to compete globally against oil and coal but massive support for increased taxes extinct rules and increasing numbers of soldiers in the climate war tell me with the desirable clarity that the climate war is not about climate or the environment.

    Reply
  217. So… echoing our Fine Leader’s cue, what would be the Paris Moment event(s) that’d convince the majority of people to fast-track substantial cuts to our individual and societal carbon fuel burning CO₂ emissions? I’m afraid tho’ I read the cover article end-to-end, I also did so lightly enough to have missed Brian’s central causal point if there was one.

    What would it be?
    Mmmmm… let’s see…

    • rapid rise in CAT–5 or higher hurricanes
    • regular hurricanes hitting Europe
    • 120°+ F (50°+ C) heatwaves in temperate America, Europe, Asia
    • Snowless Sierras in winter; rain only
    • Failure of Switzerland’s ski resorts and others across Europe
    • Substantial increase in size of world’s deserts
    • Monumental typhoons, 2× the normal yearly agency
    • Either profound monsoons, regularly, or near-complete fail-to-show
    • Pan-African equatoral drought
    • Rapid heat-stress extinction of pelagic fish species
    • +5° C or greater mid-Pacific whole-ocean warming
    • Extension of The Citrus Belt into Canada
    • Failure of the Gulf Stream, unaccountably

    Yep, these in whole would do it. The ESSENCE of a good call-to-arms is the rapid impostion of hardship … and the broad multidisciplinary agreement as to its bad actor agents … and in turn a pölïtical “mood” to step up funding and leadership on addressing the causal agents head on.

    For that you need a Big Urban Lıberal Leaning Statistical Hardships Individually Tracked (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.™) narrative to grab headlines and keep people banging on the bronze gates of governments around the world, demanding full on change. You need piles of old people stacked in frozen European cities due to the Gulf Stream failure, and mile-long lines of people hoping for a bowl of soup at the government soup-kitchen outlets.

    You need videos of youth overturning ICE cars, and burning them in barricades.

    And you need pontificating drones (ah, em… academics) reminding that we’re all in it together, and we need to separate only a handful of heads from their mendacious shoulders in order to really effect a change in the new world order.

    Yes, that’s all.

    And that — THANKFULLY — I don’t see coming anytime soon. Even to a theatre near you.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  218. As I wrote below, while other ships have sailed it and the route is still only available for a couple of months a year, Maersk’s new ice class container vessel, Venta Maersk, has now become the first container ship to navigate the Russian Arctic as the ice pack melts and recedes.

    WHy is it the first do you think? Is it because global warming is a croc? Or could it be because they are seriously considering their near-term future commercial options because of reductions in sea ice that are already obvious?

    Reply
  219. Now lets imaging asking the same question again in an even different way.

    “consider a policy to reduce greenhouse gases by taxing carbon but offsetting this tax by reductions in income tax, payroll tax or GST.”

    What do you think?

    Reply
  220. ” These insanely expensive proposals aren’t going anywhere unless there’s some conspicuous bad event that can be clearly linked to global warming. But that’s just to say that there isn’t a lot of evidence at this point that warming, to the extent it is happening, is a really bad thing”

    AND then there is the Boy Who Cried Wolf! problem the Watermelons have after blaming every hurricane, tropical storm and cow fart on Global Warming…especially if the current POTUS has an (R) labelled after his name.

    People have begun to just roll their eyes.

    Reply
  221. “Adn a whole host of inconvenient facts.”

    What a load of hot air. And the heat island effect? C’mon that was a debated topic 10 years ago.

    “CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist”??

    On what basis?

    Really you sound like every other irrational denialist. I would have thought that at least you would know that competition within science globally promotes calling out any BS that is published, assuming it gets past peer review.

    Reply
  222. THAT is a good idea.

    I also saw a meme. Top part shows Trump saying, “I am all for Oxygen…Sweet, beautiful oxygen!”.

    Bottom part shows a libtarded protestor with a plastic bag over her entire head, suffocating.

    Reply
  223. “I’m very sorry for being a dunce, but does anyone at the UN have a pocket calculator? ”

    Why yes they do! It is a special calculator!

    This special calculator is called the “How much can we guilt-trip scam those idiots in the first world out of their wealth with all this BS?”

    Reply
  224. I think utility scale solar farms are definitely competitive compared to their nat gas counter parts. There is of course the lack-of-economical-storage issue that requires them to have (usually) a nat gas turbine plant as backup, but those costs will eventually drop. And those the the costs I think of when people refer to total fixed costs of total solar energy production.

    Others refer to the not-so-elastic costs of solar panel installation – labor and other things than the solar cells themselves. Those pretty fixed costs will mean that utility solar farms will probably always be a better investment option than rooftop solar.

    Rooftop solar is not competitive with utility nat gas in my view because of that. Plus, grid investments necessary for handling distributive feed-in will need to soar and usually the non-homeowner rate-payers (apartment dwellers) get left holding the bag for that one.

    Utility scale Solar/wind would be great for providing cheap power to biofuel processing plants. Butanol is my fav: has 90% of the energy content of gasoline, can be made from cellulosic materials (grasses, wood, algae, etc) and can be pipelined.

    Reply
  225. “The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire to come” thinking. ”

    And…you can’t have a witch hunt w/o witches, too.

    The Establishment Science Grant Whoring industry depend on that latter quite heavily, in order to keep the Scam going.

    Reply
  226. The environmentalist movement depends HEAVILY on the “where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire to come” thinking.

    Anyone in Physics has booked up on or performed experiments on gas systems using simplified atmospheric models.

    Without excitement, increasing CO₂ increases shortwave infrared absorption, and simultaneously increases longwave IR emission. The net effect is a slight warming of Ol’ Planet Dirt’s atmosphere.

    Adding CO₂ — with nothing else changing — increases T of Earth.

    However, “with nothing else changing” is empty. Earth’s atmosphere is an enormously dynamic fluid, consisting of 10 distinct ‘weather related’ layers. It is chaotic, it is a poor mixing system, has daily heating and cooling cycles, and carries a completely capricious load of water vapor — a powerful greenhouse gas — partially mixed up with the rest.

    Then there are aerosols and particulate loads. Which change our average albedo (reflectivity) as a planet. Stuff we make (industrial, vehiclar and domestic exhausts), stuff we by-produce (refining, coatings degradation, manufactured product decay), and stuff we haven’t any hand in creating at all: volcanic emissions, seasonal plant ‘breathing’, rock weathering, multidecadal oceanic gyres and streams moving equatorial heat (and arctic chill) all over the place.

    CLIMATE SCIENCE has been coöpted by the environtmentalist movement since it became known in the 1970s that there was a seemingly inexorable increase in the world’s CO₂ loading as instrumentally measured famously at Moana Loa in Hawaii, and another couple of dozen academic sites around the world. Every year, more.

    ENVIRONMENTALISTS: a grassroots awareness of Planet Earth ecosystems. One could see the poisoned rivers, garbage strewn wetlands, sloughs, byways. Industry brought disposable and nasty product by-streams to the public on a prodigious basis, and the environmentalists wanted if fixed. Hence the EPA — Environmental PROTECTION Agency.

    However, after high-profile wins, (addressing “Acid Rain”, squashing smokestack spew, cleaning up most of the country’s rivers and creeks, putting the lid on earth-abusive mining practices, taking on toxic pigments (lead), toxic chemical inclusin in domestic and industrial products. All that.

    ALL very good stuff, right?

    The environmentalism movement has come to the conclusion that there ain’t no more “Low Hanging Fruit”. So what to address next?

    Well, CO₂.

    But is it really as bad as pitched?
    I don’t think so: there is substantial bias in the instrumental record.
    Substantial.

    “Heat Island Effect” — google that.
    As well as a glaring lack of net oceanic evidence for general warming.
    But there are other measures that seem to correlate.

    Adn a whole host of inconvenient facts.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  227. We don’t need a war effort mobilization. Simple economics will take care of things. In the US, solar and wind are already cheaper than coal, and competitive with natural gas. They have also *not stopped falling in costs*. Given a few more years, they will be cheaper than natural gas too.

    Most electric utilities are run for profit. As they have already demonstrated with the switch from coal to natural gas as the #1 electric source, t