My son and I just returned from the Heartland Institute's 6th International Conference on Climate Change in DC. Very enlightening! Approximately 350 of the world's top climate scientists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists, geologists, numerical modelers, --the whole gamut of folks with the qualifications and experience to recognize this entire Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) scam for what it is! It's instructive that so many of the PhD's were in emeritus status but these are the only scientists not subject to political and economic retaliation for violating the tenants of this environmental religion--because little of what the Climatists are involved in today can seriously be considered science!
Nobody present denies that there is periodic global warming--and that this is related to natural cycles that have always been at play, still are, and always will be. The divisive issue is what portion of it, if any, is caused by man? And if the zealots weren't so disparate to leap from their implausible hypothesis to the court of public opinion via an equally ignorant media, we'd have had real answers well over a decade ago. But the environmental zealots chose to skip the testing, sharing their models (along with the associated assumptions, sensitivity analyses, and data bases) with others to permit them to run the same experiments and perhaps replicate their efforts, and to declare victory and impose top down solutions! So much cleaner than following the Scientific Method we all learned in grade school which somehow no longer matters in this post-scientific world of academic and political elites!! But if the zealots are so fearful that their science won't stand up to scrutiny that they can't risk premature exposure, this already speaks volumes.
And as more facts have been uncovered, we learned that their science is on shakier ground every day. Examples: we've known since slightly after Climategate that the CRU Temperature database was "lost". So why haven't all UN IPCC results and recommendations derived from them been rejected as unverifiable? The same applies to the 1991 PhD thesis Temperature database upon which the entire New Zealand conclusions of AGW are based. Scientists are taking NZ politicians to court to have those recommendations thrown out for the same reasons. Based on what? The basis no longer exists--and the AGW scientists are the ones that some how "misplaced" the data when all the FOIA requests started flooding in, the same scenario as in East Anglia's CRU. And since the data from the majority of US temperature stations have been so compromised by heat island impacts of encroaching development, virtually nothing can be used without applying "corrections" over which nobody seems to have any control.
So how can so many elected officials smugly tell us that they support placing massive penalties on productive capacity, smothering industry in regulations and red tape, adding billions of additional taxes on gas, and crippling our economy? But the same fools throw over a hundred billion a year in research to prove AGW (but not to study it!) and on alternative energy sources that aren't ready for the market and will continue to require huge and growing subsidies for as far as the eye can see without showing any signs of being ready to compete with fossil fuels that we can produce safely and at a fraction of the cost now?
Most at the ICCC6 accept that there could be some small percentage of the overall warming that might be related to human activities but until governments stop pursuing a desired result and start pursuing the real truth, we're not going to learn how much. But since CO2 is their main driver, and is a mere trace gas in the atmosphere accounting for only 0.039% of it--97% of which is produced naturally (volcanoes, oceans, decaying biomass), man-caused global warming will undoubtedly be small enough not to justify the commitment of trillions in funds and altering entire industries and economies. But that IS the goal of the AGW zealots made up mostly of academics, government bureaucrats, and fellow leftists riding Mann-made global warming to bigger government, more regulation, destroying industries and capitalism, and casting a pox on the third world by the way! They fear that the developing economies in India, Africa, and the middle-east simply can't be permitted to acquire running water or electricity least we all be damned! How humane and generous to feel that their theory is so important that they are willing to bet the fate of billions of fellow human beings on this planet on it! To far too many of these fools, the worst cancer on the face of the planet is man! Simply pathetic!
28 comments:
The cause of the temperature run-up in the 20th century and the flat and declining temperature trend for the latest decade have been discovered.
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through May, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 22.3% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 22.3% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period. The trend of the average of the five reporting agencies has declined steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010.
As the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in the 21st century while the agt does not, more people will realize that they have been deceived.
This was a great read.
Oh what a tangled web we weave....
But on the other hand, had Al Gore not invented the internet I wouldn't have been able to read this article...
Al Gore........Chicken Little of the 21st century. Wait, Chicken Little ACTUALLY believed the sky was falling.
Al also blames the family for GW, something about too many kids. Here is a man telling us that we dont need to haver more kids.And this comes from a guy who can’t keep his own trouser snake to himself. Got it.
After all is said and done, what comes out of your tail pipes doesn't impact on climate. However one good volcanic erruption and the climate will change.
As for government involvement, they are only interested in power, money and influence. In this age of technology let the third world be damned if they choose not to participate. The continent of Africa will always be in a hopeless and helpless state. To expect them to awaken to reality is like a Chevolet Volt a lot of hype but not much else.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, popular myths and misinformation abound. Here are the facts of what we know about global warming.
FACT - There is scientific consensus on the basic facts of global warming.
The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it.
FACT - The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
Only CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activities explain the observed warming now taking place on Earth.
FACT - Glaciers are melting and are a contributor to sea-level rise.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world's glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods.
FACT - Global warming and increased CO2 will harm many economies and communities.
While some skeptics may argue that there are benefits to global warming and extra CO2, warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy.
FACT - Many communities won't be able to adapt to rapid climate change.
The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren.
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!
Homer Simpson
ROFLMAO
Co2 causes global warming… before it causes global cooling?
Al Gore must be smiling. A major car-rental company is inviting customers to “help save the environment with your next rental.”
As part of its carbon offset program, Enterprise Holdings offers customers the option of adding $1.25 to the cost of the rental car, which Enterprise will match dollar for dollar, up to a total of $1 million.
“By opting to pay $1.25 per rental, customers can fund certified offset projects that work to remove CO2 from the atmosphere,” the company says on its Web site.
In the program’s first year, Enterprise says approximately 175,000 customers chose to pay the extra fee, generating $220,000 for certified offset projects. Coupled with the equal match by Enterprise’s charitable arm, the effort has generated nearly $440,000.
“175,000 customers” ………..kool-aid drinking morons is more like it.
Anon 12:17 PM
I agree that "facts" are comforting but facts without attribution are propaganda and--when it comes to AGW--more likely to be totally false or, at best, falsehoods cloaked in a shred of truth. If you are interested in a entire litany of such facts from self-proclaimed scientific experts that all turn out to be misinformed, take the time to listen to Dr. Bob Carter's presentation last Friday morning at the conference in Washington, DC. Very enlightening but presented in a manner easily understood by non-scientists and generalists. Link follows:
http://www.livestream.com/heartlandinstitute/video?clipId=pla_299c86af-4db7-418a-a908-083ea13e1814&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb
As to your facts:
The correlation between CO@ and Temperature is less than 0.2.
None of the IPCC and governmental model temperture projections over the past two decades have panned out. In fact, the observed data does not even fall within the range of the IPCC predictions.
The IPCC has lowered their sea level rise projections with every subsequent report proviced.
Michael Mann's hockey stick was proved to be a statistical hoax and is no longer referenced in subsequent IPCC reports.
The IPCC's vaunted consensus of 2,500 climate scientests actually represents 23 who actually reviewed the UN's report--of which only 4 sere willing to sign it.
But whenever anyone raises the concept of a scientific consensus, please have the common sense to run the other direction. Galeleo, Copernicus, Einstein, Newton; none of them were within or protected by any consensus. There is no such thing as a consensus when it comes to real science. It only takes one critical fact to destroy any hypothesis and AGW is clearly on life support!
For more on "facts", here's another link:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/science-corruption-at-the-national-academies-of-science/123
And one last thought from an article just published by Lawrence Solomon: "Surprising findings lead researchers to recommend science be taught differently".
A draft study produced by researchers at Yale University and four other research institutions has arrived at a surprising (to them) finding: The more that people are scientifically literate, and the more that they’re numerate, the likelier that they’ll be climate change skeptics.
Even more surprising (to them): socialistic types and free market types are poles apart in their thinking on climate change, with those most knowledgeable in each camp having the strongest views.
Fools! How many times must you be told the earth is flat and the center of the universe. We did not evolve from apes. According to world reknown Anthropocentrisists we have been here for 32,000 years and the world in only a 100 million years not 4.5 billion. Geeez what does it take to convince you learned elitests, a letter from the Vatican?
Isn’t the deep question, “Is there dangerous warming and what should we do about it?” One of the the denialists’ false
dichotomies seems to be:”man-made dangerous bad, natural dangerous – no action required.” I for one would want to assess
mitigation options even if it were all “natural”.
Human carbon dioxide pollution causes global warming
A) we are now in the hottest period in the history of our planet
B) global warming is caused by too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
3) the global warming/CO2 relationship can be shown in charts going back hundreds of thousands of years
C) carbon dioxide pollution is caused by burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc.)
D) humans are therefore the cause of global warming
E) global warming causes floods, hurricanes, and famine
F) evidence of global warming includes shrinking ice caps and holes in the ozone layer
G) "Big Oil" and other polluters deny global warming
H) Approximately 2500 IPCC scientists agree to these facts.
I didn't know thousands of years ago Neaderthals could measure CO2? Could the volcanic activity have been a cause of generating CO2 back then or perhaps herds of Mastodons with severe gastro-intestinal issues. So why are the ice cap growing and why are we having colder years than in the past. What is considered "normal" levels of CO2 using benchmarks of 10 years or ten thousand years. Why was there a mini ice age during the dark ages and another as recent as 235 years ago?
Global Warming and Al Gore.There are two problems with Al Gore. First, he's a demagogue who lacks an appreciation for the ethics and methods of science. Second, he's a not a scientist, but a celebrity and politician who does not understand the technical aspects of science. Put succinctly, the man simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
The Earth's oceans contain more than fifty times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water. As the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. When the oceans cool, they absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The science is no more complex than noting that a cold coke has more fizz than a warm one. Temperature controls carbon dioxide, not the other way around."
How come
How come Al Gore never debates this faux known as AGW?
"If Al is so concerned with warming and sea levels rising, why did he just spend over $8 million on a Florida beach house with a giant carbon footprint?"
Al Gore is not a scientist. I don't know what his field of discipline is.He flunked out of divinity school and when he ran for the WH he couldnt not even carry his own state.
I must stand and correct my comments on AGW. Its now climate change. One other thing for you Gore zombies. Have you ever purchased carbon creditsand if so what did they get you?
Do you remember stories like this? Polar ice caps will be all but gone in 1989. Story was printed in 1969.
The Concorde will cause global cooling.
1979 reasearchers predicted warming until 2000 and then cooling. Ops
I’ll start taking the breatless claims of catastrophic man-made climate change seriously, when the clerics of that religion like Al Gore and Robert kennedy Jr. start walking the walk, and live the lifestyle they advocate for the rest of us.
THE FACTORS THAT RESULTED IN THE 20th CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED.
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of accepted measurements (facts) from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence) (facts). See the equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, and 3/10/11).
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down (a fact).
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt (facts). From 2001 through Feb, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 22.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased and the average of the five reporting agencies has been declining steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010 (facts). The 22.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
As the atmospheric CO2 continues to rise in the 21st century while the agt does not, more people will realize that they have been deceived.
OMG a polar bear just swam across the Nansemond. Well at least it's safer than a swim in the Anthony's pool.
Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, was paid $1 million over 10 years to express the view that CO2 emissions are not the cause of Global warming.
Top Climate Change-Denying Scientist Found to Be on Exxon, Koch Brothers’ Payroll from 2005 to
2011.
Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, was paid $1 million over 10 years to express the view that CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming.
Dr. Willie Soon is certainly entitled to his theory that global warming is caused by solar variations rather than CO2, especially given his field of study within astrophysics—Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences. But getting paid to $1 million by the Koch Brothers, Exxon and a fleet of other energy industry giants makes Soone a stooge.
Now, it is possible that Dr. Soon developed the theory that solar variations cause climate change before the $1 million in grants began to arrive in his bank account, but it’s just as likely that he was approached by the energy industry and developed the theory for the express purpose of earning his keep.
HEARTLAND CLAIM: "Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, 'There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.'"
REALITY: This petition actually dates back to 1998, not 2007. Organized by chemist and failed 2010 Republican Congressional candidate Art Robinson, it does not tell us anything about the consensus on global warming because, as Gary Whittenberger wrote in Skeptic magazine, a consensus is not "defined by some large absolute number of persons." Rather, "It is determined by a large percentage of persons in a relevant sample," and Robinson's petition "reports neither the total number of persons to whom he sent petition cards in the first place nor the number of persons to whom he sent petition cards who subsequently returned only messages of disagreement." The petition defined as a "scientist" anyone who claims to have at least a bachelor's degree in a variety of fields including math, medicine and engineering. Only 12 percent of the signatories hold degrees in "atmosphere, earth & environment" according to the petition's website, and no information is given on how many of those individuals are active scientists, how many have advanced degrees, or how many have actually conducted research related to climate change. The names and degrees have not been independently confirmed and Robinson acknowledged that fake names have made their way onto the petition.
A wobble in the earth's rotation can change the climate. How do the approximately 2500 IPCC scientics propose to stop that from happening. Just so you know Anon 2:05, CO2 existed on earth long before man, however nievity did not.
FYI, I won’t post the anonymous smear comment targeting Dr. Willie Soon, the astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics. The claim was that this scientist received $1,000,000 over a 10 year period from a large number of energy firms to lie about global warming! Even the claim is stupid when you consider all these supposedly nefarious firms TOGETHER could only piece together a total of $100,000 per year to compromise the integrity of one of the leading astrophysicists in the world? And I think it’s perfectly reasonable for energy firms and industry to hire top scientists to help them do research necessary to refute some of the rediculous claims that politicians are using to over-tax, over-regulate, and eventually close down whole industries or force them to relocate to other countries.
And don’t you think the liberal Harvard University would drop Dr. Soon in a heartbeat if any of this was true? But I’ve listened to Dr. Soon—as recently as last week as a matter of fact—and the man is a brilliant, honest, and a highly dedicated scientist who just happens to be convinced—through his own research and that of thousands of fellow scientists—that AGW is a scam which has been hyped for both financial and political reasons. And those standing in line for real financial rewards are the academics, Federal agencies, and numerical modelers desperately looking for increased budgets but have virtually no real experience in observational and theoretical climatology. These folks gladly line up to get a piece of the over $130 BILLION the government is handing out each year to organizations, firms, and Federal agencies willing to help prove that Mann-made Global Warming is real and poses such a crisis to mankind that the elitist class can scare the public into accepting total governmental domination and regulatory control in return for an illusion of safety! And without ever having to prove the threat is real or demonstrate that anything proposed to date would change anything about the global weather that supposedly poses such a significant threat! Sweet!
And add to the financially motivated, the legions of leftist/environmental activists, true Green religion believers, and politicians who don’t know squat about global weather but just wanting to destroy the capitalist system and be on the winning side of whatever top-down planned economy gets imposed to replace it.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks. Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports. The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters. In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.Now on to global warming for this group. Of course they were right on tobacco. Not one bit of evidence it's bad for you.
The Heartland Institute is an essentially libertarian organization and makes no bones about it. But attacking the Institute for agreeing to host a scientific conference that deals with an issue that politicians and activists want to use to destroy our economy seems to be more of a political tactic to waylay the discussion than a response to the mountains of evidence shared by experts at the conference.
The alarmist case seems to be based almost entirely on models developed by untrained meteorologists with little or no input from the real climate experts or those in dozens of related disciplines involved in this issue. and their expensive models don't seem to be predicting anything accurately enough to base either forecasts, regulatory decisions, or public policy upon. So why do government, UN, colleges, and industry officials want to do so anyway? Follow the money and look to which agencies and bureaucracies are gaining money, power, and more influence over our taxes and our lives! And it isn't Heartland! Even if Heartland knew as little about the scientific issues as the politicians, the media, and the general public (which would be hard to achieve given the total ignorance out here), it seems reasonable that Heartland would want to facilitate getting the other side of the story out to the public even if their only focus was on smaller government, more personal freedom, and less waste of our tax money on hyped up crises.
“This is just another example of lack of scruples that climate skeptics have shown in pursuing short-term financial advantages, and basically condemning the next generations to suffer the consequences of climate change due to our lack of prudent and responsible planning."
With those words, the University of Maryland’s Distinguished Professor Eugenia Kalnay dismissed the Heartland Institute’s wholly discredited list of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
Prof. Kalnay, with dozens of her colleagues, is outraged that Heartland Senior Fellow Dennis T. Avery included their names as contributors to a climate-change denial paper without their permission and in direct contradiction to their scientific work.
"I think it is very offensive and wrong to include my name in this list of ‘coauthors’ of a paper with which I disagree profoundly without even checking with me first,” Prof. Kalnay said in an interview today.
“I am not a climate change skeptic. To the contrary, I believe that, in addition to the undeniable greenhouse warming, we also have to consider the effects of deforestation and urbanization, which will make the warming even worse.
“I am sure the good scientists that I personally know who are in that list, are in a similar situation, and their names have been used without permission, and their ideas about climate change distorted."
Prof. Kalnay is not a frequent or willing participant in the tawdry public relations war over climate change. She is a Distinguished Professor, a former Director of the Environmental Modeling Center for the National Weather Service and the lead author of the most cited paper in all geosciences.
She is also gracious and respectful of the serious scientists who, for reasons she does not understand, choose today to challenge the science of global warming.
Unfortunately, this is also not the first time her name has been appended to a contrarian work without her permission.
Apparently many ‘climate scientists’ are unaware of their limited knowledge in modeling, mathematics, thermodynamics and feedback theory. Many quote the climate scientists’ opinions because they are unable to check the science themselves.
If you would like to find out what an unpaid Mechanical Engineer discovered in looking into the issue (an equation that calculates the measured average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88% accuracy and other things), Google Dan Pangburn sunspot time-integral.
The ‘real scientists’ may have simply observed the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through May, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 22.3% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has declined (average of the five reporting agencies). The 22.3% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
Why during the last world war with mass fire bombing of cities, endless explosions, atomic bombs and slaughter of tens of millions of CO2 generating Homo Sapiens was it accompanied by some of the coldest winter weather ever experienced? The BS spewing scientists have yet to explain something as simple as that.
Its hot in summer.
Then the climate changes and its fall.
Then its cold,That called winter.
Then the climate changes and its spring.
Start from the top and repeat.
BRILLIANT
Just read the following headline. Liberal moonbats and the UN. Who else would come up with this thinking and actions.
UN May Send Ground Troops to Combat Global Warming
Where environmental delusions and collectivist authoritarianism meet, there you will find the malignant United Nations. UN world tyrant wannabes are now plotting to send in ground troops to combat the fictional global warming menace:
The Pentagon and other military establishments have long recognised climate change as a “threat multiplier” with the potential to escalate existing conflicts, and create new disputes as food, water, and arable land become increasingly scarce.
UN peacekeepers have long intervened in areas beyond traditional conflicts.And their efforts have nothing but failures.
Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal — but would dealing with the consequences of climate change — say in precarious regions — be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?
I ask the following question of these liberal pukes;What are they’re gonna blow you away for barbequing?Throw you in a dungeon for smoking a cigar?Kill the cow for farting?
Do you remember Captain Planet? Ted Turner’s pet environmental propaganda initiative. That B.S. was spoonfed to children to indoctrinate them with an anti-capitalist, anti-human vironmental agenda.
Here come the green helmets the eco-storm troopers in their green armor to arrest you for running your air conditioner or owning a SUV and not owning a bicycle. Captain Planet was first and now we get UN storm troopers? The same troops who rape plunder and murder?
I suggest that I think the green helmets are a great idea.It Gives 100,000,000 armed American citizens an easily identifiable target.And I’m not kidding.
Global Warming is setup to be a global welfare program.This is socialism on an international scale.
I challenge any liberal moron, eco terroist or simple minded idiot who supports this idea and Al Gore tog go ahead…name one thing any poor country previously receiving generous amounts of US taxpayer money has done to improve climate change or pursue a clean energy project that improves the lives of their people.
No amount of money will EVER change our planets temperature. IDIOTS
Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy.”
Ready for the secrets?
Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.
Al Gore claims that he knows of “renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.” Then why doesn’t he go make a fortune on it by outcompeting gasoline-powered cars?
Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.
Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources — hydroelectric and nuclear — but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.
Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.
The environmental movement is largely socialism. Earth Day commemorates Lenin’s birthday. Liberals get away with crap because not many people in the press hold them accountable for their wild claims.
Think about the following explaining what you have just read:
Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.
I dare anyone to prove that green cars are cleaner than regular cars.
Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.
It’s not that there is no evidence. It is impossible that low BTU power can outperform higher BTU energy like oil, natural gas, or nuclear. IMPOSSIBLE. It’s a physics thing. You know, by nature.
Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources — hydroelectric and nuclear — but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.
Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.
They are not anti-energy as much as they are anti-civilization. For without modern energy, we would live like the 1700s.
Post a Comment