https://www.wsj.com/articles/
oken=
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
..................This article does not disparage or minimize man-made inputs
into climate change; however, I will provide some factors that lend support that
this has been a huge hoax on taxpayers. The notion that fossil fuel is a primary
man-made climate changer has not been demonstrated in any controlled lab. In
fact, contrary to Al Gore's photoshopped first 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth,
experiments using compressed CO2 introduced into a closed container to
demonstrate CO2's impact on the atmosphere, compressed gas when expanded lowers
the ambient temperature-not increases!
Al Gore's video experiment has not been
repeated in any controlled lab condition. Gore's videotaped experiment may
demonstrate the properties of compressed gases but not global warming by induced
CO2.
NOAA's site prior to Trump's election stated man-made climate change is in fact
a consensus and undeniable. Since when is science a consensus? The site actually
stated that from 1850 through 2016 the average ambient temperature has risen
approximately 1.5 F. Pray tell me what measuring devices were utilized in 1850's
to measure 1/10 of a degree. Ohh...then you find out that this was a retroactive
projection based on a current mathematical model-not actual data collection.
Some gobbygook from climate change advocates: Because there are now thousands of
weather stations, the uncertainty in temperature measurements is now much lower
than before 1850. But that doesn't mean it is simple to figure out the average
world temperature! It turns out you can't just take a regular average instead,
you need to account for the unevenness of the weather stations (lots in the US,
few in Greenland or Africa, for example), urban heat island effects, and lots of
other possible quirks.
In fact, computer software and advanced statistical techniques are needed to
sort everything out, and as we'll see later, not everyone comes up with the same
answer. However, the different answers do tend to be similar enough to all be
telling the same story--Right, particularly when your project is being funded
with millions of taxpayer dollars. .
Remember climate-gate at the University of East Anglia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/
Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate") began in November
2009 with the hacking <https://en.wikipedia.org/
of a server at the Climatic Research Unit
<https://en.wikipedia.org/
of East Anglia <https://en.wikipedia.org/
by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the
Climatic Research Unit documents
<https://en.wikipedia.org/
internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit
<https://en.wikipedia.org/
on climate change.
The story was first broken by climate change denialists
<https://en.wikipedia.org/
Delingpole <https://en.wikipedia.org/
term "Climategate" to describe the controversy. Several climate-change
"skeptics" argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific
conspiracy <https://en.wikipedia.org/
that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The
CRU rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context and
merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Data that did not fit the "hockey
stick" model of global warming was conveniently omitted.
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics
represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is
like a car alarm-a blaring noise people are tuning out.
Other facts ignored in Al Gore's sci-fi marketing of his billion dollar
hysteria:
Key Climate Facts:
* 97% of scientists do NOT agree that the science of climate change is
settled. Not by a long shot. That oft-quoted statistic was totally fabricated
as is the claim that the tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a
result of mankind's use of fossil fuels to power our wonderful civilization of
smart phones, heating and air conditioning and swift and safe transportation is
in some magical way destroying our climate. The 97% claim has been disproved
over and over again, but Gore, government and media continue to issue horrible
scare claims.
* The oceans are not going to flood our cities.
* Massive killer storms are not going to sweep the Earth.
* Heat waves are not going kill millions.
* Our crops are not going to fail.
******************************
The Wall Street Journal
Climate Change Has Run Its Course
Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause
that has lost its vitality.
ILLUSTRATION: DAVID GOTHARD
By
Steven F. Hayward
June 4, 2018 6:54 p.m. ET
Climate change is over. No, I'm not saying the climate will not change in the
future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that
climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is
boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and
bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent
seekers.
Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away
from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a
policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first
elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump's ostentatious withdrawal from the
Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.
A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in
the text of the Paris Agreement. The "nonbinding" pact declares that climate
action must include concern for "gender equality, empowerment of women, and
intergenerational equity" as well as "the importance for some of the concept of
'climate justice.' " Another is Sarah Myhre's address at the most recent meeting
of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change
cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social
injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics
represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is
like a car alarm-a blaring noise people are tuning out.
This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the
downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public
Interest, "Up and Down With Ecology: The 'Issue-Attention Cycle,'
<https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/
=article_inline> " published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign
began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime,
poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage
cycle through which political issues pass regularly.
The first stage involves groups of experts and activists calling attention to a
public problem, which leads quickly to the second stage, wherein the alarmed
media and political class discover the issue. The second stage typically
includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm-you might call it the "dopamine"
stage-as activists conceive the issue in terms of global peril and salvation.
This tendency explains the fanaticism with which divinity-school dropouts Al
Gore and Jerry Brown have warned of climate change.
Then comes the third stage: the hinge. As Mr. Downs explains, there soon comes
"a gradually spreading realization that the cost of 'solving' the problem is
very high indeed." That's where we've been since the United Nations' traveling
climate circus committed itself to the fanatical mission of massive near-term
reductions in fossil fuel consumption, codified in unrealistic proposals like
the Kyoto Protocol. This third stage, Mr. Downs continues, "becomes almost
imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the
intensity of public interest in the problem."
While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change
as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public,
despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have
consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the
annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup's yearly survey of environmental
issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution.
"In the final stage," Mr. Downs concludes, "an issue that has been replaced at
the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo-a twilight realm of
lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest." Mr. Downs predicted
correctly that environmental issues would suffer this decline, because solving
such issues involves painful trade-offs that committed climate activists would
rather not make.
A case in point is climate campaigners' push for clean energy, whereas they
write off nuclear power because it doesn't fit their green utopian vision. A new
study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7
million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, "not a single grant
supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy." The major
emphasis of green giving was "devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to
opposing the fossil fuel industry."
Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic
climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the
issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of
acceptable responses. Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that
could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue
into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics,
die by politics.
Mr. Hayward is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental
Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
Hey Thanks for sharing this blog its very helpful to implement in our work
ReplyDeleteRegards
Hire a Email Hacker