Part 2, How Pseudo Science is Destroying our Civilization

If CO2 Emissions Are Not an Existential Threat, (They're Not), Then Where Are We Going?

Dr Sultan al-Jaber is president of the UN’s climate summit COP28

just in time for the opening day of COP28: “COP 28 is the 28th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be held from today, 30 November to 12 December 2023 in the United Arab Emirates.” the Dubai airport will be filled with private jets..

“…God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false” 2Thessalonians 2:11

See Part 1 –  it’s all about how global warming is the underlying key to the mad, rushed, unthinking push for EVs, wind farms, and solar farms, etc. Part 1 ended with “Media attention has presented the theory of global warming as if it were real, proven science. Next Thursday is Thanksgiving Day, so we’ll wait ‘till Thursday Nov. 30 for Part 2 to see if that’s true or not. Hint: It’s not.”

Debunking global warming

In part 1, I wrote: “if the foundational reason for all this mad scramble for renewable energy is a hoax, then all the billions of dollars, time, human energy, engineering skills, and doubling of electric bills is all wasted. If global warming is not really an existential threat, we’re crippling our economy for nothing. We’re hurting poor people the most – rising electric bills are a retroactive tax.

With electric vehicles, we’re doing vast amounts of damage to the environment with lithium mining for batteries and rare earth minerals for chips, (not to mention child slave labor in developing countries) and we’re reducing our mobility and freedom because of the limited range, the time waiting for battery recharging (assuming you can find a working charger), and the risk of not being able to recharge at all during power outages.”

  With solar farms, we’re taking huge swaths of good productive farmland out of production, depending on China for the rare earth mineral supply line, and creating a gigantic disposal and recycling problem as the panels wear out.

  With wind farms, were killing birds and whales and necessitating the building out of undersea cables and, on land, thousands of miles of high voltage pylon towers to further despoil our formerly beautiful countryside.

net zero is impossible without an incredibly unrealistic and expensive buildout of huge battery backups for the times when it’s not windy or sunny.

“So before digging the hole deeper, it’s time to take a long hard look at the whole theory of global warming. Because if it’s wrong, then the whole political and corporate superstructure of EVs, wind farms, and solar farms is sooner or later going to fall like a house of cards, devastating the economy.

Real science doesn’t let itself be influenced by grants or subsidies or popular opinion. Real science is an unbiased, open-minded search for truth, wherever it leads. Real science is open to testing and re-testing. It doesn’t ignore, suppress, block, or ‘cancel’ those who have questions or contrary opinions, and it certainly doesn’t hide contrary data or facts.”

  One way to look at this issue is from the perspective of cause and effect. The erroneous belief that global warming is an ‘existential threat’ is the cause; excessive, massive misallocation of capital in EVs, wind and solar farms is the effect.

 Jim Rickards’ Paradigm Press does a great job of pointing out the truth about global warming:

“The fact is, there is no climate crisis…the “renewable energy” being pushed on us can’t replace fossil fuels… The green new scammers have had a long run. They’ve been warning that the planet will be destroyed in ten years for the last forty years, which means they have been wrong all along and they’re still wrong today.

Protecting yourself from the rhetoric and harmful policies of the New Green Scam starts by understanding the truth behind their hysterical claims.

Their predictions of global warming or “climate change” are based on badly flawed models. The models are so bad they can’t even backtest correctly. If you take known data from ten years ago and plug it into the models, the model will generate a forecast that bears no relation to what actually happened. If you can’t backtest correctly, how can you forecast correctly? You can’t…

There’s no evidence that human-caused CO2 emissions have had a discernable impact on climate…

And now Bill Gates seems to be backing away. A noted anti-humanist who believes the earth would be better off with 5 billion fewer people and who promoted dangerous mRNA vaccines, has been one of the leading climate alarmists…

He now says there’s not really a climate “crisis” that requires immediate action and that running a business on that basis is destructive.

So the computer models need to make assumptions about the data, using parameters set by the researchers running the model.

And that’s the problem.

Scientists can get almost any result they want by tweaking the inputs and running multiple scenarios. ..the opposite of a search for truth…

It also means that the outputs are mostly worthless because of unfounded assumptions, computational complexity and flawed model design…This is not to say that all climate science is garbage.

There are honest scientists using solid data and robust models to make more accurate assessments of the current state and future path of climate change

The list includes Michael Shellenberger, Bjorn Lomborg, Bruce C. Bunker, M. J. Sanger, Steven E. Koonin and many others…Flawed assumptions lead to flawed models on Earth’s rising temperatures. But the problem is compounded by extrapolating what higher temperatures will do to the planet.

Here’s just a sample of the dire predictions that get a lot of media attention — regardless of what the data says is actually happening.

·       Surging sea levels will inundate the coasts.

This is false. Sea levels have been rising at the same pace for 100 years, unaffected by climate change or human activity.

The rate of increase is about 7 inches per 100 years — barely enough to get your feet wet in 2121.

·       Hurricanes are becoming more powerful and more frequent.

This is false. The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment said, “There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has there been any trend identified in the number of U.S. land-falling hurricanes.”

There is evidence that property damage from hurricanes is increasing. Does this mean hurricanes are getting stronger? Not at all.

It just means that rich owners with subsidized insurance are building mansions on sandbars where they don’t belong. That’s not climate change…

·       Tornadoes are more powerful and more frequent.

This is false. The strength of a tornado can be measured using the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale. The scale starts at EF0 and goes up to EF5.

According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records, between 1954 and 2014, the number of EF1 or greater tornadoes has been fairly consistent per year, with spikes in 1973, 1982, 2008 and 2011.

The number of tornadoes measured as EF3 or greater has been steady, too, except for spikes in 1957, 1965, 1973 and 2011.

To date, no correlation has been shown between tornado strength and CO2 emissions.

·       Snowstorms are becoming more frequent with greater accumulation of snow.

This is false. Snowstorms are highly localized so, of course, measurements vary with some locations getting more snow, some less.

A chart of annual snowfall in Washington, D.C., from 1889–2018 shows the annual snowfall in inches has been trending downward for the entire 130-year period.

kudos to Jim Rickards for speaking the truth

2022 Nobel Prize winner says there is no ‘climate crisis’

from Tuco’s Child Nov.26

“…last year’s Nobel Physics prize winner (in physics), Dr. John Clauser. Recently Dr. Clauser has come out strongly against the notion that there is a climate emergency

…Clauser’s recent entry into the climate debate has sent shock waves through politicised scientific circles, since a scientist of his stature is hard to ignore. Mainstream media have been largely silent, but his views have spread like wildfire on social media. And he’s been on the road of late telling an audience in Baltimore that he has great news.

“There is no climate crisis! … Much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril.”

Dr. Clauser recently signed the World Climate Declaration (WCD) that states there is no climate emergency. The WCD has now been signed by many hundreds of distinguished scientists, including another Nobel Physics winner. Earlier this year, Clauser said the popular climate narrative “reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”…

Dr. Clauser recently told a group of young South Korean scientists that they must follow the scientific method based on good observations and experiments. Good observations always overrule purely speculative theory. Referring to climate science, he noted the world is “literally awash, saturated, with pseudoscience, with bad science, with scientific misinformation and disinformation”… Clauser sees the IPCC as “one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation”.

here’s another example of the complete disconnect between the push for renewables and reality

from Stu Turley’s Energy Newsbeat Nov.27

“Offshore wind facilities are enormously expensive and environmentally destructive. The primary purported justification for constructing them is to reduce “carbon” (carbon dioxide or CO2) emissions and save the planet from “catastrophic climate change.” However, this justification is not just built on a false premise; adding offshore wind to a state’s energy mix will most likely increase global CO2 emissions. That means the net emission benefits are hugely negative, as are other net environmental and economic effects.” (emphasis mine)

In closing, I’ll just re-emphasize what I started with: “If global warming is not really an existential threat, we’re crippling our economy for nothing. We’re hurting poor people the most – rising electric bills are a retroactive tax.”