C3

'C3' Charts Videos Data BlogRoll Headlines Only Studies

Quotes Bad Weather Bad Predictions Calc Tools Archvs./Catgrs.


'C3' the Skeptic	Blame it all on CO2	George Carlin on the 'Greens'

Timing is everything in the political world, and especially when you are already a failed U.S. Senator with an approval rating of 18%. What does one do in such circumstances?

Of course, if one finds himself in such an unenviable position, one forms a stop climate change doomsday 'Mod Squad' in the U.S. Senate that is fashioned to curry the favor of 'The Squad' socialist crazies -i.e. AOC and others.

Surprise! That's just what the infamous GOP's Mitt 'Pierre Delecto' Romney has done.

Unfortunately for Romney, real scientists keep releasing more scientific research and empirical evidence that refutes the climate change doomsday scenarios that Pierre and his 'tax & spend' senatorial comrades believe in.

Case in point is the recent debunking of the alarmist propaganda disaster scenario where Pacific islands will be submerged by rising sea.

Here is a review of multiple peer-reviewed island studies that provide the doomsday shredding analyses.

This is not a one-off. The scientific literature is filled with studies debunking all the doomsday scenarios; and the new research keeps growing in this realm, much to the chagrin and bad timing of many a political has-been.

p.s. If you're thinking of giving money to the GOP's senate campaign organization, don't. Give to individual candidates but not to an organization that condones the likes of Pierre Delecto.

Well, probably not a lot, since these 11,000+ "scientists" signed onto a fake science editorial. It was essentially a press release letter-to-the-editor type of article that could have been written by any climate doomsday acolyte, such as Al Gore or Greta Thurnberg.

The MSM presented the press release as a "study" but there was no peer-reviewed science or empirical evidence presented in the journal.

And the signatories of this letter simply went to a web site and seemingly just had to click a button to register their approval of the letter. No vetting of the signatories whatsoever.

Rebel News TV has a great video describing the non-scientific article and the Canadian mainstream media reaction to it. During the analysis, the Rebel TV commentator starts a 13-minute review of some of the 400 Canadian scientists who put their signature on the dotted line for all to see.

Do ya think these Canadian "scientists" possess a portfolio of sophisticated research and expertise in climate science? Watch and see for yourself.

Kinda cool that an occupational-therapist can "sign" a press release and immediately become a scientist.

Fake news and science in one jumbo package that the mainstream press heartily swallowed and gleefully regurgitated.

Full video on YouTube.

After 10 years of being on Twitter, I finally submitted a tweet that Twitter refused to publish.

Is Twitter censorship even being applied to an account that has a minuscule following?

Earlier, I had read articles about the Facebook and Twitter censorship in regards to the fake Ukranian "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella.

Being the proverbial skeptic, decided to test the claim on Twitter censorship by submitting a rather mundane tweet that included the adjacent image via a Bit.ly link.

Attempted to submit the tweet multiple times with no luck. Apparently, Twitter would not allow the posting that included a screen capture having the text 'Eric Ciaramella' in the image.

Then Twitter would not accept any tweet I tried submitting.

I then opened up a different browser and was able to sign into Twitter. But I was still unable to post a new tweet.

At least Twitter censorship seems to be a real thing when it comes to protecting the Democrats' narrative.

For those bloggers seeking a censorship-free alternative to Twitter, sign up for Gab.com account. For any blog post that you submit to your Twitter account, you can do the same by using Gab's Dissenter extension or use Gab's new privacy browser.

Some favorite memes about the once 'golden state', beloved by all, but now crumbling to devastation from the multiple stupid policies enacted by Democrats, liberals, and progressives.

Image source

Image Source

Image source

Today's lesson: When government is involved, consumers always pay more for less.

Why would this be a surprise to consumers regarding energy? There are multiple examples in the past where government intervention and subsidies have made costs soar - think health care and higher education for example.

"In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity.

Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up.

In 2017, The Los Angeles Times reported that California’s electricity prices had risen sharply, and hinted it might have to do with the deployment of renewables.

In 2018, I reported that renewables had contributed to electricity prices rising 50% in Germany and five times more in California than in the rest of the US despite generating just 17% of the state’s electricity.

And in April, a research institute at the University of Chicago led by a former Obama administration economist found solar and wind were making electricity significantly more expensive across the United States.

The cost to consumers of renewables has been staggeringly high."

Read the full article.

How do you identify a really stupid person?

Simple. If they advocate for or support "green" renewable energy over natural gas or nuclear power generation, you then know stuck-on-stupid is what you are dealing with.

Recent articles continue to document the renewable green energy fiasco that politicians and bureaucrats have implemented, much to the detriment of ordinary people.

Due to solar and wind inherent inefficiencies and lack of being reliable 24/7/365 sources of power, they are very expensive despite the claims of 'free.'

For example, this recent article about Germany, whose leaders decided that a major percentage of energy should be sourced from "affordable" green energy. Instead, they now have some of the highest electricity prices in the world, all due to stupid politicians believing the ludicrous claims regarding "cheap" solar and wind.

As this chart reveals, countries with the highest commitment to solar and wind have the highest electricity prices - definitely not good for residential living or commercial/industrial activities.

And much to the chagrin of the establishment elites, polls keep revealing that consumers are not willing to pay the higher costs associated with renewable energy solutions to battle "climate change." Even the gung-ho Brits are unwilling to pay the costs.

Now combine the pain of higher electricity costs that customers are feeling in their wallets with the massive tax subsidies necessary to keep the renewable energy prices from absolutely sky rocketing, and it becomes crystal clear that "green" energy initiatives are not economically sustainable.

And when the government subsidies are withdrawn, the solar/wind investments collapse.

Then there is the increasingly significant issue of green energy unreliability that consumers are now experiencing.

Finally, does an aggressive national commitment to wind/solar and other renewables come close to producing the wonderful claims from green energy advocates?

In a word, NOPE.

Back to the beginning of this article: Stupid is as stupid does, which in the case of green energy proponents is fairly obvious.

Let's be brutally honest: the gullible and very stupid have been brainwashed to believe the propaganda that human CO2 emissions have a significant climate change impact resulting in severe weather events.

As this chart from a peer-reviewed research journal indicates, since ancient times, the climate has been in a constant state of change causing extremely low and high weather events, regardless of the atmospheric CO2 levels.

This group of researchers analyzed an almost 5 century record of streamflow volumes in the Southern Tibetan Plateau. Streamflow volume is driven by precipitation and weather extremes in either direction would be identified with this type of analysis.

Their findings?

"As seen there, perhaps the most striking feature of the record is the short eight year decline in streamflow from the highest value (487.1 m3 s-1) in 1871 to the lowest value (205.4 m3 s-1) of the nearly five-century-long record, which sharp transition was a completely natural occurrence and could not have been due to CO2 (because the vast bulk of the modern CO2 rise has occurred over the past six decades). Aside from the above-mentioned event, the record displays considerable variability at multiple time scales, yet there is no obvious trend or indication that there is anything unusual, unnatural or unprecedented in recent years of the streamflow record that would indicate rising atmospheric CO2 is having an effect....Further analyses indicate these periodicities are likely natural in origin; they correspond well with and are likely significantly driven by ENSO, the Asian summer monsoon, and other large-scale climate circulation features."

Additional examples of research indicating little, if any, climate change attributes related to CO2 levels.

With all due respect to the profession of mainstream journalism, there is no such thing as rapid, catastrophic "global warming."

In fact, there are vast land and sea areas that are not warming, which seriously counters publicized statements that the world is suffering from a "global" climate condition. And claims of rapid, catastrophic "global" warming are simply fictional derivatives of imagination.

For example, the Southern Hemisphere's and tropical-latitude oceans currently have sea temperature anomaly measurements that are essentially the same as those found during the during the period of 1997-1999, some 20+ years ago.

And a critical example of a large land mass without significant warming is the contiguous land mass of the lower 48 U.S. states.

The above chart (click on to enlarge) is a plot of average U.S temperature anomalies and one does not need to be a climate scientist to discern from the plot that the fear-mongering about rapid, dangerous, and catastrophic warming is empirical nonsense.

Putting some flesh on the empirical science bones, the chart is plotted from the datasets produced by the world's only state-of-the-art climate/weather USCRN measurement system with 140 station sites all across the contiguous U.S.

Notice that since the USCRN sites went online in January 2005, over the last 14+ years the average U.S. temperature has had periods of both cooling and warming.

And when comparing the latest August 2019 12-month average (green circle) and the 8-month average (yellow star) with their respective beginning averages in 2005, it's clear that the current averages are lower.

Also, as the chart's 6th degree fitted trend line (black) indicates, the most recent warming has turned towards a cooling direction.

Based on these facts, it can be fairly surmised that the climate doomsday cult prediction of a global warming inferno is without empirical evidence, and it can justly be called anti-scientific as well. With a little greater specificity, the claim that human CO2 emissions has produced a global "tipping point" with runaway warming is demonstrably false.

For the record, including 2005, there has been 441 gigatonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere through 2018, which represents an overall increase of 25%.

But where's the predicted rapid and dangerous "global" warming from all these emissions? Not in the U.S. Not in the immense waters of the Southern Hemisphere. And amazingly, not in a lot of other places: Ireland, China, Greenland, England, Finland, North Atlantic, Sweden, France, Central Europe, Japan, and other various countries.

In summary, apparently for politicians, celebrities, "journalists" and teenagers, science and empirical evidence are no longer to be taken seriously. Thus fossil fuels and their resulting emissions have become convenient scapegoats, nothing more. And wildly speculative climate change predictions are, unfortunately, tipping point catnip for the hysterical and feeble-minded.

Note: As occurs everywhere, in the U.S. during that 2005-2019 time span there were quite a few hot months; but the same can be said about cold months. When all is said and done, the hot period spans are canceled out by the cooler spans, which is what the 'average' natural climate cycle does. There has been regional warming and regional cooling as the the various regional climates continue to change; and climate expert predictions have failed to account for the non-consistent attributes of climate change.

Have friends who have blindly swallowed the anti-nuclear fearmongering propaganda?

They should watch this. (Or, click on image to watch on YouTube.)

Taliban-Climatology: Video that explains the worshiping at the alter of the climate change religion. (click on image for video)

Climate doomsday snowflakes believe that snowflake storm intensity and frequency are increasing, due to man-made climate change from CO2 emissions.

To press there unsubstantiated claims, they even created new names - snowapocalypse, snowmageddon, snowzilla - for normal winter related weather events that used be called 'snowstorms' in more sane times.

Have CO2 emissions increased the intensity and frequency of modern era snowstorms versus the weather experience of the past?

Nope.

The adjacent graph represents the latest peer-reviewed research examining the historical record of large snowstorms over the past 1,000+ years in the Mediterranean region.

As the researchers documented, both the intensity and frequency of modern-era "snowpocalypses" are neither extraordinary nor exceptional when empirically analyzed in the full context of historical records.

"In particular, less snow fell during the Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300) while snowfall was much more prevalent and severe thereafter during the Little Ice Age (~1300-1850), which latter era witnessed the two "snowiest" centuries of the past millennium (the 17th and 16th centuries). Milder conditions followed thereafter with reduced snowfall severity conditions occurring from the 18th century onward to today. And of the most recent decades, Diodato et al. say that "snow occurrences have remained unchanged," adding that "the recent reduction in Italian snowfall intensity is not unprecedented over the past millennium, since comparable patterns of low snowfall intensity also occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly.""

Another example of 'those pesky stubborn facts' obliterating the climate change doomsday cult's narrative.

Additional severe weather event graphs.

Climate change hysteria has frequently focused on Greenland's past ice sheet loss of both mass and area.

Two new peer-reviewed studies debunk, with the current empirical evidence, another climate doomsday scenario promulgated by the alarmist cult. Specifically, the doomsday prediction that heavily populated coastal regions will soon be submerged due to Greenland's ice melt.

In fact, the ice loss deceleration has reached the point where scientists are now using the term 'stabilized' in reference to the ice sheet conditions in Greenland.

“The period 2007–2012 underwent a rapid loss of glacier area, compared to 2013–2018, in which glacier area was relatively stable, associated with a small area change."

The documented and unexpected deceleration is believed to be a result of a decrease in solar short-wave radiation, due to the unexpected increasing cloud coverage over recent years in the Greenland region.

Both of these unexpected events were not predicted by the "sophisticated" climate models and the "experts."

Additional documented prediction failures.

What's new? Well, it's the same old, same old mainstream fake news.

How many hours and ink were spilled about SharpieGate? So much so that even crazy MSNBC started wondering about it.

The press went out of their way to mock Trump regarding the storm track of Hurricane Dorian and the potential of it causing serious issues for the state of Alabama. They essentially reported that Trump was lying and made up the threat to Alabama.

But as is almost always the case, this fake news by the mainstream press has been debunked. Plus, they were exposed as gaslighting the public about the original hurricane tracks predicted by NOAA.

The adjacent image is from NOAA and it reveals one of their original projected tracks of Hurricane Dorian.

NOAA actually went out of its way to support Trump's assertion about the threat to Alabama

And even CNN had an early report on the potential hit to Alabama, much to the chagrin of "anchor" Don Lemon.

Proof positive video. Essentially, Democrats of all stripes are all about 'control' sans the freedoms and liberties that Americans thrive on.

Be they socialists, Marxists, progressives, communists, liberals, moderate Democrats, or whatever, the left-of-center supports controlling citizens and their associated freedoms that the Democrats feel are necessary to further their grasp on power.

This video from CNN's climate change townhall is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what the Democratic Party intends to do if swept into full power.

With Hurricane Dorian headed towards the Florida coast, the mainstream media, Democrat politicians, social media influencers, and, of course, Hollywood celebrities are well prepared to provide us with their usual hurricane "science" discourse.

Instead of blathering on in attempts to convince their audiences about how hurricanes are getting worse and that evil Trump and those oil-loving Republicans are to blame, wouldn't it be great if they simply shared the real hurricane climate science and the empirical evidence?

Unfortunately, this is really wishful thinking on our part that our supposed betters would actually self-educate themselves before repeating anti-science fake news and climate change disaster porn.

The climate change prediction that increased atmospheric CO2 and resultant global warming would cause a greater frequency and stronger intensity of rainfall has long been a staple of CAGW doomsday alarmism.

But has it proven to be true?

A recent study, conducted for the northern India geographic region, found that the hypothesized significant impact on rainfall - due to CO2 emissions and global warming - is not evident.

"In a test of this hypothesis, Kant (2018) examined the precipitation records of four major weather stations in Uttar Pradesh, India, namely Bareilly, Allahabad, Lucknow and Babatpur, over the period 1969 to 2014"....."In contrast to model predictions, Kant reports that "rainfall of different intensities in yearly, monthly, June-September (monsoon) [periods] for all the four stations is not statistically significant." Thus, it would appear that neither the CO2 rise nor the temperature increase of the past four-and-a-half decades was sufficient to drive changes in hourly rainfall intensity in northern India."

Those stubborn facts just keep ruining the doomsday cult narrative.

Study after study has provided a multiplicity of evidence that the modern 21st century warming is not unprecedented, much to the chagrin and angst of elite alarmists and doomsday claimants.

Now we have a recent peer-reviewed study that examines 2,000 years of temperatures, which clearly reveals a past that indeed was warmer than present (see adjacent chart).

"Aside from the obvious millennial-scale climate oscillation seen in the temperature reconstruction, it is important to point out that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current temperatures on the southern Tibetan Plateau (STP). As indicated by the horizontal red line depicting the current temperature, there have been multiple times during the past two millennia when temperatures were warmer than present, including the 400 year period from 850-1250 AD, despite their being 50% less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. Because of this fact, it is clear that rising atmospheric CO2 is having little, if any, effect on current STP temperatures witnessed during the Current Warm Period."

"But if not CO2, what is or could be the cause of the 20th century warming? Based on additional analyses performed by Guo et al., it was their conclusion that changes in solar irradiance "played the most important role in influencing the climatic variabilities over the STP on a multi-centennial timescale.""

Conclusion: Mainstream media, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood celebrities continue to spread consensus anti-science claims in regards to the current global warming facts.

It's been a bad week for the climate doomsday acolytes.

The bright white light of empirical evidence, new analyses, and recent published studies, which the mainstream media does not report on, continues to seep into the public consciousness.

Clearly, the climate facts do not line up well with the doomster claims and narratives, and people are more aware than ever of the falsehoods.

Claim that severe cold weather is result of melting Arctic sea ice is much to do about nothing.

Claim that Greenland was soon to melt to a sea of water was a hoax.

Claim that global warming is posing an extinction threat to the Great Barrier Reef.

Claim that global warming will cause more frequent and intense precipitation events.

Claim that global cooling is not possible due to the greenhouse gas CO2.

Claim that climate change is causing more frequent 'hot' days during summer.

Claim that climate change would devastate food production.

Claim that CO2 is the dominant force behind climate change.

Claim that climate change is an existential threat.

By any measurement, consensus science published by the establishment media is a cornucopia of failed predictions.

Note: Image source

The politically correct sewer hole that the once premier science journal Nature has crawled into can no longer be contested.

Its recent publication of a study calling for a blacklist for collusion-censorship by mainstream media and science journals of contrarian scientific opinions and debate is now completely undeniable.

"Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal."

"What’s troubling is not enemies list,they’ve been around for a long time. What’s troubling is that they are now laundered by academic journals & used by scientists & journos to silence or otherwise cause professional harm to their peers. It is really amazing. And it works."

POST-MODERN WITCH HUNT: NATURE PUBLISHES BLACKLIST OF CRITICAL SCIENTISTS & WRITERS

Per recent multiple peer-reviewed studies, climate doomsday alarmists can no longer deny the scientific consensus: CO2 and global warming are returning the earth's biosphere to a green paradise of lush vegetation. (image source)

“Carbon‐climate interactions led to significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China.”

"Due especially to the rise in CO2 concentrations, 52% of the globe’s vegetated lands have shown statistically significant greening/gross primary production trends since 1981, whereas just 12% of vegetated areas have been browning. CO2’s greening effect has been underestimated by 60% with outdated models."

"According to scientists, the overwhelming majority of the “significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China” since the early 1990s can be attributed to the combination of CO2 fertilization (56%) and climate change (35%)."

"Historical increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, from 280 to current 400 ppm, has resulted in enhanced GPP [gross primary production/greening] due to its radiative and physiological effects"

"Our central finding is, the effect of ambient CO2 concentration on terrestrial photosynthesis is larger than previously thought, and thus, has important implications for future carbon cycle and climate.”

“Climate change associated with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration may have impact on crop production and soil health. Increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration may enhance crop growth with higher demand for nutrients by the crop....Grain and biomass yield of rice was significantly higher under elevated CO2 condition."

“The relative top heights of the young [Ed: tree] stands [Ed: sessile oaks] were significantly higher than of the older stands, which means that the overall growing conditions were better in the last 30-35 years due to atmospheric changes..."

And humans, the industrial revolution, and economic prosperity deserve a robust round of applause from everyone.

The doomsday weary populace of the world is plagued by an overload of climate change false messiahs who really should not be listened to, but unfortunately, the extremely gullible continue to do so.

And the major promoters of climate-porn to the gullible is none other than the mainstream media, and pandering liberal/left politicians who can't even pass a basic fact check by a comrade-in-arms news outlet.

And it is with great and absolute certainty that no one in their right mind should be listening to Greta Thunberg. A teenager who is even more gullible - due to a woeful lack of humility, experience, wisdom, and knowledge - than even the anointed elites.

Now compare the anti-science falsehoods from the mouths of political partisans, Hollywood celebrities, and teenager messiahs with the recent real-world facts and evidence being published about the climate and the empirical science.

Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing

Experts say there is no ‘climate emergency’

New paper: no experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change

Scientists Find Antarctica Is Rapidly Cooling And Any Ice Sheet Melt Is Not Due To CO2, But Natural

Greenland Endures

New Science: 89% Of The Globe’s Islands – And 100% Of Large Islands – Have Stable Or Growing Coasts

More 2019 Evidence of Nature’s Sunscreen

Ignore climate hysteria: world grain crop set to break record

and for the coffee lover readers, fantastic news...

New world record: oversupply of coffee beans sends global prices tumbling

The "Let them eat cake" crowd is simply beyond redemption.

(Click the image to watch a video take-down of the privileged, arrogant, never-ending hypocritical elites that we have to share the planet with.)

One could imagine there are an awful lot of people who would not mind seeing a comeback of the guillotine for the participants of this Google opulent conference, be they royal imbeciles or Hollywood's ultra-hypocrites.

The comeuppance schadenfreude would be colossal, especially if turned into a gigantic, global audience televised event.

Don't be impressed by Budweiser's clean energy virtue signaling.

They must hope you'll be too beer drunk that you'll miss the serious issues that their "green" wind energy projects are creating for both nature and humans.

Master Resource has a good write-up in regards to the severe shortcomings and unintended consequences of Budweiser's lame efforts to appear corporately responsible for the environment and climate.

“It’s time for Anheuser-Busch to shed its superficial ‘green’ veneer and take corrective action to reverse the harms its wind purchases have caused. This includes publicly abandoning the ‘100% renewable energy’ goal which, if continued, is certain to bring more, and greater international destruction.”

A recent "study" by "scientists" playing with their computer climate model simulations guesses that there might be a future depth shift of the Southern Ocean carbonite event horizon based on simulated output from the model.

Editor Note: The aforementioned depth shift is speculated to occur when human emissions of CO2 infiltrate the ocean's waters, thus causing an acidifcation process associated with lower pH.

They report that maybe the ocean's pteropods species (a sea snail) will be harmed and may not be able to adapt.

The model output results do not seem to correlate well with known scientific facts..."Some estimate it began as early as 2006 in discrete locations, while others predict it will begin as late as 2038. The research suggests that the change may be inevitable..."

Their scientific conclusion from zero empirical evidence? "If that occurs, it could impact marine food webs significantly and lead to cascading changes across ocean ecosystems, including disruptions of vital global fisheries." And, "These factors put us closer to a threshold that might be harmful for a lot of organisms,."

In comparison to the above "scientists," there are scientists who actually conduct experiments to determine outcomes that are based on observed reality and not simulations.

For example, this 2018 study by 9 scientists determined that actual phytoplankton organisms, a major food source for the Southern Ocean ecosystem, were test for survival in waters with a lower pH - i.e. acidified waters. The scientists found the increased levels of CO2 "did not have a significant impact on the [phytoplankton] community, either individually or in combination with other factors,".

Then there is this study by 7 scientists who investigated the impact of different levels of elevated water CO2 on Southern Ocean adult krill, a crucial marine food staple for blue whales and other mammal species.

What did they find? "Ericson et al. state that "the measured physiological processes in adult Antarctic krill were robust to near-future ocean acidification (1000-2000 µatm pCO2)." In particular, they note that "the survival rate of krill subject to near-future pCO2 increased by up to 11%" and that such pCO2 levels "did not affect the size of adult krill," nor their ability to moult, grow, store fat or mature."

Getting back to the pteropods, this 2018 scientific study with the apt title, "Pteropods counter mechanical damage and dissolution through extensive shell repair", pretty much counters the pteropod doomsday scenario conjured up by the computer simulation jockeys.

The study's 5 scientists determined the following: ""the ability of L. helicina [pteropod] to repair shell damage in naturally undersaturated conditions indicates that this species has more potential to counteract the deleterious effects ocean acidification may have on their shells than previously considered." ...it adds "to the growing body of evidence that many polar calcifiers, exposed to undersaturated waters, can withstand and repair damage to their shells, perhaps on account of natural exposure to heightened physical and chemical variability, which have resulted in organisms developing or exhibiting an inherent resilience strategy.""

In summary, per the real-world science, the Southern Ocean food chain ecosystem appears not to be at risk for CO2 emissions.

One should remember that there is no computer simulation substitute for real scientific investigation and research.

Unfortunately, climate computer models have harmed the scientific endeavor and reputation with simulated doomsday results that have little basis in reality. It is our opinion, as we have stated before, policymakers across all forms of government should never rely on output from computer models - they are fundamentally flawed and promulgated by agenda-driven "scientists."

Previous climate model articles.

Not only are the liberals/leftists/progressives taking their opinions and policy positions to the extreme fringe left of American politics, in doing so they are producing a very loud and vocal stream of hate, intolerance, violence, intimidation, harassment, mistruths, distortions, degradations, censorship, incitement, and anti-American sentiments that are unprecedented in modern U.S. history.

The daily sources of these destructive and divisive forces are numerous and widespread, including Democratic Party politicians, mainstream media, Hollywood, government employees, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, the tech industry, entertainment personalities, and even the Democrat voter base.

Below are a multitude of headline examples from the first couple of weeks of July 2019 that provide ample proof Democrats have become seriously unhinged from Americans, thus threatening the peaceful coexistence and mutual collaboration of our diverse 'melting pot' of different ethnicities, religions, and political opinions.

Democrats have eagerly put a target on our joint society and cultural structure, which makes one sometimes wonder if they are actually colluding with the Chinese and Russians to bring America down.

Democrat Rep.Maxine Waters in a photo-op with violent Antifa supporter, Joseph Alcoff

MSNBC host Joy Reid insults part of President Donald Trump's base.

Beto O’Rourke: “In My Administration We Are Going to Make Sure No One Is Criminally Prosecuted for Being a Human Being”

Latest rant from flustered CNN's @BrianStelter: “These smears, these lies...on the right from pro-Trump Web sites, Facebook pages, Twitter accounts..."

Democrat Rep. Tlaib Says No Person Is ‘Illegal’

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) says that the Palestinian movement against Israel is non-violent...(talk about lying)

Procter & Gamble Vows to Donate Over Half a Mil to USWNT for Equal Pay

Illegal Immigrant threatens President Donald Trump's life "If you send me back to my country i come to fuck you up"

Another study finds trigger warnings are useless, or even harmful. The scientific consensus now says to stop using them.

AOC Attacks President Trump : 'You won’t accept a nation that sees healthcare as a right or education as a #1 priority, especially where we’re the ones fighting for it.'

Illinois enacted a first-of-its kind ban on privately-run immigration detention...scrambles to find more jail space in an already overcrowded system.

Kamala Harris Blames ICE for Domestic Abuse That Goes Unreported

Scarlett Johansson speaks truth about Hollywood PC culture, triggers liberals in process

“What they probably didn’t anticipate was handing Donald Trump the 2020 presidential election.”

Continue reading "7/1/19-7/13/19: Democrats' Divisiveness, Hate & Violent Rhetoric Tearing At Fabric of Society" »

Climate change predictions by alarmist scientists and activist 'doomers' have been absolutely atrocious. Possibly (being generous), there has been limited 'accuracy' here and there, but remains sufficiently insufficient to demonstrate even a minuscule level of actual, consistent reliability.

The constant litany stream from politicos, media sources and celebrities of failed climate catastrophe predictions is wide and deep and seemingly knows no bounds.

And this article provides a brief summary of where we are headed, if these bureaucratic-loving and power hungry politicians produce policies and regulations based on the proven failed prediction capabilities of the "experts." Needless to say, it's not going to be very pretty if they are successful.

The good news is that these establishment elites self-identify as liars since no truthful person would ever repeat anti-scientific, imbecilic doomsday trash, such as the end of humanity within a generation.

The bad news is that the USA's Democratic Party embraces the lies and is eagerly pushing the climate anti-science alarmism on a daily basis as the 2020 election edges closer.

Blatant significant dishonesty to mislead voters is a risky electoral strategy yet, unfortunately, now appears to be a go-to favored method for most Democrats on a host of important issues.

Image source

An analysis of a UK home retrofitting project provides a glimpse into the future massive costs of doing this for an entire country, while not achieving the CO2 emission reduction goal desired per home.

The project architects had hoped for achieving an 80% CO2 decrease by replacing all existing appliances with newer more efficient ones; by increasing full wall insulation; by adding underfloor insulation; and etc.

Instead, a 60% CO2 reduction was achieved. The estimated cost of doing the same for every UK home would amount to a total of $5.6 trillion, which is about $193,000 per home (there are 29 million UK homes). The payback period from the energy savings for each home owner would be 150 years.

Assuming that same style of retrofit was done for the approximately 138 million U.S. homes, which tend to be larger than UK homes, the total retrofit cost would be some $26 trillion for just a 50-60% CO2 reduction.

And that's just for the U.S. residential units. Add on the retrofit cost of all commercial, industrial, and government structures and entire cost for the U.S. would be significantly higher.

It's not just the UK retrofit project that throws real shade on the Green New Deal's insanely expensive concept of retrofitting homes for "maximum" CO2 reductions. A study out of Australia suggests that decreases in both CO2 and total home energy usage would not be significant in long run.

Image source.

A new peer-reviewed study provides additional evidence that significant parts of the world have not experienced the hypothesized dangerous and rapid global warming impact of CO2 emissions.

Central Asia represents a large swath of the globe's land area where one would expect that the "powerful" temperature impact of humanity's CO2 would be rather robust.

Although the area exhibited warming in the 20th century, it is not much different than earlier warming from periods centuries ago (see graph at bottom).

And there has been a recent late 20th century cooling that is attributed to natural factors.

"[T]he recent cool-moist period from 1985 to 2000 has been related to the Arctic Oscillation...During this recent cool-moist period, ice mass accumulation of the glaciers in the Russian Altai Mountains was observed and Narozhniy and Zemtsov (2011) connected this phenomenon to annual precipitation increased by 8% – 10% especially in winter and spring (April-May) as a result of a strengthening of the zonal circulation over the Altai Mountains.”

Conclusion: Those stubborn facts again get in the way of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming doomsday claims. Central Asia's warming and cooing during both the past and modern era look to be more a function of natural volcano variations and ocean oscillations.

Holocene-Cooling-CentralAsia-Byambaa-2019

(click on to enlarge)

Cartoon-happy-fish-vector-illustration-31000241

Link to image source

Acidification of ocean waters from human CO2 emissions has raised concerns that aquatic life would be severely impacted. Yet, actual studies testing acidification levels on different species more often than not reveal that sea life is not impaired.

Adding to that empirical evidence is a new study on Atlantic salmon smolt.

"In a test of the above hypothesis, McCormick and Regish examined "the effect of future ocean acidification on the salinity tolerance and early seawater growth of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar smolts."..."Results of the analysis, in the words of the authors, revealed that "ocean acidification will not negatively affect the survival and ion regulatory ability [and, hence, salinity tolerance] of S. salar smolts," Furthermore, McCormick and Regish add that "rather than have a detrimental effect, ocean acidification conditions may actually improve the growth of S. salar in the first 2 weeks after seawater exposure." With respect to this latter parameter, Figure 1 graphically portrays the mean specific growth rates of the fish inhabiting the two seawater pH regimes, revealing 40 percent higher specific growth rates of Atlantic salmon in the ocean acidification treatment compared to ambient seawater pH."

Possible conclusion: CO2 makes for very happy fish.

Green Renewables: It's all about the Benjamins.

Every country that has attempted to force solar and wind energy sources on their national grid have all discovered the same thing: the cost of retail electricity jumps with the consumer being the ultimate chump that has to fork over more money to the providers.

Study out of University of Chicago has determined the same result happened in the 29 U.S. states that imposed Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

"RPS "significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward," the economists write."..."All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,"

And the money flowing out of consumer wallets - for dubious climate change "improvements" - will only keep climbing faster as renewable % goals are increased.

And making the pain even worse for consumers. is the following comment from the researchers:

"But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that "the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon."

That last comment indicates the massive stupidity of today's virtue signaling politicians who could care less about the real impacts on society and constituents when imposing regulatory schemes that have been proven failures wherever implemented.

(click on to enlarge)

The Green New Deal, as supported by most Democrats, envisions a U.S. power consumption market that is 100% served by renewable energy sources - primarily solar and wind renewables.

Is it hypothetically possible that either solar or wind, or some combination of the two, could deliver 100% of U.S. energy needs in the future?

Sure, but in reality it would not be practical, nor achievable, nor a desired outcome.

A very gigantic stumbling block to either wind or solar are the ludicrously huge land space requirements that are essentially insurmountable.

Using the total U.S. power 2017 consumption (estimated) as the goal to be met, either the wind or solar solutions would need to be able to generate 97.7 'quads' (97.7 quadrillion BTUs) on a yearly basis. That BTU figure converts to approximately 28,633 annual terrawatts, which in turn translates to an annual 28,633,000,000,000,000 watts consumed.

As the adjacent graphic indicates, whether it's a 100% wind renewable solution or a 100% solar solution, the approximate space needed in the continental U.S. would be astronomical for either, making these energy solutions politically and economically nonviable.

In contrast, even with current reactor technology, the land requirement for a nuclear solution (see green-filled rectangle on map) is a physical sliver of either solar or wind needs. In fact, the land needed by nuclear would amount to an approximate space as small as Connecticut.

And if the U.S. were to pursue a Gen-IV nuclear technology solution, such as molten salt reactors, the new reactors could be placed on the existing nuclear plant sites to use the old radioactive waste as fuel that is currently being stored at nuclear sites. Yes, Gen-IV technology can consume the old stored waste as fuel.

And because nuclear facilities produce energy 24/7/365, they do not require the same natural gas, pumped storage, or battery storage back up capability that wind and solar require, due to their being intermittent sources of energy. (The method of back up needed by renewables will also add to the the total land area requirements, which is not depicted on map image.)

Then there is the issue of new electrical transmission lines to be constructed. Because of geographical size of the solar/wind options, the number of new transmission lines to serve all the different wind/solar energy farms will be multiple times more than that required by the nuclear option.

Finally, as a plus, the Gen-IV technology is safe from melt down or potential containment vessel explosions due to its inherent design fundamentals. Conceivably, due to less risk, the total land needed for such technology might end up being less than the older nuclear plant sites.

Due to land requirements alone, it would behoove politicians of both parties to plan for and promote an industry standard design of the Gen-IV reactor technology to be adopted and installed as quickly as possible. It should become the nation's major source of electricity generation, along with smaller installations of solar and wind where locations favor their utilization - i.e., the sunny and windy regions.

(click on to enlarge)

Note: The land requirements for nuclear, solar, and wind were supplied from this NEI.org article. The adjacent table is a summary of the basic information used to calculate the land requirements assuming that all power consumption for all sectors would be in the form of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources, including transportation and heating. For the above U.S.map image, the square mile size of each U.S. state -- used to visualize the approximate land mass needed for each energy production source. Best case scenarios assumed for solar and wind capacity efficiency; industry average scenario used for nuclear capacity efficiency. Existing hydro power generation (about 2.9% of 2017 total) would slightly reduce amount of land required by wind, solar, and nuclear. Offshore wind farms could be utilized but they may ultimately be 2 to 3 times more costly; and will be exposed to greater natural weather and environmental stresses that cause more frequent operational maintenance/repair that will likely be difficult and lengthy.

(click on to enlarge)

Does @AOC's prediction that we are all going to fry within 12 years because of CO2 emissions have any basis in empirical reality? (Or, for that matter, does her #GreenNewDeal utopia?)

Here is a chart from the NOAA National Centers For Environmental Information. It is a plot of the maximum temperatures for the hottest U.S. month - July - going back to 1895.

The trend line (blue line) plotted by NOAA reveals that maximum temperatures in July have been on a declining trend of -0.07°F per century since 1914 through July 2018.

And if the exact same NOAA plot was done for August maximum temperatures - the 2nd hottest month for U.S. summers - there is a declining trend of -0.26°F per century since 1928.

Unequivocally, the recent maximum temperatures over the most recent 5 years, during the two hottest months of summer, are not unprecedented.

Below is a table of the 10 hottest months since 1895, along with the respective global atmospheric CO2 level at the time. The lack of correlation between hottest years and CO2 is striking.

Clearly, all the human CO2 emissions produced during the modern era have not significantly changed the overall trend of maximum temperatures since the early 20th century.

Conclusion: The AOC climate change fearmongering, along with her fellow Green New Deal Democrats', is a narrative without any empirical evidence. The narrative that U.S. adults, children, and grandchildren will to survive in a 'living hell' that will destroy our society within the next 12 years is highly, highly unlikely. Per the evidence presented in the chart and table, we have survived warmer temperatures in the past, and will do so in the future because we've adapted and can now better cope with both higher and lower temperatures (thank the modern advances in technology, engineering, medicine, and food production and they will continue).

Note: Trend lines are not predictions. They provide a sense of direction from the past to a specific endpoint, but they provide absolutely no proof of what will take place in the future, especially with a global climate that is dominated by large natural oscillations and variations. NOAA web site that maximum temperature plots are available from.

(click to enlarge)

HadCrut 4.6, the gold-standard global temperature dataset, confirms that Trump's energy and climate policies are delivering dramatic results the benefit of mankind!

After global warming temperature trends hit a post-1950 peak under the Obama administration, Trump has dropped the Obama's scary warming peak to a cooling status for the last 5 years.

Yes, temperatures have now decelerated to a rate of a cooling climate.

Obama couldn't lower the seas as promised but Trump lowered the world's fever of ever increasing temperatures.

One never tires of 'Winning.' :-)

[Note: Excel used to calculate 5-year temperature trends. Excel used to plot trends - HC4.6 global dataset. Trends are only temporary and not predictions. Climate change exists and constantly happens and warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age.]