In 2019 Australia voted the Coalition in to lead the Federal government primarily because the Labor Party could not cost their plan to save the planet from climate change. Well, the Coalition won and has been doing exactly what the Labor Party lost the election over. The Coalition is spending millions if not billions on renewables all for cutting emissions and hypothetically saving the planet from disaster!
Sleepy Joe Biden doesn’t have too long on this earth and what time he does have should be in an old folks home bothering the nurses but there are some thinking Creepy Joe can save the planet! Whatever! ‘Writing in The Diatribe (formally The Conversation) a non-climate-scientist named Edward R. Carr who nevertheless serves the IPCC in a scientific advisory capacity says while the election of Joe Biden will save the planet because we know what to do, it might not because we don’t know what to do. After listing all the things the next President “can do quickly” while bypassing Congress, advice he probably didn’t give Donald Trump, he says “One of the big challenges – and the place where Biden needs to start – is the lack of understanding of systemic risks, opportunities and costs of both climate actions and inaction.” What? You don’t know what’s happening, what to do about it or what it would cost? You used to sound so sure. But not now. And why? Because (gasp thud) “Right now, there is no federal agency tasked with developing a systemic understanding of climate change impacts across society.” Right. Other than the 13 agencies that prepare the US National Climate Assessment every four years. But what we need now is more bureaucracy.
Whatever one thinks of the proposed solution, the admission of ignorance is important. And certainly true. We do not know nearly as much about climate change as we wish we did or, indeed, many people shout that we do. For instance, to take just one small settled piece of the settled science, namely Greenland glaciers, researchers at Hokkaido University just declared triumphantly that the long-hypothesized 1,000-km-long river of meltwater deep within the ice might exist unless it doesn’t.
We ask your leave to quote a lengthy passage here because it gives some insight into what science does, and does not, actually say. “Radar surveys have previously mapped Greenland’s bedrock buried beneath two to three thousand meters of ice. Mathematical models were used to fill in the gaps in survey data and infer bedrock depths. The surveys revealed the long valley, but suggested it was segmented, preventing water from flowing freely through it. However, the peaks breaking the valley into segments only show up in areas where the mathematical modelling was used to fill in missing data, so could not be real.” So a survey of actual data suggested a segmented river because models filled in gaps. Which is the opposite of actual data. But now another model says if we erase the gaps inside the computer then something we can’t name might happen unless it doesn’t. “’The results are consistent with a long subglacial river,’ [co-author Christopher] Chambers says, ‘but considerable uncertainty remains.’” And that’s just about whether one thing inside one part of Greenland is even there.
Consider also that recently German’s Potsdam Institute made a highly-touted prediction based on its superior El Niño model that fell flat on its ocean. And it was only for one year and only for one aspect of the extraordinarily complex phenomenon of ocean currents. The state of our understanding even of the bits and pieces of climate is not merely fragmentary but often so deficient as to be anti-knowledge. And yet a great many people persist in saying that we may not understand what the parts are doing now, or will next year, but we know what’s going to happen to the whole in 80 years.
Carr is not in that category. Or rather, he is and isn’t. Which means there is much to criticize in his piece. And not just that “If his administration focuses only on what is politically possible and fails to build a coordinated response that also addresses the social and economic ramifications of both climate change and the U.S. policy response, it is unlikely to succeed.” He may tout his experience forging consensus in Washington: “I have spent much of my career working on responses to climate change internationally and in Washington. I have seen the quiet efforts across political parties, even when the rhetoric was heated. There is room for effective climate actions”. But his insistence that the President must not just do what is “politically possible” makes us wonder if he knows what those words mean. But never mind. If you’ve done six impossible things before breakfast, why not discuss climate over dinner at Milliways?
Well, because apparently we don’t really know anything about it, due to the lack of One Big Agency to… uh… add to what all the other agencies are doing. And if such an agency is crucial, and missing, how do we know we must act, and act now, given how much he admits we don’t know?
We would also ask whether science is not best done by decentralized researchers critiquing one another’s work independently rather than a giant agency focused on massaging a consensus at the behest of its political masters. Like, say, the IPCC. And also for what purpose the U.S. government has expended tens upon tens of billions of dollars on climate research if at the end of it we face this “lack of understanding of systemic risks, opportunities and costs of both climate actions and inaction” or of “a systemic understanding of climate change impacts across society”.
Systemic is such a sophisticated word. We feel wiser just transcribing it. But being yokels at heart, we can’t shake the feeling that the reason we don’t have systemic understanding of systemic risks is that we don’t understand the bits and pieces very well. Thus we’ve been told the science was settled since at least 1997. The debate has ended repeatedly. We know all and see all. And then suddenly Biden would save us if only we knew what was happening and what to do about it but he doesn’t.
Would the lovers of renewables lie to us? Well, ‘Tasmania’s recent announcement that it is being powered 100% of the time by renewable energy is so much fake news.
Tasmania does, indeed, have enviable hydropower resources, which Tasmania can fairly claim to be a “renewable energy source”.
However, Tasmania suffers severe droughts – just like every other part of Australia. And, when it does, the water eventually runs out. In which case, the Apple Isle either imports coal-fired power across the Bass Strait from Victoria via an undersea cable or, it does what it did a few years ago, and ships in hundreds of MWs worth of diesel generators.
There is very little solar power generated in Tasmania – a place renowned for its bitterly cold winters, snow and heavy rainfall. And it has a trivial 560 MW worth of wind power generation capacity which, of course, produces no power at all for around 60 to 70% of the time. So, in reality, any claims being made about Tasmania’s renewable energy generation hinges almost entirely on its hydropower resources.
Eric Worrall takes a look at the reality behind Tasmania’s bogus 100% renewable energy claims.
Aussie State Tasmania Declares itself 100% Renewable Energy Watts Up With That? Eric Worrall 1 December 2020
100% renewable, except when Tasmania’s politicians run down their hydro dams to critical low levels selling green electrons to the mainland, burn out the undersea inter-connector with excessive current, and have to fire up emergency diesel generators.
Tasmania declares itself 100 per cent powered by renewable electricity Reneweconomy Michael Mazengarb 27 November 2020
The Tasmania government has declared that it has become the first Australian state, and one of just a handful of jurisdictions worldwide, to be powered entirely by renewable electricity.
In a statement released on Friday, Tasmanian energy minister Guy Barnett said that state had effectively become entirely self-sufficient for supplies of renewable electricity, supplied by the state’s wind and hydroelectricity projects.
“We have reached 100 per cent thanks to our commitment to realising Tasmania’s renewable energy potential through our nation-leading energy policies and making Tasmania attractive for industry investment, which in turn is creating jobs across the State, particularly in our regions,” Barnett said.
Tasmania has long had one of the greenest supplies of electricity in Australia, with the state’s significant hydroelectricity resources supplying the bulk of the state’s power. Tasmania’s history with hydroelectricity dates back to 1895, with the Duck Reach power plant in Launceston becoming the first publicly owned hydroelectric power station in the southern hemisphere.… Reneweconomy
What about that burned out interconnector?
Tasmania grid struggles with drought, bushfires, lost connection Reneweconomy Giles Parkinson 25 January 2016
Tasmania’s electricity grid is facing its biggest challenge in years, with its hydro storage about to fall to its lowest levels ever, bushfires forcing the closure of some power facilities, and a faulty cable cutting the connection between the island and the country’s main electricity grid.
The Apple Isle’s main source of electricity – hydro power – is being challenged by its driest ever spring, pushing reserves down to just 18.9 per cent.
The lowest level ever is 16.5 per cent, reached in 2007, but overall storage levels are predicted to fall to a low of 14 per cent by the end of March – if normal rainfall patterns resume. At current rates, however, some fear they may fall below those levels, although there has been some light rain in recent days.
To make matters worse, the Basslink cable linking the island’s grid to the mainland has been cut by technical problems, and will probably remain closed for another two months, while the raging bushfires have threatened power lines and forced the temporary closure of at least four hydro plants … Reneweconomy
I guess the lesson is if most of your state is a giant mountainous watershed you can build enough hydro to go 100% renewable. So not an option for most parts of the world.
Having said that, even the cold, rainy island state of Tasmania suffers droughts. If they have drained their dams selling green electrons to the mainland, and the rains fail, all it takes is a little of their regular undersea inter-connector trouble at the wrong time and they’re back to expensive diesel power. So not quite 100% renewable then.
And of course we’re quietly ignoring the fact Tasmania imports a lot of energy intensive goods.
The following article is an example of what God’s Word tells us in Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
‘If you care about the working poor, about racial justice, and about climate change, you have to stop eating animals.
Is any panic more primitive than the one prompted by the thought of empty grocery store shelves? Is any relief more primitive than the one provided by comfort food?
Most everyone has been doing more cooking these days, more documenting of the cooking, and more thinking about food in general. The combination of meat shortages and President Trump’s decision to order slaughterhouses open despite the protestations of endangered workers has inspired many Americans to consider just how essential meat is.
Is it more essential than the lives of the working poor who labor to produce it? It seems so. An astonishing six out of 10 counties that the White House itself identified as coronavirus hot spots are home to the very slaughterhouses the president ordered open.
In Sioux Falls, S.D., the Smithfield pork plant, which produces some 5 percent of the country’s pork, is one of the largest hot spots in the nation. A Tyson plant in Perry, Iowa, had 730 cases of the coronavirus — nearly 60 percent of its employees. At another Tyson plant, in Waterloo, Iowa, there were 1,031 reported cases among about 2,800 workers.
Sick workers mean plant shutdowns, which has led to a backlog of animals. Some farmers are injecting pregnant sows to cause abortions. Others are forced to euthanize their animals, often by gassing or shooting them. It’s gotten bad enough that Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has asked the Trump administration to provide mental health resources to hog farmers.
Despite this grisly reality — and the widely reported effects of the factory-farm industry on America’s lands, communities, animals and human health long before this pandemic hit — only around half of Americans say they are trying to reduce their meat consumption. Meat is embedded in our culture and personal histories in ways that matter too much, from the Thanksgiving turkey to the ballpark hot dog. Meat comes with uniquely wonderful smells and tastes, with satisfactions that can almost feel like home itself. And what, if not the feeling of home, is essential?
And yet, an increasing number of people sense the inevitability of impending change.
Animal agriculture is now recognized as a leading cause of global warming. According to The Economist, a quarter of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 say they are vegetarians or vegans, which is perhaps one reason sales of plant-based “meats” have skyrocketed, with Impossible and Beyond Burgers available everywhere from Whole Foods to White Castle.
Our hand has been reaching for the doorknob for the last few years. Covid-19 has kicked open the door.
At the very least it has forced us to look. When it comes to a subject as inconvenient as meat, it is tempting to pretend unambiguous science is advocacy, to find solace in exceptions that could never be scaled and to speak about our world as if it were theoretical.
Some of the most thoughtful people I know find ways not to give the problems of animal agriculture any thought, just as I find ways to avoid thinking about climate change and income inequality, not to mention the paradoxes in my own eating life. One of the unexpected side effects of these months of sheltering in place is that it’s hard not to think about the things that are essential to who we are.
We cannot protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly. This is not a refutable perspective, but a banal truism. Whether they become Whoppers or boutique grass-fed steaks, cows produce an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. If cows were a country, they would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
According to the research director of Project Drawdown — a nonprofit organization dedicated to modeling solutions to address climate change — eating a plant-based diet is “the most important contribution every individual can make to reversing global warming.”
These people do NOT know the Creator as this story and other writings clearly indicate. These are those of whom Paul said in Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator
You are pretty stupid if you do not believe in evolution, climate change and the Easter Bunny. It is fascinating that ‘Apparently “‘The climate movement was very clear-eyed about just how crucial this election was, so I think that made anxiety run pretty darn high,’ said Katharine Wilkinson, editor-in-chief of Project Drawdown, a coalition of researchers and scientists who are working on climate change solutions. ‘Science tells us we don’t have time for another four years of a Trump administration. We don’t have time for four more years of bailing out failing fossil fuel companies and four more years of moving backwards.’”
We didn’t know “Science” had an opinion on American elections. But it might have one on John Kerry being in charge without understanding even the most basic aspects of the subject. Remember, he’s also the man who said that “You could just as easily replace the words ‘climate change’ with ‘COVID-19’; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted…. The financial devastation of climate-change-related disasters has increased 150 percent, costing the world $2.25 trillion. It’s projected to grow exponentially if the world stays on today’s unsustainable trajectory. Yes, climate change is a threat multiplier for pandemic diseases, and zoonotic diseases…” and on down the list of exaggerations and errors, all of it second or third hand.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/12/02/picture-a-security-blanket/
‘Never mind ballots arriving by the hundreds of thousands at 4 a.m. after “counting was stopped for the night,” but only in swing states. Never mind voting machines that, apparently, any moderately talented nerd can hack and cook. Never mind “tranches” of votes, by the thousands and all for Biden, erroneously stacking the tallies because of “upload malfunctions.” Never mind same-day registration, ballot harvesting, no voter ID requirements, or missing signatures and postmarks. Never mind that Trump earned nearly 6 million votes in California, a 35 percent improvement over his 2016 performance, actually increasing his share of total votes from 31.6 to 34.3 percent, yet lost in fracking Pennsylvania.
Never mind. Prepare for a Biden presidency, and a Biden cabinet.
In other words, just rely on the “nonpartisan” experts and ignore your lying eyes. Assume Joe Biden really is speaking from the “Office of the President-Elect” and assume what he proclaims today will become policy on January 21. Consider the gang that will surround this amiable but senescent old crook. In particular, consider Biden’s incoming cabinet, undoubtedly destined to include a mandatory assortment of race-baiting blowhards, gender obsessed fanatics, gun grabbers, abortion extremists, government union overseers, ambulance chasers, corporate cronies, Chinese operatives, bankers, billionaires, and grasping bureaucrats.
And while you’re at it, consider Biden’s choice for “climate czar”—John Forbes Kerry.
The first thing to understand about Kerry is that he is an inside member of the establishment uniparty that was horrified by Trump’s impudent decision to actually take seriously his job as president of the United States. Kerry, who married into the aristocratic Heinz family, has a personal net worth estimated in excess of $250 million. Unlike Trump, Kerry is both a partner and a puppet in the American oligarchy, which means he will do whatever is in his personal best interests, as well as whatever he is told to do. Rarely if ever will those agenda items diverge.
Whether it involves prosecuting yet another endless overseas war, or, more to the point, morphing the great American COVID lockdown into phase two—the great American climate lockdown—Kerry will put the oligarchy first, and America last. Count on it.
The beating that ordinary Americans have taken over the past year understandably has diverted their attention from the coming “climate emergency.” Americans have watched helplessly as well-funded, violent mobs pulled down symbols of their heritage, while looting and vandalizing property, sometimes burning buildings to the ground, bellowing intense hatred for every cherished American institution and tradition. Americans watched as the media either ignored this orchestrated nationwide mayhem, or downplayed it, or even pretended it was caused by Trump and his supporters.
Americans have endured a virus that has killed hundreds of thousands, prompted an endless “lockdown,” and driven hundreds of thousands into bankruptcy and madness. There’s no end in sight.
‘The real climate refugees are those forced to abandoned their homes thanks to a grinding, pulsing cacophony of wind turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound.
The climate catastrophists wail about millions being displaced by rising tides and chaotic weather. But it’s their obsession with chaotically intermittent wind power, that’s causing a real rural exodus.
The bucolic Dutch landscape – which thrives, notwithstanding that a third of it is below sea level – has been carpeted with these things over the last generation; homes have been encircled; entire villages surrounded. The families that occupy these, once peaceful abodes, are driven mad by wind turbine noise and, in far too many cases, they’re simply driven out of their homes, forever.
It’s a story which is as sad as it is familiar to rural communities, across the globe.
Victims are told by the ruthless and cynical that profit from the greatest scam on earth, that they’re just ‘collateral damage’ and treated by those paid and empowered to protect them, as wind industry roadkill.
For a taste of what your wind powered future looks like, let’s head to the Netherlands.
First Dutch climate refugees fleeing wind turbines: “The noise is unbearable” Global Warming Policy Forum translated from De Telegraaf Edwin Timmer 2 November 2020
AMSTERDAM – The first Dutch climate refugees are a fact. Not because of wet feet, but because citizens cannot cope with the noise of wind farms.
Residents close to biomass power stations also complain bitterly. Are health and the environment in the Netherlands subordinate to our climate goals? “I do see a similarity with the Groningen gas and the Limburg mines: energy interests outweigh other interests.”
Every time he sent his Connexxion public transport bus across the Haringvliet Bridge, Claus aan de Wiel looked to the northwest with concern. Towards five windturbines two hundred meters high, ten kilometers away, near Piershil. “How’s the wind? Isn’t it too windy? What will it be like when I get home? ” Will it be another evening where the turbine noise rumbles like a rolling, roaring surf above the TV? “I never slept a wink. Sometimes I got back on the bus after only three and a half hours of sleep. ”
Windfear Windfear. The bus driver and his partner Ine van den Dool suffered from it after the Spui wind farm was set up five hundred meters from their house. The initiator still boasted about the Rolls-Royce among the windturbines – so quiet. “But we were shocked. The noise was unbearable. The house was built by my parents, I grew up there and thought I would only leave between six planks, but we could not stand it ”, says Aan de Wiel. Sound waves banged on the facades from three sides. Even the moles disappeared from their garden.
Van den Dool loved the greenery and space in the Hoeksche Waard. “It was a heavenly, healing place. Where we sat in the garden with friends until late. The wind farm has distroyed that. It was as if a jet plane kept circling overhead. I developed severe asthma and could not stop coughing at night. As if my body was screaming: this is not safe, you have to get out of here. ” And so the pair left. As a climate refugee in their own country.
Turbine noise It is the compression of air when a wick sweeps past the mast that makes the typical turbine noise. “Our noise standards for wind turbines are much more flexible than in neighboring countries,” says Fred Jansen from Schagen. Ten years ago, as chairman of the National Critical Platform for Wind Energy, he already opposed the cabinet’s new noise standards. According to Jansen, they only work in favor of wind farm builders. “Local residents are the victims.”
The World Health Organization recommends that the wind turbine noise for local residents be kept below an average of 45 decibels per day (45 L-den). Louder noise “is associated with adverse health effects,” according to the 2018 report “Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region”. However, Dutch law allows an average of 47 decibels during the day, and peaks well above 50 decibels. Since every three decibels means a doubling, that saves a sip on a drink, Janssen believes.
Sound expert Marcel Blankvoort confirms the Dutch exceptional position. Our country works with averages, where other Western European countries, apart from Norway, allow a maximum peak load on the facade. “And we don’t include background noise. Elsewhere, a turbine in an industrial estate is allowed to make more noise than in the countryside, because there is more noise there anyway. Here, the same standard applies everywhere. That is why wind turbines in a previously quiet polder are more likely to be perceived as a deterioration in the living environment. ” In the ‘Nijpelsian landscape’ (named after the architect of the Dutch climate agreement), full of wind farms, those sound waves hit more and more citizens.
It is not only wind energy that the government is helping, on paper, to halve CO2 emissions by 2030. Subsidizing the burning of woody biomass also helps the accountants in The Hague to comply with the Paris Agreement. Billions of euros in subsidies have already been promised for hundreds of biomass plants. But the nuisance for local residents has caused a fierce social debate about wood burning.
“Recently our bedroom was full of smoke again,” says Rini Ruitenschild from Ede. He lives with his family at a distance of one hundred and eighty meters from one of the local biomass plants, which does not burn gas but wood for district heating. “It is not the first time. My wife has a lung problem. If your whole house is full of dirty air again, then you will become unruly. ” Officially, the heat company adheres to the rules.
That also applies in Zaandam. But residents of the senior apartment De IJdoorn are done with it. From the eleventh floor, Co and Jeanne Meester regularly see smoke drifting from the much lower chimney of the biomass power plant about two hundred meters away. “The stench is unbearable. How do you get it into your head to place such a thing in the middle of a residential area, right next to a school and close to a hospital? ”Says Meester. “We are concerned about the effect on our health and that of my flatmates.”
Health issues The disadvantages of wood burning for energy have been known for years, says Fenna Swart of the Clean Air Committee. “It’s expensive, it destroys ecosystems and it’s bad for biodiversity. In addition, the emission of wood combustion causes air pollution. We don’t even have standards for ultrafine particles entering our lungs. And then there are other substances of very high concern that no filter will help against. It is not without reason that people who cook on wood in developing countries develop health problems. And we are now returning to that on a large scale, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. ”
The Dutch Lung Foundation is also concerned about health effects and regularly receives complaints about biomass burners. In the summer, the Foundation responded with satisfaction to the “phasing out of the use of woody biomass”, as the Social Economic Council, an important advisory board tot the Dutch government, wishes. “But we don’t see anything of that phase-out yet,” Swart criticizes. “Because Minister Eric Wiebes fails to make it concrete with an end date and buy-out schemes. The House of Representatives stands by. Industry and politics are holding on to each other and our health is in check.”
“Wind turbine syndrome” In Piershil, Ine van den Dool searched for an explanation for her physical complaints since the wind turbines were running. She came across the “wind turbine syndrome”, a term coined by the American doctor Nina Pierpont. Scientifically, there is still much discussion, but Pierpont registered a list of identical complaints for several people who live near wind turbines: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, irritation and cardiac arrhythmias. “Very recognizable. Falling asleep and staying asleep was no longer possible. I fled the house as often as I could. ”
Dutch doctors are also stirring gradually. Some GPs, such as Sylvia van Manen in the magazine Medisch Contact, already warn against the effects of low-frequency noise, shadow cast and flashing red lights at night. The Leiden University Medical Center recently recognized a worsening of heart disease due to low-frequency sound. “If there are so many indications that it is wrong, then we should investigate further, right?”, says Fred Jansen of the Critical Platform Wind Energy. “Or at least follow the WHO advice. But yes, that would mean that fewer windmills would fit in the Netherlands. ”
Energy interests At the Cauberg Huygen engineering firm, Marcel Blankvoort works as a knowledge leader for wind farm developers as well as for interest groups who oppose it. “It is always a trade-off between several interests, including those of residents and energy generation. It is clear, however, that our government has made its choices about noise standards in such a way that sustainability through the energy transition is possible. I do see a similarity with Groningen gas and the Limburg mines: energy interests again outweigh others. ”
The climate refugees from Piershil have moved to a quieter place on Goeree-Overflakkee since the summer. They are the sixth family within two years to move from Oudendijk. Aan de Wiel now says he feels a lot calmer on the bus. “I now understand the gigantic stress situation we were living in. It was as if I was there waiting for my death; once at home I didn’t feel like doing anything anymore. But if they tear down those turbines tomorrow, I’d love to return. I miss the place I used to be. ”
“We are no longer ‘bunker citizens’, agrees his partner. “We couldn’t sleep there with the window open, nor sit in the garden. Here we live outside again. And we sleep like marmots, as if we need to sleep in for a century. ” Within two weeks after the move, Van den Dool was off the drug Ventolin, because her asthma complaints disappeared like snow in the sun. ‘Is that a coincidence? No, it proves to me what an abnormal life we had to live under the violence of those rotten turbines.”’https://stopthesethings.com/2020/11/17/climate-refugees-dutch-families-abandon-homes-to-escape-excruciating-wind-turbine-noise/
Do facts matter when it comes to the climate discussion. Not really! ‘We’ve been seeing record-breaking temperatures across the western and central U.S. along with wild weather extremes. More proof of the climate crisis? Not exactly, since it was record cold and snow. Paul Dorian notes that Denver, for instance, saw a high (if that’s the right word) of 15° F on October 26, the coldest such temperature not just for that date (the previous record from measurements going back to 1872 being 31° in 1923) but for any day in October. (Laramie Wyoming had a low of -26° F which was a record not just for October but even November.) Of course when we mentioned the onset of this weather last week someone rushed to inform us that we were dolts who did not realize that global warming meant more evaporation that naturally then falls as snow because it’s so hot it’s cold, a position also taken by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Of course when there’s less snow than expected, that’s also a sign of global warming.
In noting the NAS argument Eric Worrall also points out that the IPCC “takes a less confident view” even of the question whether we are having more extreme weather, while saying that precipitation has increased in some places and not in others.
Worrall adds that there was a time when the IPCC would have declared the evidence “inconclusive” but now uses the term “medium confidence” which actually means it’s a coin toss, literally “About 5 out of 10 chance” because, as one of the Climategate emails argued, “inconclusive” was so unscary. If you knew that when the IPCC said it had “medium confidence” in a result it meant it was just as likely to be untrue as to be true, how much confidence are you supposed to have in it being true? Exactly. And if you knew that when the IPCC said something bad was happening, alarmists would point to it and declare “experts say” but if the IPCC said something bad might not be or probably wasn’t happening alarmists would just ignore it, how much confidence would you have in their understanding of what experts say?
It matters. People are forever producing this or that increase in extreme weather as proof of man-made climate change, including our correspondent who pointed to snow storms and went well duh. But science proceeds by using hypotheses to make predictions then verifying or more crucially falsifying them. So if the theory says there will be an increase in extreme weather and there isn’t, it needs fine-tuning at the very least. Whereas if it predicts an increase in extreme weather that doesn’t happen, it needs a serious overhaul. And not in the direction of being made test-proof by the vagueness of its predictions as to what will happen, when, or what counts as evidence.
So here in fact is a prediction. NBC just reported in the usual “experts say” vein that “Drought more likely than blizzards this winter, forecasters say”. And of course it’s bad: “For the already dry Southwest and areas across the South, this could be a ‘big punch.’” Interesting if true. But it’s also possible that this winter will be cold, snowy or both. And if it’s snowy when you said it wouldn’t be, you need to stop with the “settled science” thing.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/04/cold-is-hot/
Every Presidential election is IMPORTANT! However, this one in 2020 is of utmost importance! The leftist environmental climate change scammers were very happy with their ‘where am I’ candidate Joe Biden. When the subject of climate change came up in the last debate they said ‘It was encouraging to hear Biden start his answer with an acknowledgement that many of us had been waiting to hear on this stage: “Climate change, global warming is an existential threat to humanity. We have a moral obligation to deal with it, he said, adding that we were “going to pass the point of no return within the next 8 to 10 years.”
whatyareckon 