“Politicians are throwing money that they do not have at a problem that does not exist in order to finance solutions that make no difference.” Michael Hart
For almost 20 years I went along with what I was told. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We were putting more and more of it into the atmosphere. Global warming has been increasing because of it. A consensus of scientists and government officials from around the world must be right. I put solar panels on my roof and went for a hike. Then, one day, I started looking deeper. Here’s what I’ve found out.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), federal agencies, mainstream media and California Democrats are dictating bad, as in both expensive and ineffective, energy policy based on faulty (or fraudulent) climate models. The IPCC’s, and later Al Gore’s, dire predictions of Arctic meltdown from 20 years ago, and 10 years ago have failed to materialize, twice now. But wait, AOC says we have only 10 more years to prevent the end of the world.
Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Why is the mainstream media not questioning such thinly veiled propaganda and attempted manipulation of our energy policy? Why are they ignoring Climategate?
Science is not about consensus; it’s about verifiable facts and truth. There is no evidence and no honest science supporting the IPCC’s dire claims. Models unsupported by observations are little more than garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) musings that can be manipulated to show whatever outcome is desired. The IPCC is long on climate models, but short on actual evidence. The IPCC’s 97 percent scientific consensus is fraudulent as well. Look here, over 31,000 scientists signed a petition saying whoa, wait a minute. http://www.petitionproject.org.
Humans critically overheating the atmosphere is pure political propaganda designed to cost us money and restrict our energy supply. It’s a false alarm based on a false premise. Manufactured “science” and a whole lot of hype, repeated, will never fool all of the people all of the time. Mankind cannot overheat the planet with CO2 emissions, even if we wanted to. It’s just not possible. It’s the latest example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds.
Worse still, the proposed “fix” cannot have any significant impact on the climate. What we do or don’t do won’t matter much at all. China, India and Russia will steamroll us if CO2 emissions matter as much as the IPCC claims, and if CO2 emissions don’t matter that much, well, there you go then. A farce of a fix for a falsehood is not funny. It will cost Americans trillions of dollars, our modern way of life and ultimately our very freedom, if we eliminate fossil fuels.
CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a consequential greenhouse gas. CO2 is an essential plant nutrient. If CO2 in the atmosphere were ever to drop below 150 ppm, all plant life would die, and that would be the end of us. Double the CO2 in the atmosphere and you can double the size of plants. We’re in a CO2 drought even at 400 some ppm. 1,600 ppm is earth’s long-term average. Over 1,000 ppm is ideal for plants. Plus, the plants use about 20 percent less water in a CO2 rich environment. Ask any hothouse grower.
All life is carbon based. A carbon tax is a tax on life itself. Demonizing CO2, one of the essential building blocks of all plant life, is immoral. All life, including human life, benefits from more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.
Wake up people!
(52) comments
Statum is wrong. It is not worthy of argument. The debunk is political in nature. Consensus among climate scientists is that "the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change" real time.
The weather (climate) is changing quite fast. It will get far worser. Entire towns and areas are being irreversibly damaged or destroyed. Massive evacuations from areas are commonplace.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
CS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf
*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).
As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.
References
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2015)
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)
Latest resources
Summer blooms in the Baltic
Summer blooms in the Baltic
Video: For 15 years, GRACE tracked freshwater movements around the world
Video: For 15 years, GRACE tracked freshwater movements around the world
NASA studies an unusual Arctic warming event
NASA studies an unusual Arctic warming event
to be clear, are you saying there has been no rise in average global temps/
in the last 100 years or so?
Temps rose one degree on average over the past hundred year period which is attributable to heat islands aka black pavement in cities.. We're heading into another ice age dummies. Temps are actually cooling. LA just had it's coldest Feb in 150 years
australia just had its hotest year on record in its history. tematures are averaged globally; over the whole surface of the earth. yesterday it was warmer in fairbanks than columbus.the big picture is the thing that counts. at the end of this year we almost surely will see another above average year. by the way we're talking deg.C.
correction: australia just had its hottest january in history. by tre way i'll bet big cities are no more than 1 or 2 percent of the world's surface if that.
That is absolutely untrue. The Urban Heat Island effect is removed from surface temperature data. No, there is no ice age coming.
ok you won't say, well you have 2 choices yea or nay. if yea you owe us an explanation of how the rise ov 1degC came about. if nay you will have to explain how all the climate scientists all over the world got it wrong. or you can claim all these guys risked there reputation and their livelihood and conspired to cook the books. sounds like something that don would come up with. and if he did you'd believe him.
This man is an elected official. How embarrassing.
Stadum and Rush Limbaugh's seem to view world-climate change -- and the havoc it is causing -- as a political tool. Each year, will they continue to deny that mother nature is angry because we have and continue to tainted her waters, her terra firma, air and most all live on this planet. We have been not been “good stewards” of the land. The weather is going to get worse with each year, and with multiple concurrent weather-related disasters at once, federal assistance will fail. Far worse may be on the horizon...
Greenland’s Melting Ice Nearing a ‘Tipping Point" is a serious threat. Atlantic waters pouring into the N. Atlantic Ocean can change the ocean currents, and effect the weather in way not experiences. Further, Greenland’s ice is melting so fast that it could become a major factor in sea-level rise around the world within two decades, scientists said in a new study.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/climate/greenland-ice.html
Well if the NYTs said it's true? NOT!!
Climate change is a hoax. Each time they predict a doomsday scenario they regroup and make even more hilarious false claims!
FAKE SCIENCE: Heat “records” heavily manipulated by dishonest climate change propagandists to try to push global warming lie
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-25-fake-science-heat-records-heavily-manipulated-by-dishonest-climate-change-propagandists.html
UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31472-un-ipcc-scientist-blows-whistle-on-un-climate-lies
Fake News about Holes in Antarctic Glaciers
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/fake_news_about_holes_in_antarctic_glaciers_.html#ixzz5hW5JFifC
Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating
https://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
How AOC’s Green New Deal would unleash a catastrophic food collapse and Venezuela-style mass starvation across America
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02-13-aoc-green-new-deal-food-collapse-mass-starvation.html
Haley Responds to Pelosi’s Climate Committee: Does Protecting God’s Creation Include Babies?
https://www.westernjournal.com/haley-responds-pelosis-climate-committee-protecting-gods-creation-include-babies/
The list is endless.....
Green New STUPID: Liberal U.S. cities now just burning recyclables because no one wants to accept the raw material
Australian official: Climate change is a U.N.-led conspiracy to establish a new world order
Sea level data ALTERED by scientists to create false impression of rising oceans
How Business Insider and other dishonest left-wing media outlets desperately LIED to cover up the embarrassing truth about AOC’s “Green New Deal” fiasco
Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” is such a bad plan she has to LIE in order to get it passed, like Obama did with Obamacare
Dangerous Marxist Ocasio-Cortez blasts tech giants for allowing BOTH sides of the climate change debate to be heard… demands total censorship of climate skeptics
Ocasio-Cortez goes FULL CULT, claims “the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
Climate change HOAX has literally convinced a member of Congress that “the world is going to end in 12 years”
Experts claim climate change activists altered findings and used “arbitrary adjustments” to exaggerate sea level rise
To anyone who thinks this is a debate, compare the reputable, non-partisan, scientific, governmental, and intergovernmental sources cited by Branson to the right-wing agitprop sources cited by Two Toe Joe.
What? Reputable, non-partisan, scientific, governmental, and intergovernmental sources cited by Branson? I have never laughed so loud in my life. Certainly studies performed by governmental and intergovernmental sources are partisan and non scientific. Keep regurgitating the same garbage in garbage out mentality. Even the John Cook references by Branson has been shown to be a fraud let alone the IPPC studies.
"In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Cook's work has not been debunked. Most of the climate research doesn't address the cause of warming, as that is considered settled science. You just paraded out a list of names of people who are associated with a number of fossil fuel-funded think tanks.
The globe is cooling and we're heading into an ice age dummies.. so focus on acidification of the oceans -a real problem when countries like China India Canada dumping raw sewage into our oceans -We don't. if you're worried about carbon? exponential growth in technology will have earth at neutral in 10-12 yrs and falling and yes optimal plant growth takes place at 1500ppm of CO2 -we're at just over 400 right now.
The globe is not cooling. That's a lie.
I have to laugh again. First we were heading into an ice age. Then global warming. Now we must call it climate change so all bases are covered. Biggest hoax ever conceived that continues to be rammed down our throats! Remember we only have 12 years left. I think we have heard that one also!
Keep hanging your hat on that tired old line BUT WHAT ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING? Joe:
"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. "
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Keep hanging your hat on those same old tired "the end is near" lines that is regurgitated every few years.
You should had checked the citations. Let me help.
Daniel Bedford and "John Cook". (2013) Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs. Science & Education 22:8, 2019-2030.
Online publication date: 14-Jun-2013.
John Cook?
You can believe whatever you want. I personally do not care. Just do not expect every one to believe we have 12 years left nor any other doomsday scenarios cooked up.We are subjected to it time after time by the same tired people.
The climate change hoax is taking a toll on our young people. How would you like to be a child or a young adult and be told you don't have a future because the world is coming to an end because of fossil fuels and livestock passing gas. What future do they have to look forward to? Is this why so many young people are despondent? Don't worry about the future of the planet. It will be just fine. Enjoy your life. Don't let the lib's destroy it for you.
Without CO2 we would not have beer, soda pop, or paint ball guns.
Hey voters (especially young voters, who will be the ones around to suffer the consequences): This science and climate denier is on the Board of Directors of our local Hi Desert Water District- can you believe it?! His term is up in the 2022. If you want intelligent people making decisions about our water use, I suggest we all vote this guy out!
Unbelievable. What an embarrassment to our town.
Actually he's up in 2020. Vote him out!
If I lived in Yucca I would vote for him. No way would I want a chuckle head liberal in charge of the water supply.
to prove co2 is an effective greenhouse gas requires only a simple experiment. all you need is a tube, say 12" d 24" long. next an infra red camera, a candle, and a source of co2. you place the camera at one end of the tube and the lighted candle at the other. the camera will now read the candle perfectly. next start injecting the co2 into the tube. as the co2 level rises the image of the candle being read by the camera fades. put enough co2 into the tube the image disappears. there can be no other conclusion than that the co2 absorbed the heat of the candle that allowed the camera to read it. now apply this principal to the atmosphere and you can see, when the sun shines it could absorb more heat as the co2 level rises. at night the heat is released from the co2 in all directions including DOWN and the earth warms. so it matters a lot as to how much co2 we dump into our atmosphere. actually it's pretty simple.
Okay Bill,
Have you been watching "Bill Nye the science guy? No one is denying that it's a greenhouse gas, and one that life on earth depends on to survive. At only 400 ppm there is a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means we need to tear down the wind farms and the solar panels and build coal fired power plants. Maybe that's why my tomatoes haven't been doing well. Not enough CO2.
excuse me mr stadum did.
What a load of nonsense. There is no shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere--there is an excess amount. Natural sinks can't absorb the excess emissions from our industrial activities, upsetting the natural balance of the carbon cycle.
there are several web sights, google for one, that has a graph showing the present co2 level in the atmosphere is about 100 ppm above any level measured in the last 800,000 years. yes there is a way to do that.
What a ridiculous analogy. How did you come up with such utter K-rap? The candle won’t burn without oxygen. The Co2 displaced the oxygen putting out the candle, that’s all that happened. Come on Jenkins, use your head.
the candle was not in the tube it was outside as was the camera.
let me be more precise. first this is not an analogy it is an experiment.second camera and candle were at opposite ends outside the tube. the infra red image was projected on to a screen. as the co2 was added you could see the candle fade on the screen. the candle burned brightly throughout the experiment. co2 is a special gas it absorbs heat!
Well, remind me not to play cards with Jenkins again. He makes up the rules as he goes along!
Hey, how about we set off a couple three Krakatau class volcanoes here and there and see what climate predictions we can conjure up then. Don’t get too excited, it’s just a thought experiment.
As if removing mountain tops to get at coal, drillings deep wells on land and at sea for oil, spilling the poisonous products all over the place, transporting them, refining them, distributing them and fighting wars over them wasn’t all ready bad enough, we then go and burn the stuff in such inefficient ways that children in smog clogged cities sometimes gasp for air when they go out to play (something even I remember).
Will it ever change? I think so. It must. Carcinogens hang in the very air we breathe and we are creating more all the time. But, the ball for change is all ready in play, we need only to keep it rolling.
This fossil fuel business is filthy, destructive and archaic. I find it incomprehensible that anyone could be happy about having to blast and gouge monstrous open pit coal mines into scenic landscapes or permanently saturate and defoliate miles and miles of soil at well sites just to satisfy the worlds’ growing energy needs, especially here in the twenty first century where there is an entirely new approach that can make those methods obsolete.
So why did we let Senator Feinstein et al. block solar and wind farms in the desert? Isn’t it where they are best suited? Isn’t it where the technology would be most effective? Isn’t where the least environmental damage could be done? Industry is chomping at the bit and the installations can be removed any time better technology evolves. How stupid are we? This is one of those things we should have taken care of a very long time ago because now it is urgent.
For as many reasons as there are moving parts in a modern day gasoline powered automobile engine, electric vehicles are fast becoming the preferred mode of transportation here and abroad. It is inevitable. Innovators and free market entrepreneurs are determined to make it happen. Cheap, clean, powerful, light weight, long range, long lived and quickly rechargeable batteries are now becoming the long dreamed of reality that is cinching the deal and as more and more electric cars, trucks and buses take over our highways and byways, ever increasing amounts new electrical generation will be needed to power them… tremendous amounts. It will all be green generation and filthy fossil fuels will be but a black smudge on the pages of history.
I guarantee you, this debate is academic.
Mr. Stadum,
It behooves me to have to write this rebuttal to your poorly written, factually insufficient, and politically motivated opinion piece. I am still literally floored by the utter stupidity of those denying climate change when the US has suffered billions upon billions of dollars of loss due to catastrophic weather, including, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and drought.
When you site one source of information and dismiss the rest, it clearly shows that you are not interested in doing any “investigative journalism” while you attack the mass media for the lack “investigative journalism.” The hypocrisy is funny. So I’m here to help - with links - because I’m capable of searching for more information.
NASA has posted a Scientific consensus that the earth’s climate is warming and the following institutions are part of this consensus:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
This article continues to include a list of International Scientific Organization that are also on board with the data about climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I’m going to say that these organization, from around the world, trump your 31K scientist who signed a petition against the IPCC.
Scientific America posted an article noting that ExxonMobil knew about climate change for about 40 years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../exxon-knew-about.../
Should I continue?
Let’s look at CO2 Levels. Yes, it is true that when CO2 levels increase, plant growth increases. However….
The Amazon Rain Forrest, along with forest around the world, is the earth’s Air Purifiers, so to speak. In an article from The Independent UK, those forests have been destroyed to such an extent that they cannot clean the air of human’s ever-increasing CO2 levels - aka pollution.
Let’s do some math. When millions and millions of acres of plant life are destroyed, and humans increase pollution levels, the air won’t get cleaned. When that happens, CO2 levels rise, trapping in heat from the sun which raises the temperature of the earth.
It’s that simple. I learned this in High School.
https://www.independent.co.uk/.../tropical-forests-carbon...
I think it’s important that when someone opens their mouth they should provide a full range of information, instead of picking and choosing sources that support one’s narrative.
The life of this planet and everything that lives on it is not dependent on Republican or Democrats. Nice try on making it political. However, it seems to me that Republicans prefer our air to be toxic, our water polluted and our soil dead from oil spills and chemical spraying.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../how-trump-is.../
I would think an educated man, such as yourself, would have provided the Morongo Valley with a plethora of information about climate change and its effect on our weather.
Why are you on the Board of Directors for the Hi-Desert Water District?
I am always floored that people actually think Noah's Ark was real but Climate Change is a hoax.
excellent post. i would add the us military.
Bob Stadum stated "science is not about consensus; it’s about verifiable facts and truth". I find it amusing that someone responded by stating his letter was a "poorly written, factually insufficient, and politically motivated opinion" and then list several "poorly written, factually insufficient, and politically motivated references". The list provided by the responder was the exact same list provided in the very first comment regarding the letter with the addition of a few more "poorly written, factually insufficient, and politically motivated opinions". Same "garbage in garbage out" mentality Bob Statum mentioned. Scientific American? I enjoyed their use of science in determining "Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?" which certainly contained "poorly written, factually insufficient, and politically motivated opinions". Even the article "Effective World Governments Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe" was chocked full of "poorly written, factually insufficient, and politically motivated opinions". Even Britain's "Independent" reference towards tropical forest issue was written by a newspaper that even the progressive "New York Times" labels as "progressive". They cater their articles specifically for the ''I only read the title'' crowds with little regard towards reality. Even "National Geographic" has turned to political motivated themes such as "Gender Revolutions" which has nothing to do with geography.
Mr. Stadum cites a petition that's 30 years old. Maybe Mr. Stadum could call Jace Houston, a signee of the petition, who is general manager of the San Jacinto River Authority in Conroe, TX., and ask him about his take on climate change in 2019. Mr. Houston came under intense public scrutiny in 2017 for not releasing flood water during hurricane Harvey in Harris County, Texas. The flooding caused by Harvey was the third "500" year flood in three years. Not sure if Mr. Houston remembers signing the petition, it now seems he has a lot more to worry about than supporting alt-science.
If Mr. Stadum runs for re-election, his yard signs could sport "Climate Denier" over his mug in bold type. Does the HDWD need a director that supports alt-science?
Maybe Mr. Stadum should had cited Al Gore.
“I think Georgetown is already a trailblazer,” former Vice President Al Gore said during his 2016 visit to learn about the Texas city’s plan to get 100 percent of its energy from wind and solar power
Former Vice President Al Gore hailed the city of Georgetown, Texas, for powering itself with only solar and wind energy, but now the city is losing millions on its green energy gamble."
Maybe the HDWD needs a director that does not support the "alt-science"!
Bag Al Gore. I don't wait for Gore to tell me what to think. The petition Stadum uses to make his pitch is utterly worthless.
Regarding energy production in Texas; since 2014, Texas wind turbines have produced more electricity than the state's two nuclear power plants. Pricing games in Texas? We remember Enron, the darling of Houston. Ban lignite coal (60-70% carbon) for electricity production, your pricing problem disappears.
Al Gore and all of his environmental cronies are responsible for the corruption in Georgetown Texas. Unfortunately both the taxpayers and consumers are paying the price for this scandal rather than stockholders as in the case of Enron. I have never believed in anything Al Gore has said either but many climate change cronies worship him as a god and refer to him for scientific guidance. Even his so called documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to be "An Inconvenient Lie". Those in Georgetown Texas sure got hoodwinked in believing in the worthless 100% renewable scam. I just can't wait until the notion of net zero emissions is mandated nationwide so we as a nation can experience the glory of bearing the cost and pricing problems those fine folks in Texas are experiencing.
rock port mo.,greensburg ks.,kodiac is ak.,burlington vt., aspen co. all run 100% on renewables.
Rock Port, Missouri a town with a population of 1300 spent 90 Million dollars on five windmills. Sounds very economical Bill. Greensburg KS with a population of 771 which was flattened by a tornado in 2007 should really be proud especially with those new sustainable houses that are selling for less than what they cost to build because no one wants to live there. Yes those Hydroelectric powered cities of Aspen, Kodiak, and Burlington should be happy but I am sure the Sierra Club frowns upon those dams producing the cheap power. Come to think of it the Sierra Club even states "These six cities now generate 100% of the energy used community-wide from clean, non-polluting AND RENEWABLE sources" and even includes Georgetown Texas.
Aspen Electric gets electricity from a wind farm in Nebraska, and have some of the lowest rates in Colorado. Georgetown will eventually sort their problems as well.
Georgetown is the first city in Texas to go 100% renewable, so some bumps in the road are to be expected in state that has a law on the books that prohibits communities knowing what other communities are paying for their energy.from the same source.
Now for the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say.
“This means we are powered by the forces of nature, predominately water and wind with a touch of solar and landfill gas.”
"Aspen’s transition to 100 percent renewable occurred Thursday after the city signed a contract with wholesale electric energy provider Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska, in order “to achieve this final leg of our goal,” Hornbacher said."
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-is-third-u-s-city-to-reach-100-renewable-energy/
" The majority of Aspen’s electric generation (about 56 percent) comes from hydro generation on local reservoirs including the Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant and the Ruedi power plant."
"Despite the use of renewable energy, the city’s utility has the 7th lowest cost of electricity among Colorado’s 27 municipal utilities, according to the city—largely because the bonds used to pay for the hydro electric power are paid off."
https://www.solarreviews.com/news/aspen_third_city_100_percent_renewable_energy_powered_090815/
Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN)
"MEAN has a reliable and diverse energy resource portfolio that includes electric generation from coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind and landfill gas resources along with Participant-Owner generation. MEAN has ownership shares in several power plants throughout the region and power purchase agreements with other utilities."
https://www-nmppenergy-org-files.s3.amazonaws.com/82cc-15015857-About%20MEAN%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?versionId=BfZnc2KvlG3ZDyoVb49a8_3OA352b13R
meanwhile back at the ranch, science prevails: using state data and a little arithmetic i confirmed what i had assumed, but was also surprised. comparing the ratio of dirty fuels to non c02 producing sources of power for kWh production the calculation showed the following: 2001 60%/40%, 2017 40%/60%. the surprise was that a very large proportion of the progress has happened since 2015. thats when the use of NG started started to decline substantially, offset by an equally substantial rise in clean sources. if this trend continues, and i have no reason to think it won't, ca. will easily meet it's green goals. there is hope because many states follow ca's lead and most of the rest of the world is on the same course.
Maybe someone needs to check their arithmetic and sources. California is the leader in driving energy prices up and I hardly think everyone is on board.
"In 2018, about 4,178 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or 4.18 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale electricity generation facilities in the United States. About 63% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases). About 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 17% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that an additional 30 billion kWh of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2018."(https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3) "Renewable sources provide 24.38% of California's energy production, totaling 635,062 billion BTUs. This is 8.43% of total U.S. renewable energy production".(https://www.energy.gov/maps/renewable-energy-production-state)". "Gas will continue to make headway in the power and industrial sectors, which respectively account for 34% and 30% of our total gas usage". "In fact, gas is now almost 45% of U.S. power generation capacity, and climbing toward 50%. From 2017-2020, we will be installing 80,000 megawatts of new gas capacity, or almost a 20% increase in just a few years with even more coming. The entire country is turning to gas, and new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions favor natural gas. The ability of wind and solar power, augmented by battery storage, to displace, not supplement, natural gas, is typically overstated".(https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/04/01/will-u-s-natural-gas-production-outpace-demand/#cf2dcb2118dd" US Natural Gas Demand Is Expected to Grow 40% in Ten Years(https://articles.marketrealist.com/2018/09/us-natural-gas-demand-is-expected-to-grow-40-in-ten-years/)
What cannot be argued is that natural climate change has been taking place for many millennia. It's nothing new, nor man made.
when you watch a weather report on tv and see large loops running north south across the country, you are looking at Rossby waves, named after the meteorologist who first defined them in the 1930s.they are the bends in the jet stream, and the lobes of the loops define high and low pockets of air pressure. the u shaped pockets are low pressure and are associated with stormy weather. the n shaped associated with his heat and drought. in the summertime, especially, these undulations tend to become exaderated. global warming adds to the drama by causing these waves, moving from west to east, to resonate. a fancy word for stall. when this happens you get areas of high heat, the high pressure lobes. the low pressure lobes tend to produce storms and heave rain. as we have seen in recent years this phenomenon has caused an unusually high number of drought and flood conditions. it is almost sure to continue and worsen as the ave. global temp. rises. time to act!
Those rossby waves are working miracles Bill.
My creosote bushes are looking better than they have in years.
Please do not mess that up!
31,000 sounds like a lot of scientists but do yo all know how many scientists there are in the world? There’s approximately 8 million scientists which means the 31,000 is roughly three and a half percent of all the scientists. That’s what we said before about 97% of scientists are in agreement the THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE.
Your erroneous logic presumes we have heard from every scientist in the world and all of them had an opinion on this matter. That is rediculous!
Furthermore I believe you would be hard pressed to find one scientist, much less 31,000 who would say that the climate is not changing. Perhaps you should reword your proclaimation.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.