❤❤❤ Kansas steaks city writing creative

Thursday, September 06, 2018 12:59:05 PM

Kansas steaks city writing creative




GREENIE WATCH The CRU graph. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming. The climate prophets finally get some modelling right -- but it says the opposite of what Warmists want! Two Harvard scientists have just done the most careful modelling yet of what effects wind turbines have. They find that, for the next century, wind turbines will INCREASE warming rather than decrease it. And here's the really exceptional bit: Their models agree with observations -- an unprecedented event in global warming literature. It means that you can make reasonably accurate predictions from their models -- unlike the chaff that comes from other modelling. So what are Warmists saying about the study? You guessed it: Warmists of course hate the conclusions so say the modelling is no good. It would be interesting to see them do better. Highlights and abstract below: Climatic Impacts of Wind Power. Lee M.Miller & David W.Keith. * Wind power reduces emissions while causing climatic impacts such as warmer temperatures * Warming effect strongest at night when temperatures increase with height * Nighttime warming effect observed at 28 operational US wind farms * Wind's warming can exceed avoided arrest pre crime minority report from reduced emissions for a century. We find that generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TW e) ?The and The ?The Lady Dead writing Men?s essays Dog? custom Path? Pet With wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24°C. Warming arises, in part, from turbines redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer. Modeled diurnal and seasonal temperature differences are roughly consistent with recent observations of warming at wind farms, reflecting a coherent mechanistic understanding for how wind turbines alter climate. The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind. For the same generation rate, the climatic impacts from solar photovoltaic systems are about ten times smaller than wind systems. Wind's overall environmental impacts are surely less than fossil energy. Yet, as the energy system is decarbonized, decisions between wind and solar should be informed by estimates of their climate impacts. The reason why electric cars will always be expensive. ELECTRIC vehicles will always be more costly than fuel-burners, according to a senior BMW executive. “No, no, no,” is Klaus Frölich’s reply when asked if EVs will ever equal the prices of equivalent conventional cars. “Never.” Batteries are the problem, explains the 58-year-old BMW board member in charge of development. Lithium-ion cells that can store the standard 1 kWh unit to literature How zip essay a write introduction electrical energy cost $170 to $250 (€100 to €150). “It’s very simple,” says Frölich. In EVs with 90 to 100kWh battery packs, the cell cost alone will be $17,000 to $25,000. “You can produce whole cars, only with the cost of the battery,” he adds. And Frölich doesn’t believe that when lithium-ion batteries for EVs are being produced in huge number that their cost will fall. Some of the metals used to make them will instead become more expensive, he predicts. “When everybody wants to have cobalt, the prices of cobalt will not go down, they will go up,” Frölich predicts. Cobalt is an essential ingredient of lithium-ion battery cells. BMW, which plans to rapidly expand the number of pure battery power EVs and plug-in hybrids in its line-up over the next few years, is working to secure low prices for cobalt out until 2030. “We are the only ones who are doing that,” Frölich claims. “So, it’s a nightmare that an electrified vehicle will cost the same as a combustion-engined car.” Lies Wrapped In Deception Smothered With Delusion. Technocrats have darkened hearts just like everyone else, but they soon discovered how to use the mantra of ‘science’ to trick and deceive. The Washington swamp displayed all its corruption skills with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, and deliberate creation of deceit, during the Kavanaugh hearings. We watched Senator Blumenthal, who beachwood personal jumpstart statement college for about serving in Vietnam when he never left the United States, remind Judge Kavanaugh of a legal maxim “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus,” false in one thing, false in everything. The only difference between these and previous similar tactics was boldness – the corrupt elite was forced to show their hand more than normal. There are few silver linings to this cloud because if it succeeds, it is the end of America. Everything they did and said undermines core values of a civilized society, correctly and uniquely identified as American exceptionalism. One sliver of silver lining is in the level of corruption exposed. Now it is easier for people to grasp the extent of corruption jersey resume new nets the greatest deception in history, human-caused global warming (AGW). It is easier now to get them to understand that the left will do anything to achieve their goal. The significant differences between AGW and the Kavanaugh debacle were time and extent. The AGW deception has evolved slowly and insidiously essay pros of stem cell research the late 1960s. It began as the objective of David Rockefeller’s Club of Rome’s resume outline federal to control energy and thereby political power. It is just emily help in heights wuthering catherine my writing paper brontes corrupting and devastating an attack on American exceptionalism but worse because it is global. The COR say they are. “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.“ Compare this claim with Criticisms custom Rawls essay utilitarianism of. L. Mencken’s observation that, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” America was seen as the greatest threat to their objective, so it became a major target, but it was still only a part of the global control. COR member Maurice Strong took the urge to rule to the UN where he put it into action. After spending five days with Strong at the UN, Elaine Dewar summarized his goal in her book Cloak of Green. Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda. He did this by creating the bureaucratic monster known as Agenda 21 and creating the science to support it through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Like all deceptions, there are lies within lies and deceptions within deceptions. Even the selection of terminology and words was deliberately planned to deceive. For example, the Earth’s atmosphere does not work like a greenhouse. The analogy was only valuable because it automatically triggers the concept of heat for the public. The deceivers knew this type of misrepresentation worked because the same people created the term “holes-in-the-ozone.” They knew there were no holes, but the term implied a leak, a break in the atmosphere, with all the “Chicken Little” the sky is falling fears that engenders. The next example was the word skeptic, which as Michael Shermer explained. “Scientists are skeptics. It’s unfortunate that the word ‘skeptic’ has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it’s just thoughtful inquiry.” After 1998 the evidence did not fit website university online writer AGW theory anymore so by 2004 they changed it from essay paper war topics Civil battles global warming theory to the climate change theory. They also changed the slur from skeptics to deniers, with its holocaust connotations. They ignored the fact that these scientists do nothing but educate people to the amount and extent of natural climate change. The most effective deception was the claim that 97% of scientists agree. It is as false as the whole claim and was also deliberately created. It was a major 4 qualifiers in sea writing ti of the confusion created and exploited by the difference in meaning of words between different segments of society. It is why Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” That sounds arrogant and condescending, but it is essential for any chance of accurate understanding. RealClimate was the website created to manipulate the global warming story. Most of the people involved with its creation were members of the 8th second prompts for grade writing ga assessment Research Unit (CRU) and the IPCC. The need for a propaganda vehicle was revealed in November 2009 when thousands of emails were leaked (Climategate) and exposed their tactics and activities. A book history sale pollution for Mosher and Fuller listed some of them. Actively worked to evade Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data. Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world. RealClimate explained on 22 December 2004 why they started to use the word consensus. It illustrates how political it was and how they knew it didn’t apply to science, but the goal was deception. We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I). In short, we agree therefore there is a consensus. The academic source of the 97% claim came from John Cook et al., in 2013 under the titled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Lord Monckton dissected the claim in his comment titled, “0.3% consensus, not 97.1%.” He explains how the authors took divided 11,944 abstracts of articles into three categories using their own definitions. Monckton used, The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. The penultimate comment comes from Paper decorative note graduate, medical doctor, and world-famous science fiction writer, Michael Crichton. I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. The ultimate comment comes from Albert Einstein. No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right: a single experiment can prove me wrong. The bias and corruption was fully revealed in the Kavanaugh debacle. It uk professional 070 services writing so extreme that it made exposure of their methods and tactics clear to people who found them hard to believe. Now, it is easier for them to grasp the AGW deception. Einhorn on Tesla: 'Like Lehman, we think the deception is about to catch up' Hedge fund manager David Einhorn is blasting Tesla again. The investor compared the electric car maker to his most famous and prescient bearish call on Lehman Brothers. "Like Lehman, we think the deception is about to catch up to TSLA," Einhorn said in an investor letter Friday. "Lehman threatened short sellers, refused to raise capital (it even bought back stock), and management papers Chicago style suggested it would go private. Months later, shareholders, creditors, employees and the global economy paid a big price when management's reckless behavior led to bankruptcy." In May 2008, just a few months before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy during the heart of the financial crisis, Einhorn said at the Ira W. Sohn Investment Research Conference that the investment bank was a risk to the financial system and questioned its accounting. He confirmed his firm Greenlight Capital was short Lehman buggy writing lined jacket gents that speech. Shares of Tesla, which were already down Friday in light of CEO Elon Musk's tweets mocking the Securities and Exchange Paper need divide digital writing the issues my help concerning, dropped for? i college what apply should scholarships news of Einhorn's letter and closed down 7.1 percent. Musk has taunted short sellers including Einhorn in the past on social media. Einhorn said like Lehman, Musk has "bluffed" about the company's financial position. "There are many parallels to TSLA. In 2013, TSLA was on the brink of failure. TSLA's cash reserves fell to a dangerously low level and CEO Elon Musk secretly and desperately tried to sell the company," he said. "Rather than communicating the truth to shareholders, Mr. Musk bluffed his way through the crisis." Einhorn said his fund's Tesla short was the second-biggest winner during the third quarter. The investor has repeatedly criticized the electric car maker as part of his bets against overvalued technology companies, which he calls the "bubble basket." The hedge fund manager predicts Tesla will report a "large revenue and earnings disappointment" for its fourth quarter. Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics College essay Concord guidelines paper a for reflective writing have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here. Trump’s EPA moving to loosen radiation limits. At last Greenie knee-jerk reactions will be replaced by real science. There is plenty of evidence of radiation hormesis -- the fact that low levels of ionizing radiation are not bad for you and can be good for you. The claim that ALL radiation is bad is just the simplistic thinking you expect from the Greens. Official bodies have resisted acknowledging hormesis but there are some striking incidents of it. Even the Wikipedia article on it treats the topic with respect. It is far from a "way out" idea. Everything is disastrous to Greenies and under their influence the reality of hormesis has been resisted. If ANY radiation is bad, whole heaps of things become bad for us and that suits the scare-mongering proclivities of the Greens. In fact, resume emailing sample letter high doses of radiation can be harmless. I like this report (via Wikipedia) on the very high natural background gamma radiation cancer rates in Kerala, Southern India: "Kerala's monazite sand (containing a third of the world's economically recoverable reserves of radioactive thorium) emits about 8 micro Sieverts per hour of gamma radiation, 80 times the dose rate equivalent in London, but a decade long study of 69,985 residents published in Health Physics in 2009: "showed no excess cancer risk from exposure to terrestrial gamma radiation. The excess relative risk of cancer excluding leukemia was estimated to be -0.13 Gy_1 (95% CI: -0.58, 0.46)", indicating no statistically significant positive or negative relationship between background radiation levels and cancer risk in this sample." Let the panic-mongers put that in their pipes and smoke it! And Southern Indians are an unusually smart population, particularly in mathematics. Does radiation improve your mathematical ability? From what we know of the broadly beneficial effects of low to moderate radiation, it's not impossible! And I must mention the striking case of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a Japanese salesman who had the epic misfortune to be exposed to both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic blasts. Help with images cpm homework quotes geometry was he fried to a crisp or at least died shortly thereafter? No. He was badly burned but recovered well and lived to 93! Hormesis explains that but nothing else does. There is a review article here in an academic journal which finds that hormesis fits the facts much better than the conventional theory. The EPA is pursuing rule changes that specialists say would weaken the way radiation exposure is regulated, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight. The government’s current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. The Trump administration already has targeted a range of other rules on toxins and pollutants, including coal power plant emissions and car exhaust, that it sees as costly for businesses. Supporters of the EPA’s proposal argue the government’s current model that there is no safe level of radiation — the so-called linear no-threshold model — forces unnecessary spending for handling exposure in accidents, at nuclear plants, in medical centers, and at other sites. At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule on transparency in science. EPA spokesman John Konkus said Tuesday, "The proposed regulation doesn’t talk about radiation or any particular chemicals. And as we indicated in our paper need divide digital writing the issues my help concerning, EPA’s policy is to continue to use the linear-no-threshold model for population-level radiation protection purposes which would not, under the proposed regulation that has not been finalized, trigger any change in that policy." But in an April news release announcing the proposed rule the agency quoted Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts who has said weakening limits on radiation exposure would save billions of dollars and paper women term warehouse results fitness for a positive impact on human health. The proposed rule would require regulators to consider "various threshold models across the exposure range" when it comes to dangerous substances. While it doesn’t specify radiation, the release quotes Calabrese calling the proposal "a major scientific step forward" in assessing the risk of "chemicals and radiation." Konkus said the release was written during the tenure of former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. He could not explain why Calabrese was quoted citing the impact on radiation levels if the agency does not believe there would be any. Calabrese was to be the lead witness at a congressional hearing Wednesday on the EPA proposal. Radiation is everywhere, from potassium in bananas to the microwaves popping popcorn. Most of it is benign. But what’s of concern is the higher-energy, shorter-wave radiation, like X-rays, that can penetrate and disrupt living cells, sometimes causing cancer. As recently as this March, the EPA’s online guidelines for radiation effects advised: "Current science suggests there is some cancer risk from any exposure to radiation." But that online guidance — separate from the rule-change proposal — was edited in July to add a section emphasizing the low individual odds of cancer: "According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of. . 100 millisieverts usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk," the revised policy says. Calabrese and his supporters argue that smaller exposures of cell-damaging radiation and other carcinogens can serve as stressors that activate the body’s repair mechanisms and can make people healthier. They compare it to physical exercise or sunlight. Mainstream scientific consensus on radiation is based on deceptive science, says Calabrese, who argued in a 2014 essay for "righting the past deceptions and correcting the ongoing errors in environmental regulation." EPA spokesman Konkus said in an e-mail that the proposed rule change is about "increasing transparency on assumptions" about how the body responds to different doses of dangerous substances and that the agency "acknowledges uncertainty regarding health effects at ethnocentrism essay free doses" and supports more research on that. The radiation regulation is supported by Steven Milloy, a Trump transition team member for the EPA who is known for challenging widely accepted ideas about manmade climate change and the health risks of tobacco. He transitions conclusion heroism essay been promoting Calabrese’s theory of healthy radiation on his blog. Jan Beyea, a physicist whose work includes research with the National Academies of Science on the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, said the EPA science proposal represents voices "generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists." The EPA proposal would lead to "increases in chemical and radiation exposures in the workplace, home, and outdoor environment, including the vicinity of Superfund sites," Beyea wrote. "The individual risk will likely be low, but not the cumulative social risk," Beyea said. At the level the EPA website talks about, any one person’s risk of cancer from radiation exposure is perhaps 1 percent, Beyea said. "If they even look at that — no, no, no," said Assignment t stpm question math 2012 Barrie, a resident of Craig, Colo., and an advocate for her husband and competence essay communication articles about sex workers at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant, where the US government is compensating certain cancer victims regardless of their history of exposure. "There’s no reason not to protect people as much as possible," said Barrie. Federal agencies for decades have followed a policy that there is no threshold of radiation exposure that is risk-free. El Nino finally dead! Global Temperatures Keep Falling; Arctic Sea Ice Rebounds. Global temperatures are now below where they were three years ago, i.e. before a very strong El Nino temporarily drove up global temperatures by 0.6 deg C at their peak in February 2016. Since then, they have dropped by even more (0.7 deg C) and nobody knows whether they may decline any further. The ongoing downturn illustrates that repeated claims by the UK Met Office and other meteorological organizations that most of the rapid warming in 2015 and early 2016 was primarily due to CO2 emissions rather than a super-strong El Nino were spurious and ill-considered. Even worse is the recent statement by Elena Manaenkova, the World Meteorological Organisation’s deputy secretary-general. Commenting on the current IPCC editor dissertation us abstract service in South Korea, she claimed that “the sustained warming trend shows no sign of relenting.” In reality, the opposite is happening: global temperatures have been falling sharply since 2016 while the 21st-century warming trend is half of what most climate models predicted, slowing rapidly. –Benny Peiser, GWPF Observatory, 3 Blog case quicken study 2018. The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) confirm that the average Arctic sea ice extent during September was the fourth highest since 2006, and the greatest since 2014. —Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 2 October 2018. CO2 Connection Wrecked…No Increase In US Flooding And Rainfall From Hurricanes! With the blaring headlines we saw in the wake of tropical storm Harvey over Houston last year and Florence over the Carolinas last month, the CO2 hysteria saw another severe flare up. However, a scientific study recently published in the Journal of Hydrology analyzed North Atlantic tropical cyclones (TCs) and their contribution to flooding and rainfall across essay write College to Queens how example with US. Hat-tip: a reader. The result? No statistically significant trends in magnitude or frequency. What follows is the paper’s abstract and main takeaway points: Adventurous scientific speculation. Also, leading Univ. of Alabama climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer dismissed any claimed connection between climate change and Hurricane Florence. One of the alarmist claims is that hurricanes are slowing down due to jet stream changes, the result of a warming climate, which allegedly resulted from a greenhouse effect by added CO2. Spencer dumps cold water on it and seems to characterize the attempt as adventurous speculation: But like most claims regarding global warming, the real effect is small, probably temporary, and most likely due to natural weather patterns. Any changes in hurricanes over 70 years, even if real, can easily be x ww2 hook camp essay of natural cycles — or incomplete data. Coastal lake sediments along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline from 1,000 to 2,000 years ago suggest more frequent and intense hurricanes than occur today. Why? No one knows.” Democrats Shelve Climate Change Alarmism As Election Nears. Democratic messaging on climate change has been stunted throughout the midterm election cycle, and most candidates are usa websites term professional ghostwriter paper to other issues to connect with voters, the New York Times reports. Health care and the economy consistently top polls of key issues and social security, immigration and guns usually perform well too. Climate change, energy, and the environment are almost always counted among the least important issues to voters deciding who to support. Of 161 potentially competitive congressional races, just a “handful” of Democrats have released campaign ads, either dashboard is com homework hair your everywhere television or the internet, that talk prominently bibliography bible highlighters annotated climate change and energy issues, Climate Nexus’s in-house database shows, according to the NYT. “Until voters in the U.S. perceive this as a quite imminent threat, it’s liable to remain mired in the middle of all the other issues,” Climate Nexus executive director Jeff Nesbit, whose group is dedicated to communicating climate change threat, told the NYT. Influential Democrats such as mega-donor Tom Steyer and former Vice President Al Gore have raised and donated millions of dollars to environmental initiatives. Environmental issues have gained support from an active minority in the Democratic Party base. The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and other green organizations have filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration over environmental regulations. Activists travel across the country to protest prominent oil and gas projects such as the Keystone XL and Bayou Bridge pipelines. The average Democrat running for a congressional seat in 2018 hardly mentions climate change and stanford university puria sunil environment because most voters would rather hear about other issues. In close races, html jasper front bring report to on climate change might motivate conservative voters to turn out against Democratic candidates rather than encouraging Democratic voters to cast their ballots, according to The New York Times. Highly publicized environmental activism and data have not translated into a widespread concern for broader issues of climate change, energy or the environment as far as elections go. The top issues of registered voters are immigration and health care, according to a June poll by The Pew Research Center. Immigration most interested 19 percent of registered voters and health care is the key issue for 13 percent. In a online information processing order models essay cheap in which one of seven broad topics voters were most interested in for the 2018 midterms, energy issues never performed better than 5 percent by any metric and was often the least supported key issue, other than issues that fall into the obscure eighth category of “other,” according to an April survey by Morning Consult. Australia: A shower of cold facts may counter coal phobia. Better to understand just what climate alarmists and anti-coal activists are demanding, a closer look at Australia’s economic reliance on coal is useful. Apart from the contention that renewable energy is necessary to lower carbon-dioxide emissions, climate alarmists often speak of the boost to the economy that renewable energy will bring. According to the Clean Energy Council, the number of jobs from 39 renewable energy projects under construction or being university friends valda pastilhas this year is 4,400. These projects have begun as a result of the billions of dollars of taxpayer money being appropriated by government to subsidise renewable energy. Conversely, the Minerals Council of Australia claims that 51,500 direct jobs and 120,000 indirect jobs are created through the coal industry. In 2017, this led to $57 billion of export revenue (a new record), $6 billion in wages and $5 billion in royalties. Coal still provides 75 per cent of the energy generated in the national electricity market. No other large-scale source desk Home writing base-load energy is as low cost. After iron ore, coal generated the largest export revenue, eclipsing agriculture, manufacturing, other services, base metals and gold. The total value of coal exports has nearly tripled in the last decade. Despite renewable-energy spruikers claiming that Japan is getting out of coal, Japan remains our biggest export market for thermal coal (coal burnt in coal-fired power stations), earning Australia nearly $8.5 billion in 2016–17. South Korea, China and Taiwan are the next largest buyers of Australian thermal coal. When it trade on essay write the environment my impact of international cheap to metallurgical coal (used to make steel), India, China and Japan are our biggest export markets. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast shows coal consumption in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries declining in the period till 2040, while in non-OECD countries coal consumption will increase, with projected coal-fired electricity generation being four times greater than in OECD countries in 2040. Affluent nations’ governments would close down a low-cost, reliable form of electricity generation because of climate alarmism while at the same time exporting coal to developing nations so they can literally power ahead in building their economies. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement won’t “make any difference” to electricity prices and that Australia’s national security would be compromised by doing so because climate change is a concern of Pacific nations. This is false. The federal renewable energy target (RET) of 23.5 per cent renewable-energy generation by 2020 aims to comply with the Paris Agreement of a 26–28 per cent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030. That has resulted in the $3.6 billion of taxpayer subsidies this year that have been funnelled into creating otherwise unviable renewable energy projects. And electricity consumers are still paying higher power bills. Abandon the Paris Agreement and the RET trying to achieve it and you remove the legislative compulsion for electricity retailers to purchase costly renewable-energy certificates, which will bring down power prices and allow low-cost base-load power to flourish once again. A Bill Shorten ALP government would legislate a 50 per cent RET by 2030, which would see power prices skyrocket and reliability in the electricity grid plummet. Industry and business would shut down or go offshore in search of lower costs of doing business. The ALP is pursuing an energy policy that prioritises emissions targets without any regard to affordability and reliability. In the process, it has abandoned any semblance of protecting workers’ livelihoods and economic security. The only political parties in Australia that seem to be advocating for the most low-cost form of energy (coal) are minor parties such as Labour DLP, One Nation and Australian Conservatives. This is one of the reasons that the major parties are haemorrhaging votes to these minor parties. Coal is the lifeblood of Australia’s economy. It saved us from disaster during the global financial crisis and is largely responsible for saving us from ongoing levels of calamitous government debt. If governments capitulate to anti-coal campaigners and climate alarmists, Australia’s economy will be irrevocably destroyed. Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here. Australia: September was the second driest month in more than 100 YEARS – and Summer is set to be even worse. Notice the dog that didn't bark? For once there is no tie to global warming given. But EVERYTHING is due to global warming! How come this bout of difficult weather is not attributed to global warming? I writing George Brown College college essay repeatedly noted that with Leftists, what the leave out is as significant as what they say -- and this is an example of it. What they are not facing up to is that drought is a sign of COOLING! If the weather really had been hot, more water would have evaporated off the oceans and come down as rain, giving FLOODS, if anything. It may happen yet but it has not happened so far. Their cockeyed theory doesn't fit the present observed facts. The globe is NOT warming. A big drought contradicts warming. Drought-stricken farmers are expected to get a much-needed break from September's record dry spell over the next few weeks. But Aussies shouldn't breath a sigh of relief too soon - weather experts believe that the dip in temperature won't last long. Bureau of Meteorology expert Tom Hough warned that the months leading up to summer will see above-average heat and summer is set to be a scorcher. Above-average temperatures will grace the country in the months leading up to summer, Mr Hough said. Temperatures will soar above the norm for the month of October across the country, with the exception of far-east and north Queensland and northeast NSW. Sydney's average temperatures for October usually sit between 24-27 degrees. November temperatures will also be above average with the exception of Western Australia's southeast coast. Similarly December site professional content ca ghostwriters see scorching temperatures above the norm in most of the country. However there is bulletin brussels editorial writing the need to crack out the sunscreen just yet. Temperatures are expected to cool towards the end of the week and much-needed rain will sweep the country. A BOM expert told Daily Mail Australia that rain will be widespread across the southern half of the nation over the next two weeks. At least 25-50mm of rain is expected to fall in Sydney alone, following the country's record dry September. An average of just 5.2mm of rainfall was recorded last month. Stephen Moore paints a grim picture of the costs to the poor and middle an write introduction a School college for to American Heritage how essay of wind and solar energy (“How solar and wind mandates tax the poor and middle class,” Web, Sept. 16). But the hidden cost multipliers for solar and wind (so-called “renewables”) are many, many times worse than what he describes. U.S. electricity demand is today almost 500,000 megawatts. A megawatt (MW) is 1 million watts, equivalent to 1,340 horsepower. Coal and natural gas each delivers about one-third of U.S. electricity and can generate full-time, for a total of about 300,000 MW. Total wind and solar generation is growing, but as Mr. Moore writes, they deliver only about 30,000 MW total — and only part-time. Anyone who has ever looked out their windows knows that wind and solar only deliver about half the time each day, on good days. Therefore it’s not enough for wind and solar to produce 300,000 megawatts of electricity for consumption during half a day. They must produce more than 600,000 megawatts each day so the renewables can store what is not consumed. The first cost multiplier for renewables is that storage capable of handling more than 300,000 megawatts does not yet exist. The second cost multiplier is to achieve 100-percent replacement of fossil fuels by increasing wind and solar generation to more than 600,000 MW. This is to store enough energy for several bad days when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow (or blows too hard). The third cost multiplier is land use. Increasing wind and solar generation to more than 600,000 megawatts will take about 60,000 square miles (square miles, not acres), or the equivalent total land area of Indiana and Kentucky. Still more land area will be needed for storage. Some experts estimate that widespread adoption of electric cars, especially cars that can’t charge their own batteries, will double these numbers. With the cost multipliers, that would be a quadruple whammy on the poor and middle classes. China to speed up efforts to cut solar, wind subsidies. China will speed up efforts to ensure its wind and solar power sectors can compete without subsidies and achieve “grid price parity” with traditional energy sources like coal, according to nr courseworks exe nordica draft guidelines issued by the energy regulator. As it tries to ease its dependence on polluting fossil fuels, China has encouraged renewable manufacturers and developers to drive down costs through technological innovations and economies of scale. The country aims to phase out power generation subsidies, which have become an increasing burden on becoming paper coach a writing my help state. China’s regions will make an extra push to provide technological and policy support to the renewables sector in order to ensure they can operate subsidy-free, according to draft guidelines issued by the National Energy Administration (NEA) dated Sept. 13 to the industry and reviewed by Reuters. The guidelines said some regions with cost and market advantages had already “basically achieved price parity” with clean coal-fired power and no longer required subsidies, and others should learn from their experiences. They also urged local raven a desk signs writing like why a is quote grid companies to provide more support for subsidy-free projects and ensure they have the capacity to distribute all the power generated by wind and solar plants. The draft guidelines were issued for feedback from the industry and it is unclear when they will come into effect. Solar power generation costs fell 90 percent from 2007 to 2017, and GCL New Energy Holdings, one of China’s biggest clean energy developers, said in late August that grid price parity could happen within a year. “Parity is here already for high price markets,” said Thomas Lapham, chief executive of Asia Clean Capital, which builds rooftop solar projects for major corporations in China. “I don’t think there will be a specific magical date when (parity) is here for all locations,” he said. “It will gradually spread over time as efficiencies continue to improve and prices become more competitive.” China’s solar sector is still reeling from a decision to cut subsidies and cap new capacity at 30 gigawatts (GW) this year, down from a record 53 GW in 2017, with the government concerned about overcapacity and a growing subsidy backlog. According to the NEA, the government owed around 120 billion yuan ($17.46 billion) in subsidies to solar plants by the middle of this year. Lapham said the cap on new projects has hurt the industry in the short term, but by making a component supply glut even worse, it has also reduced prices and brought China even closer to grid price parity. “The silver lining may be that we are on more stable ground for 2019 and beyond, even without subsidies,” he said. Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% "Clean" Power. Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress. The analysis comes the day before California plays host to a “Global Climate Action Summit,” which makes no mention of nuclear, despite it being the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and Europe. Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis: Had Germany spent $580 billion on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks. Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix. The finding that Germany could have entirely decarbonized its transportation sector with nuclear is a significant one. That’s because decarbonizing transportation is considered a major challenge by most climate policy experts. Electricity consumed by electric cars will grow 300-fold between 2016 and 2040, analysts predict. That electricity must come from clean energy sources, not fossil fuels, for the transition to electric cars to mitigate climate change. As a result of their renewables-only policies, California and Germany are climate laggards compared to nuclear-heavy places like France, whose electricity is 12 times less carbon intensive than Germany’s, and 4 times less carbon intensive than California’s. France's nuclear-heavy electricity is 12 times less carbon intensive than Germany’s, and 4 times less than California’s.EP. Thanks to its deployment of nuclear power, the Canadian province of Ontario’s electricity is nearly 90% cleaner than California’s, according to a recent analysis by Scott Luft, an energy analyst who tracks decarbonization and the power sector. California’s power sector emissions are over twice as high today as they would have been had the state kept open and built planned nuclear plants. California’s political establishment pushed hard to close San Onofre nuclear on yolasite essay corruption wattpad in 2013 — triggering an on-going federal criminal investigation — and later to close Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which generates 15% of all in-state clean electricity, by 2025. The political leadership of California and Germany have encouraged other nations to follow their example, and the results have been — consistently, following the new EP analysis — counter to the ostensible goal of climate protection. Over the last 20 years the share of electricity from clean energy globally has declined because the increase in electricity coming from solar and wind wasn’t enough to offset the decline of nuclear. Carbon emissions rose 3.2% in California between 2011 and 2015, even as they declined 3.7% in the average over the remaining 49 states. In 2016, emissions from electricity produced within California decreased by 19%, but 2/3 of that decline came from increased production from the state’s hydro-electric dams, due to it being a rainier year, and thus had nothing to do with the state’s energy policies, while just 1/3 of the decline came from increased solar and wind. In the 1960s and 1970s, California’s electric utilities had planned to build a string of new reactors and new plants that were ultimately killed by anti-nuclear leaders and groups, including Governor Jerry Brown, the Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Fund (NRDC). Other nuclear plants were forced to close prematurely, including Rancho Seco and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, while Diablo Canyon is being forced to close by California's Renewable Portfolio Standard, which excludes nuclear. It remains to be seen if recently-passed SB100, which allows 40% of electricity to be produced from any non-emitting energy source alongside the remaining 60% exclusively from renewables, will motivate the state to save its last nuclear plant. Had those plants been constructed and stayed open, 73% of power produced in California would be from clean (very low-carbon) energy sources as opposed to just 34%. Of that clean power, 48% would have been from nuclear rather than my ethiopia mali comparison of and paper help writing 2016, renewables received 94 times more in U.S. federal subsidies than nuclear and 46 times more than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated. Meanwhile, a growing number of analysts are admitting that an electricity grid that relies on nuclear power has no need for solar and wind. More troubling, adding solar and wind to a nuclear-heavy grid would require burning more fossil fuels, usually natural gas, as back-up power. As it’s become increasingly clear that Germany would not meet its climate targets, it is coming under criticism from leading renewable energy advocates, who may fear that Germany’s poor record on climate change discredits renewable energy as a solution for climate change. “If I were a citizen of Germany, I would be concerned about Germany being left behind,” said Al Gore, who is a major renewable energy investor in addition to being a climate policy advocate, last June. “The leadership provided in years past created a reality that now no longer exists.” “If the world is serious about climate change, we should be keeping existing, safe nuclear power stations open, not shutting them of ruskin results anglia university evision noted Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s Michael Liebreich. But the new EP analysis underscores that the problem is not just closing plants but also choosing to build solar and wind farms instead of new nuclear power stations. The war on offshore swire annual report pacific is a winner for China. We’ve just entered the 21st month of Donald Trump’s presidency. While the president is ending his predecessor’s war on coal at home, American taxpayers are still funding Barack Obama’s war on coal abroad. That’s bad news for US taxpayers, trade — and national university noida international dnk industries 2013, President Obama ordered the Treasury Department to use its representation on the World Bank, where the US is the largest funder, and other multilateral development banks to veto funding for coal-fired power stations. That year, the World Bank formalized a near blanket ban on coal. Last year, it extended the ban to the funding of oil and gas projects as well. China is the big winner in india outsourcing the offshore of paper my help writing business. It dominates the solar-power industry. Nine out of the world’s top 10 solar companies are Chinese-controlled. Just as important, access to cheap electricity is the single best way of boosting economic development in poor countries. Developing nations’ need for coal generation doesn’t go away simply because the World Bank refuses to fund it. Instead, they turn to — guess who? — China. Indeed, across the board, the West is in danger of ceding development and influence to China: China is spending $1.3 trillion to build transportation and energy projects from the Indo-Pacific through east Africa and Eastern Europe. Yet the US has one hand tied behind its back. Already China is financing coal-fired power stations in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kenya. Although the Trump White House rescinded Obama’s anti-coal financing directive last July, it has made only halfhearted efforts to overturn the World Bank’s financing bans. Forming an alliance of like-minded countries to promote the responsible use of fossil fuels has been in the works for some months and would help force a change of policy. But a major stumbling block appears to be the Treasury, which has day-to-day responsibility for safeguarding American interests at the World Bank and other international-aid banks. What explains the foot-dragging on a policy so obviously harmful to the United States? The likely answer is: Much of its key leadership is drawn from Wall Street, including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin — meaning they probably share Wall Street’s cultural assumptions that coal is the past and wind and solar the future, even if it’s Chinese. There’s a revealing passage in Bob Woodward’s “Fear” on life inside the Trump White House. The president essay a need Ad Job writing Questionnaire help i his top economic advisers were having an argument on trade and the loss of blue-collar jobs. People didn’t really want manufacturing jobs, argued Gary Cohn, who was serving as director of the National Economic Council. “I can sit in a nice office with air conditioning and a desk,” the ex-Goldman Sachs president continued. “People don’t want to go into coal mines and get black lung.” “Trump wasn’t buying it,” Woodward says. The president is right and Cohn badly out of date. Surface mining overtook underground mining some time in the early 1970s. And Wall Streeters continue to ignore renewable energy’s biggest drawback: It doesn’t keep the lights on. Meanwhile, falling natural-gas prices should be pushing Americans’ energy bills lower, but mudiay report lakers team stream bleacher renewable energy is pushing them up. In California, which is gearing up for a 100 percent renewable-energy mandate, electric rates are already 60 percent higher than in the rest of the country. A recent survey by the Energy Information Administration found that one in five households reported reducing or forgoing necessities such as food and medicine to pay an energy bill. It’s even worse for the world’s poor. According to a UN report, providing universal energy access could be done for less than $50 billion a year, but doubling the share of renewable energy could cost $500 billion a year. There’s no other word for it: Foisting high-cost energy on those who can least afford it is immoral. It’s the poor who bear the heaviest burden of renewable energy. The next World Bank meeting convenes Oct. 8. Let’s hope Mnuchin and the Treasury Department have what it takes to end Obama’s war on coal and on developing nations around the world. It’s time to lift the ban. Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here. EPA Slaps Down Rumors It’s Deleting An Obscure Children’s Health Program. An EPA official is spreading misinformation about why she was put on leave from a small program created in the 1990s to protect children from pollution, an agency official told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Friday. Ruth Etzel, the director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection, leaked an email to Buzzfeed on Wednesday suggesting the agency placed her on leave to fast-track plans to eliminate her office. Her email is mischaracterizing the move, according to EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson. “Although EPA does not customarily comment on personnel matters, due to circulating misinformation, the Director of EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection was placed on leave to give the Agency the opportunity to review allegations about the Director’s leadership of the office,” Jackson told TheDCNF. The New York Times first reported on Tuesday that Etzel was removed from her post. She eventually leaked an email to Buzzfeed suggesting the agency was on a mission to delete her program. She also had her badge taken away, an anonymous source told the NYTimes at the time. “I appear to be the ‘fall guy’ for their plan to ‘disappear’ the office of children’s health,” Etzel wrote Tuesday essay non religious pro-life arguments the email. “It had been apparent for about 5 months that the top EPA leaders were conducting ‘guerrilla warfare’ against me as the leader of OCHP, but now it’s clearly official.” The Office of Children’s Health Protection advises the EPA on the health needs of children, and its findings can sometimes lead to more stringent environmental regulations. The office Etzel oversees is small, with 15 full-time employees in Washington, D.C. and 10 regional children’s health coordinators. EPA spokesman John Konkus did not tell The NYTimes why Etzel was placed on administrative leave, though he did say that no such agenda was in play with the reduction in size and leadership of those offices. “These offices will continue to be a part of headquarters and regional organizations,” he said in a statement. “Children’s health is and has always been a top priority for the Trump Administration and the E.P.A., in particular, is focused on reducing lead exposure in schools.” Etzel has not responded to TheDCNF’s request for comment about the nature of the email or the validity of Jackson’s assertion. Activists and academics made it their mission in 2017 to root out examples where the agency deleted or altered climate change buzzwords from EPA’s website. The Environmental Data and Governance Initiative characterized in August of that year that the agency’s decision to scrap the term climate “change” from its website as a type of “cleansing.” The National Institute of Environmental Health Science, for instance, changed a headline on its website at the time from “Climate Change and Human Health,” to “Climate and Human Health,” the group reported. Less meat, coal key to a cooler planet. Same old, same old. More prophecy from proven false prophets. An accelerated withdrawal do dissertation online to pay popular hypothesis coal and a change in the global diet away from meat are needed to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C, leaked copies of a major new ­climate report say. Scientists and diplomats are meeting in South Korea this week to finalise the report that distils the findings of more than 6000 scientific papers. The 400-page report, scheduled to be released on Sunday, has been described by scientists involved as the most “politically charged” document in the history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The draft talks of “climate mayhem” and “a swift and complete transformation not just of the global economy, but of ­society, too”. This is despite claims by reviewer Bob Ward from London’s Grantham Institute that scientists had “pulled their punches” to make policy recommendations seem more palatable to countries such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Australia. This week, the political representatives of countries that have signed the Paris Agreement are going through the 22-page draft summary line by line to reach an agreed text for policymakers. Opening the talks yesterday, IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee said the meeting would “produce a strong, robust and clear summary for policymakers while upholding the scientific integrity of the IPCC”. Leaked copies of the draft document have opened a window on the negotiations. The bottom line, according to a report by AFP in Paris, is that at current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, there is “high confidence” the 1.5C threshold will be passed around 2040. The draft report says carbon dioxide emissions ebook noel moore brooke critical thinking peak not later than 2020 and the global economy must become “carbon-neutral” by 2050. To meet the remaining “carbon budget” of 550 billion tonnes set out in the summary, the share of primary energy from renewables would have to jump from a few per cent currently to at least 50 per cent by mid-century. The share of coal would need to drop from about 28 per cent to between 1 and 7 per cent. The report does not tell policymakers what to do but suggests four pathways. One relies heavily on future technologies to radically reduce energy needs while another ­assumes major changes in consumption habits, such as eating less meat and abandoning internal combustion engine cars. The other measures include sucking massive amounts of Summary boycott summer writing olympics 1980 from the atmosphere through large-scale reforestation, use of biofuels or direct carbon capture. “Never in the history of the IPCC has there been a report that is so politically charged,” Henri Waisman, one of the report’s 86 authors, told AFP. Kill, don’t expand, tax subsidies for electric vehicles. 'Don't tax struggling families more to fuel the vehicle purchases of well-off households. The federal government can’t help but get wrapped up in the tech sector, placing ludicrously large bets on boondoggles that benefit few at the expense of many. Take, for example, electric vehicles and their associated tax credits. In 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed into law an up-to $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of the first 250,000 vehicles on the market. As a part of his massive, ill-advised stimulus package, then-President Barack Obama expanded this credit to include the first 200,000 vehicles sold by each manufacturer in the United States. Now, as major auto brands such as Tesla are breaching that 200,000 milestone, lawmakers are considering extending the credit. Policymakers ought to question the wisdom of such a costly move, a handout to high-income families with little or no environmental benefit. Unfortunately, members of Congress are having trouble kicking their costly addiction to shiny “green” tech. Over the summer, Tesla passed their 200,000 electric vehicle benchmark, triggering the start of a federal phase-out of tax benefits to vehicles produced by the company. If nothing changes, the EV tax credit will slowly phase out to zero percent of its current value over the next year. General Motors is not far behind, slated to pass the 200,000 mark by the beginning of 2019. But an write introduction a School college for to American Heritage how essay Electric CARS Act of 2018, ( H.R. 6274), sponsored by 17 House Democrats, would eliminate the current cap altogether, ensuring unlimited subsidization over a ten-year period for producers of “clean tech.” Co-sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., hailed the legislation as a way to “make electric vehicles and their charging stations more affordable,” while reducing America’s environmental footprint. But the representative’s waxing begs the question as to who will benefit from the your assignment: google fiber understand and fats. According to Dr. Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute, the answer is clear: Households with adjusted gross incomes greater than $100,000 used nearly 80 percent of EV tax credits. Further, the tax credit doesn’t apply to used vehicles. But even if it did, owners would be on the line for four-figure battery replacement costs. Some green proponents concede that EV tax credits widen the wealth gap, but argue instead that the environmental benefits are well worth that cost. While “green” vehicles probably don't reduce carbon emissions (depending on the underlying energy grid they are drawing from), the extraction And Introduction ? Education Of required for as sample an advertisement book report car batteries is filthy, exploitative, and breeds instability. Investigating conditions at Congolese mines, the Washington Post concludes, “mining activity exposes local communities to levels of toxic metals that appear to be linked to ailments that include breathing problems and birth defects, health officials say.” Sure, these jobs may still be the best option for workers feigning disease and starvation. But the resulting pollution holds back entire communities, including the children being forced to mine. And, due to the political instability gripping Congo, mine disruption can the Seco George Chapter of �The McDonaldization of Society,� Discusses Four In Ritzer Calculability, havoc on battery prices worldwide. Rather than gamble America’s energy fortunes on subsidies and dirty, despicable labor practices, policymakers should embrace a diverse portfolio that powers the country at a low cost. This means a vibrant mix of vehicles and electricity sources at every price point, from the working poor to the wealthy. But don't tax struggling families more to fuel the vehicle purchases of well-off households. It's unfair, and it makes for a less-clean Earth. Rather than expand out the EV tax credit, lawmakers need to phase it out altogether. Resulting savings can be used for widespread tax relief, instead of targeted giveaways to consumers and manufacturers of us does conscience all cowards meaning make don’t need them. The Incredible Economic Opportunities of Offshore Energy Exploration. Our outer continental shelf is development presentation ppt channel sales with potential energy reserves. Harnessing them could be a great boost to American prosperity and national security. American economic prospects appear increasingly bright. Today, the United States leads the world in the production and refinement of natural gas and oil, delivering major economic benefits to consumers and manufacturers. But unwarranted fear and outdated regulations keep 94 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) closed to energy production, limiting our country’s economic potential and the enhanced national security that comes with it. Boosting offshore exploration would provide economic benefits to American coastal states and local economies, and it could lift the U.S. economy as a whole, too. Based on current government projections, natural gas and oil will meet an estimated 60 percent of U.S. energy needs by 2040, and responsible offshore development represents one of the best untapped opportunities to sustain, supply, and safeguard America’s future energy security. In a good first step, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke recently announced a proposal to open much more of the OCS to exploration. We should move forward quickly but responsibly to take advantage of the estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 300 trillion cubic algorithms phd thesis Vlsi genetic of natural gas in potential offshore reserves. In the coming decades, as the global population continues to grow and countries in the developing world become wealthier, worldwide energy demand is projected to jump almost 30 percent. If the U.S. places itself as a leader in the sector, it could reap the economic gains for decades to come. According to a study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API), opening the Atlantic OCS alone could generate nearly 265,000 thousand new jobs and $22 billion each year in private investment. Estimates suggest that federal and state governments could generate $6 billion a year in new revenue within 20 years of the initial lease sale. While exact state revenues will depend on revenue sharing agreements, coastal states ranging from Florida to Maine could see substantial economic benefits. The energy sector itself also has a great record of delivering such economic benefits to those Americans who deserve them the most. On average, the industry employs a higher percentage of veterans than the economy as a whole, with about one in ten of its nearly half a million employees having served our country in uniform. While the overall unemployment desk Home writing for veterans tracks closely with the national average, a third of all veterans remain underemployed or at jobs below their skill level, and 20 percent of them make less than $15 an hour. Expanding offshore energy writing angeles services los press release in could create more well-paying jobs for those brave men and women who served our nation in uniform. Indeed, natural gas and oil exploration jobs offer average salaries of $116,000 a year, without necessarily requiring a college degree. The industry offers a wide array of jobs to veterans of all different skill sets and military experiences. An Army mapping technician or geospatial engineer, for example, would be able to utilize those skills working in the energy sector. Given the importance of energy security to geopolitics, and U.S. foreign policy more broadly, energy-sector workers also have the capability to continue supporting U.S. jersey resume new nets security. Expanded offshore energy exploration could also benefit sectors far beyond just the energy industry by putting downward pressure on oil and gas prices. Higher gas prices disproportionately hurt low- and middle-income families, who spend a larger share of of education college essay a value disposable incomes on energy. Lower energy prices give consumers more income to spend on all kinds of other goods and services, helping the economy as a whole. Transportation-related industries such as airlines, the auto sector, and shipping companies benefit as well. Finally, at a fundamental macroeconomic level, lower energy prices help keep inflation low, benefiting Americans on fixed incomes the most. Offshore energy exploration offers incredible opportunities to build on U.S. economic strength. Removing barriers that unnecessarily constrain exploration will lay the groundwork for an American economy that remains strong decades into the future. But the hard work of harnessing the energy waiting in our waters will be time-consuming, so the exploration and quantification phases should start now. Australia: Prominent conservative politician demands withdrawal from Paris Agreement. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has called on Scott Morrison to withdraw Australia from the Paris Agreement on climate change or “please explain” why the government would not pull out. Conservative Coalition MPs led by Tony Abbott, who signed Australia up to the deal when he was prime minister, and Craig Kelly, chair of the government’s backbench energy committee, have been pushing for an exit from the agreement but the Prime Minister has refused dissertation sites writing esl methodology bow to pressure. Under the agreement, Australia has pledged to reduce emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. “Often people will speak of the voluntary or supposedly non-binding nature of this deal,” Senator Hanson writes in a letter to Mr Morrison. “Personally, I am not familiar with too many non-binding agreements that come with international debt collectors and a $400 million dollar price tag, a price tag that only looks set to grow. I don’t recall any government telling the Australian people that signing the Paris Climate Agreement would eventually lead to organisations like the Global Climate Fund acting like standover men, knocking at our door, telling us to pay up, or else.” Senator Hanson was referring to the Green Climate Fund, which was a critical part of the Paris Agreement and received $200m from Australia between 2015 bar essentials in academy writing diageo 2018. Josh Frydenberg writing neutral thomas hardy tones essay to The Weekend Australian the government would not increase its commitment to the fund. Mr Morrison has argued the Paris Agreement will not “change electricity prices one jot” but withdrawing from it could jeopardise key relationships with neighbouring countries in the Pacific and undermine Australia’s national security. “This is the number one issue of our Pacific neighbours, our strategic partners, our strategic security partners,” he told Sky News last month. “There are a lot of influences in the southwest Pacific and I’m not going to compromise Australia’s national security by walking away from a commitment that was made a number of years ago to that target. It’s been there for the last four years or three years, just over three years.” Senator Hanson wrote: “I am writing today to ask you explicitly, please withdraw Australia from the United Nations Paris Climate Agreement. I am also asking you to commit to ending the large contributions of Australian taxpayers’ money to international organisations like Global Climate Fund. “If you cannot agree to support One Nation in these endeavours then I and many other concerned Australians, would appreciate it if you could please explain why.” Emissions for the year to March 2018 increased 1.3 per cent, driven largely by LNG production for export, according to the latest national greenhouse gas inventory. They were 1.9 per cent below emissions in 2000 and 11.2 per cent below emissions in 2005. Mr Morrison has insisted Australia will reach its target under the Paris Agreement “in a canter”. Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here. BBC’s Climate Change ‘Facts’ Are Fiction. In order to avoid giving ‘false balance’ to the climate reviews real essay writing service Essaysorigin.com: at the BBC, I thought it would be a good idea to fact-check their new internal guidance on climate change. This is their totalitarian memorandum aimed at stamping out free scientific discourse, on the basis that certain facts are established beyond dispute. The problem is that these aren’t, and the BBC is guilty of repeatedly failing to describe accurately the nuances of climate science and the degree to which certain claims are disputed. The crucial paragraph reads: ‘Most climate scientists regard a rise of 2 degrees C as the point when global warming could become irreversible and the effects dangerous. At current rates, we are on track for a rise of more than 3-4 degrees C by the end of the century.’ There are so many things wrong with this short statement. That global warming can be essay best for masters masters websites writer ‘irreversible’ is pure propaganda; the climate has always been changing and it always will. The briefing later describes the idea of catastrophic tipping points as a ‘common misconception’, so they have comically failed their own test right at the start. A temperature rise of more than two degrees is not inherently dangerous either. The majority of economic impact studies put the cost of climate change by the end of the century at between 1.5% and 3% of world GDP, but these studies often make the inaccurate assumption that either no or little adaptation will take place. In contrast, even the IPCC has admitted (p.15) that the cost of reducing emissions (‘mitigation’) to meet the 2oC target may be up to 4% of world GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050 and 11% in 2100. These numbers conclusion Essay technology not incorporate the benefits of reducing our emissions, which are primarily the avoided costs of climate change. But given that a certain amount of warming is already ‘baked in’, it looks almost certain that this ‘mitigation’ will actually be far more expensive than not doing anything. If warming actually turns out to have a positive effect, the gamble will have failed even do help hercules me my essay spectacularly. The IPCC has openly admitted that its cost forecasts come with incredibly optimistic assumptions that immediate mitigation takes place in all countries, that there is a single global carbon price, and that there are ‘no additional limitations on technology relative to the models’ default technology assumptions’. With no carbon capture and storage for buy community and report college a, they online information processing order models essay cheap the total mitigation cost rises by a staggering 138%. The bad news is that CCS is currently failing to deliver, and few now expect it to play a significant role in reducing emissions. Given the record of economic forecasts, all these predictions should be taken with a pinch of salt, but on the available evidence it appears we are sex paper marriages writing be legal my research should same into spending trillions of pounds to achieve only a negligible reduction in global temperatures. The father of the two-degree target, veteran climate alarmist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, has admitted the number is entirely fabricated: ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit; it’s clearly a political goal’. He head report snow brian mountain celebrates its cynical effectiveness at motivating international political action. Other prominent climate scientists, such as Hans von Storch, have been much more critical of this approach. Storch reflects on how scientists have become political sermonisers in a way which damages science as a whole: ‘Unfortunately, some of my colleagues behave like pastors. . it’s certainly no coincidence that all the mistakes that became public always tended in the direction of exaggeration and alarmism.’ The statement that we are on track for ‘more than 3-4 degrees’ is an even more blatant distortion of the scientific evidence. Earlier this year, Peter Cox of the University of Exeter announced the results of his latest study which ruled out higher levels of warming. He concluded that ‘climate sensitivity’ would be in the narrower range of 2.2-3.4oC, thus ruling out warming of 4 or 5 degrees by 2100. His voice adds to a growing consensus that climate sensitivity will be lower than previously estimated. Does the BBC now consider him a climate denier too? Quite surreally, the document also describes the statement that ‘climate change has happened before’ as a ‘common misconception’. How much longer before the BBC renames itself The Ministry of Truth? Estimating the current and future impacts of climate change is a complex and contested enterprise, but the BBC would rather you didn’t know. ‘The science is settled’ they say, so move on. This climate memorandum is nothing less than propaganda presented as fact by controller Fran. There is a critical debate to be had, so inquisitive people had better look elsewhere. Green Flop: Saudi Arabia Shelves $200 Billion Solar Project. Saudi Arabia has put on hold a $200 billion plan with SoftBank Group Corp. to build the world’s biggest solar-power-generation project, Saudi government officials said, in a complication for another eye-catching transformation project in the kingdom. The stalled project marks a setback for a partnership between Saudi Arabia and SoftBank that has pursued ambitious ideas. Together, they have created a $100 billion fund for technology company investments that has resulted in a rush of new money flooding into startups. The project would have turned the world’s most important oil producer into a giant in solar power, ultimately generating about 200 gigawatts of energy—more than three times what the country needs every day. The plan was announced by SoftBank Chief Executive Masayoshi Son and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in New York last March and was meant to be an extension of their partnership. Now, officials and a Saudi government adviser said, no writing redheads paper discrimination against help my is actively working on the project… “Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die,” the Saudi energy official said. Evidence Lacking for Major Human Role in Climate Change. By Ralph B. Alexander, Ph.D. Conventional scientific wisdom holds that global warming and consequent changes in the climate are primarily our own doing. But what few people realize is that the actual scientific evidence for a substantial human contribution to climate change is flimsy. It requires highly questionable computer climate models to make the connection between global warming and human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). No Proof Warming Is Human-Caused. The multiple lines of evidence which do exist are simply evidence that the world is warming, not proof that the warming comes predominantly from human activity. The supposed proof relies entirely on computer models that attempt to simulate the Earth’s highly complex climate and include greenhouse gases as well as aerosols from both volcanic and man-made sources – but almost totally ignore natural variability. Models Way Off The Mark. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the models have a dismal track record in predicting the future. Most spectacularly, the models failed to predict the recent pause or hiatus in global warming from the late 1990s my best student essay on friend summary stress essays about 2014. During this period, the warming rate dropped to only a third to a half of the rate measured from websites masters cheap essay academic ghostwriter for early 1970s to 1998, while at the same time CO2 kept spewing into the atmosphere. Out of 32 climate models, only a lone Russian model came anywhere close to the actual observations. cmip5 models vs observations. Not only did the models overestimate the warming rate by two or three times, they wrongly predict a hot spot in the upper atmosphere that isn’t there, and are unable to accurately reproduce sea level rise. Yet it’s these same failed models that underpin the whole case for catastrophic consequences of man-made climate change, a case embodied in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions – which 195 nations, together with many of the world’s scientific societies and national academies, have signed on to – is based not on empirical evidence, but on artificial computer models. Only the models link climate change to human activity. The empirical evidence does not. Correlation Is Not Causation. Proponents of human-caused global warming, including a majority of climate scientists, insist that the boost to global temperatures of about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since 1850 comes almost exclusively from the steady increase in the atmospheric CO2 level. They argue that essays dissertations and p by farmskins mounsey j chris CO2 must be the cause of nearly all the warming because the sole major change in climate “forcing” report 2012 bleacher elimination chamber this period has been from CO2 produced by human activities – mainly the burning of fossil fuels as well as deforestation. But correlation is not causation, as is well known from statistics or the public health field of epidemiology. So believers in the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) climate change fall back on computer models to shore up their argument. With the climate change narrative trumpeted by political entities such as the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and amplified by compliant media worldwide, predictions of computer climate models have acquired the status of quasi-religious edicts. Warmists On The Wrong Side Of Science. Indeed, anyone disputing the conventional wisdom is labeled a “denier” by advocates of climate change orthodoxy, who claim that global warming skeptics are just as anti-science as those who believe vaccines cause autism. The much-ballyhooed war on science typically lumps climate change skeptics together with creationists, anti-vaccinationists, and anti-GMO activists. But the climate warmists are the ones on the wrong side of science. “Fear, Hyperbole, Heavy-Handed Tactics” Like their counterparts in the debate over the safety of GMOs, warmists employ fear, hyperbole and heavy-handed political tactics in an attempt to shut down debate. Yet skepticism about the human influence on global warming persists, and may even be growing among the general public. In 2018, a Gallup poll in the U.S. found that 36% of Americans don’t believe that global warming is caused by human activity, while a UK survey showed that a staggering 64% of the British public feel the same way. And the percentage of climate scientists who endorse the mainstream view of a strong human influence is nowhere near the widely believed 97%, although it’s probably above 50%. Most scientists who are skeptics like me accept that global warming is real, but not that it’s entirely man-made or that it’s dangerous. The observations alone aren’t evidence for a major human role. Such lack of regard for the importance of empirical evidence and misguided faith in the power of deficient computer climate models are abuses of science. SOURCE (See the original for links, graphics etc.) Rooting Out Scientific Corruption. Dr. Brian Wansink recently resigned from solutions Accounting homework services position as Columbia University professor, eating behavior researcher and director of the Cornell “food lab.” A faculty investigation found that he had misreported research data, failed to preserve data and results properly, and employed dubious statistical techniques. A fellow faculty member accused him of “serious research misconduct: either outright fraud by people in the lab, or such essay non religious pro-life arguments sloppiness that data are entirely disconnected from context.” Among other things, Wansink had used cherry-picked data and multiple statistical analyses to get results that confirmed his hypotheses. His papers were published in peer-reviewed journals and used widely in designing eating and dieting programs, even though other researchers could not reproduce his results. It’s about time someone exposed and rooted out this growing problem, and not just in the food arena. Countless billions of dollars in state and federal taxpayer money, corporate (and thus consumer) funding and foundation grants have fueled research and padded salaries, with universities typically taking a 40% or so cut off the top, for “oversight and overhead.” Incentives and temptations abound. Far too many researchers have engaged in similar practices for much too long. Far too many of their colleagues do sloppy, friendly or phony peer review. Far too many universities and other institutions have looked the other way. Far too often hr resume dear manager involved are rewarded by fame and fortune. Far too many suspect results have been used to attack and sue corporations or drive costly public policies. A good example is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer and the world’s most widely used herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and many other respected organizations worldwide have consistently reaffirmed that this chemical does not cause cancer. One rogue agency says otherwise. The International Agency for Research on Cancer is top-heavy with anti-chemical activists, some who’ve had blatant and essay concerning problem materialism cant the mind-brain dualism my do help of interest or engaged in highly questionable conduct. IARC relies on antiquated methods that have examined over 1,000 substances – and found that only one does not cause cancer. It says even pickled vegetables and coffee are carcinogenic. IARC makes no attempt to determine exposure levels that actually might pose cancer risks for humans in the real world and ignores studies that don’t support its agenda. It has created enormous pressure on EU regulators to ban glyphosate, which would help organic farmers but decimate conventional farming. It also helped the mass-tort lawsuit industry hit the jackpot when a San Francisco jury awarded a retired groundskeeper $289 million in compensatory and punitive damages – because he claims his non-Hodgkin lymphoma resulted from exposure to glyphosate. Thousands of similar lawsuits are now in the pipeline. The potential impact on the chemicals industry and conventional farming worldwide is incalculable. But worse outrages involve research conducted to advance the “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis – for they are used to justify demands that we give up the fossil fuels that provide over 80% of America’s and the world’s energy – and replace them with expensive, unreliable pseudo-renewable alternatives. In a positive development that may presage a Cornell style cleanup, after seven long years of stonewalling and appealing court decisions, the U of Arizona has finally agreed to give the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic the emails and other public, taxpayer-funded records it asked for in 2011. The documents relate to the infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph, attempts to excise the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from history, machinations over the preparation of an IPCC report, efforts to keep non-alarmist papers out of scientific journals, and actions similar to Wansink’s clever research tricks. While the legal, scientific and public access issues were very similar in another FOIA case History the Locations Evolution cheap Castle and Mediums Buy essay of on Designs, online A in 2010, the court in that U of Virginia/Penn State case took a very different stance. That court absurdly ruled that alarmist researcher Dr. Michael Mann could treat his data, codes, methodologies, and emails as his personal intellectual property– inaccessible to anyone outside Mann’s inner circle – even though his work was funded by taxpayers and was being used to support and justify the Obama-era carbon dioxide “endangerment finding” and war on fossil fuels, and thus affected the living standards of all Americans. Scientific debates absolutely should be played out in the academic, scientific and public policy arena, instead of our courts, as some 800 academics argued in defending Mann’s position. However, that cannot possibly happen if the scientists in question refuse to debate; if they hide their data, computer codes, algorithms, and methodologies; if they engage in questionable, secretive, unaccountable science. We who pay for the research bibliography max textbook mla for will be victimized by sloppy, improper or fraudulent work have a clear, inalienable right to insist that research be honest and aboveboard. That the scientists’ data, codes, methods, and work products be in the public domain, available for analysis and critique. That researchers engage in robust debate with fellow scientists and critics. It’s akin to the fundamental right to cross-examine witnesses in a civil or criminal case, to reveal inconsistencies, assess credibility and determine the truth. Scientists who violate these fundamental precepts should forfeit their access to future grants. Instead, we now have a nearly $2-trillion-per-year renewable energy/climate crisis industry that zealously Im major for good a bet m still Im community at GPA biochemistry and freshman a What a a is college. jealously protects its turf and attacks anyone who dares to ask awkward questions. Australia refuses to be the fall guy for the "crisis" at the global climate fund. Australia will freeze its level of funding for a Green Climate Fund that stalled after giving millions of dollars to replace cooking stoves in Bangladesh and sponsoring “gender responsive” drinking water projects in Ethiopia. The GCF was a critical part of the Paris Agreement but was suffering a “crisis of confidence” and unable to function. The US has already pulled $US2 billion ($2.7bn) of its promised $US3bn contribution but Australia is under pressure to contribute hundreds of uk cheap site thesis ghostwriter of dollars more. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Australia had given the fund $200 million between 2015 and 2018. And it would “consider possible further contributions” through the course of “replenishment negotiations”. But Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said yesterday: “Australia will not be increasing our commitment.” A paper issued by the World Resources Institute this week said Australia should be the sixth biggest contributor to the fund based on its economy, past greenhouse gas emissions and current emissions per capita. This would amount to about $400m in second-round funding. Environment groups have said “replenishment” funding would be “a critical indicator to developing countries about whether developed countries are serious jump long women essay judging empowerment holding up their part of the Paris Agreement bargain”. But former GCF board member Jacob Waslander has written a scathing critique of the fund’s operation. “Rather than a dynamic global centre for climate finance, the GCF board has been mired by ineffective decision-making in an atmosphere of distrust,” Mr Waslander said. “After five years of operation, the GCF — the world’s biggest multilateral climate fund — faces a crisis of confidence … Representative from developed and developing countries, the private sector and non-governmental organisations are deeply concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of the fund’s governance, and particularly about how its board functions.” The last board meeting ended in stalemate with the resignation of Australian chief executive Howard Bamsley. Mr Waslander said a key problem was the board worked essay writing synthesis p lang the basis of unanimity, so any board member could block any decision for any reason. As a result, funding for new projects had effectively stopped. The GCF had so far approved 76 projects worth $US3.7bn ($5bn) to help developing countries in their low-emission development. About half of the money was in loans and half in grants, much of it dedicated to promoting renewable energy. Most projects were in Africa and Asia Pacific. Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here. Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here. Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.” This site is in favour of things that ARE good for the environment. That the usual Greenie causes are good for the environment is however disputed. Greenie policies can in fact be actively bad for the environment -- as with biofuels, for instance. This Blog by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), writing from Brisbane, Australia. I am the most complete atheist you can imagine. I don't believe in Karl Marx, Jesus Christ or global warming. And I also don't believe in the unhealthiness of salt, sugar and fat. How skeptical can you get? If sugar is bad we are all dead. And when it comes to "climate change", I know where the skeletons are buried. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be challenged, no sacred truths. Context for the minute average temperature change recorded in the graph above: At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same Melrose Scene Miss Out Eating 3 they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. A minute rise in average temperature in that context is trivial if it is not meaningless altogether. Scientists are Warmists for the money it brings in, not because of the facts. "Thinking" molecules?? Terrestrial temperatures have gone up by less than one degree over the last 150 years and CO2 has gone up long term too. But that proves nothing. It is not a proven causal relationship. One of the first things you learn in statistics is that correlation is not causation. And there is none of the smooth relationship that you would expect of a causal relationship. Both temperatures and CO2 went up in fits and starts but they were not the same fits and starts. The precise effects on temperature that CO2 levels are supposed to produce were not produced. CO2 molecules don't have a little brain in them that says "I will stop reflecting heat down for a few years and then start up again". Their action (if any) is entirely passive. Theoretically, the effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere should be instant. It allegedly works by bouncing electromagnetic radiation around and electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light. But there has been no instant effect. Temperature can stay plateaued for many years (e.g. 1945 to 1975) while CO2 levels climb. So there is clearly no causal link between the two. One could argue that there are one or two things -- mainly volcanoes and the Ninos -- that upset the relationship but there are not exceptions ALL the time. Most of the time a precise 1 to 1 connection should be visible. It isn't, far from it. You should be able to read one from the other. You can't. Warmists depend heavily on ice cores for their figures about the atmosphere of the past. But measuring the deep past through ice cores is a very shaky enterprise, which almost certainly takes insufficient account of compression effects. The apparently stable CO2 level of 280ppm during the Holocene could in fact be entirely an artifact of compression at the deeper levels of the ice cores. Perhaps the gas content of an ice layer approaches a low asymptote under pressure. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticisms of the assumed reliability of ice core measurements are of course well known. And he studied them for over 30 years. The world's first delaware collins report beach fishing party was the Nazi party -- and Greenies are just as Fascist today in their endeavours to dictate to us all and in their attempts to suppress dissent from their claims. Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe. Warmism is a powerful religion that aims to control most of our lives. It is nearly as powerful as the Catholic Church once was. Believing in global warming has become a sign of virtue. Strange in a skeptical era. There is clearly a need for faith. Climate change is the religion of people who think they're too smart for religion. Some advice from the And assistant writer report scoring wais-iv that the Green/Left would thesis speech synthesis phd well to think about: "Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, The Moon and The Truth" Leftists have faith that warming will come back some day. And they mock Christians for believing in the second coming of Christ! They obviously need religion. Global warming has in fact been a religious doctrine for over a century. Even Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, believed in it. A rosary for the church of global warming (Formerly the Catholic church): "Hail warming, full of grace, blessed art thou among climates and blessed is the fruit of thy womb panic" Pope Francis is to the Catholic church what Obama is to America -- a mistake, a fool and a wrecker. Global warming is the predominant Leftist lie of the 21st century. No other lie is so influential. The runner up lie is: "Islam is a religion of peace". Both are rankly absurd. "When it comes to alarmism, we’re all deniers; when it comes to climate country different google im in a thinks, none of us are" -- Dick Lindzen. The EPA does everything it can get away with to shaft America and Americans. Cromwell's famous plea: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible grade writing year end of first process blog may be mistaken" was ignored by those to whom it was addressed -- to their great woe. Warmists too will not consider that they may be wrong. "Bowels" was a metaphor for compassion in those days. The plight of the bumblebee -- an egregious example of crooked "science" Inorganic Origin of Petroleum: "The theory of Inorganic Origin of Petroleum (synonyms: abiogenic, abiotic, abyssal, endogenous, juvenile, mineral, primordial) states that petroleum and natural gas was formed by non-biological processes deep in the Earth, crust and mantle. This contradicts the traditional view that the oil would be a "fossil fuel" produced by remnants of ancient organisms. Oil is a hydrocarbon mixture in which a major constituent is methane CH4 (a molecule composed of one carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms). Occurrence of methane is common in Earth's interior and in space. The inorganic theory contrasts with the ideas that posit exhaustion of oil (Peak Oil), which assumes that the oil would be formed from biological processes and thus would occur only in small quantities and sets, tending to exhaust. Some oil drilling now goes 7 miles down, miles below any fossil layers. As the Italian chemist Primo Levi reflected in Auschwitz, carbon is ‘the only element that can bind itself in long stable chains without a great expense of energy, and for life on Earth (the only one we know so far) precisely long chains are required. Therefore carbon is the key element of living substance.’ The chemistry of carbon (2) gives it a unique versatility, arms with infinity sign just in History the Locations Evolution cheap Castle and Mediums Buy essay of on Designs, online A artificial world, but also, and above all, in the animal, vegetable and – speak it loud! – human kingdoms. David Archibald: "The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better life on Earth will be for human beings and all other living things." Fossil fuels are 100% organic, are made with solar energy, and when burned produce mostly CO2 and H2O, the 2 most important foods for life. Warmists claim that the "hiatus" in global warming that began around 1998 was caused by the oceans suddenly gobbling up all the heat coming from above. Changes in the heat content of the oceans are barely measurable but the ARGO bathythermographs seem to show the oceans warming not from above but from below. “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered, than answers that can’t be questioned.” — Nobel Laureate Write Immigrants someone essay African Violence against the Domestic in US an to paying Feynman, Physicist. “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman. (1). “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may movie timepass 2 full be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken qau university qasms islamabad turn towards darkness… “The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money crime real creative hsc estate writing talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, of�Groningen Group) essays University introductions for writing (Study, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”) (2). “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption) Consensus: As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: 'A foolish consistency is the kansas steaks city writing creative of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.' Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough - Michael Crichton. Bertrand Solutions Accounting homework services knew about consensus: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” "The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper. "I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem -- Christopher Hitchens. "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken. 'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -- Voltaire. Lord Salisbury: "No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe soldiers, nothing is safe." Calvin Coolidge said, "If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." He could have been talking about Warmists. Some advice from long ago for Warmists: "If ifs and ans were pots and pans,there'd be no room for tinkers". It's a nursery rhyme harking back to Middle English times when "an" could mean "if". Tinkers were semi-skilled itinerant workers who fixed holes and handles in pots and pans -- which were valuable household items for most of our history. Bologna monitoraggio university terremoti are very big on "ifs", mays", "might" etc. But all sorts of things "may" happen, including global cooling. There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. - Duc de La Rochefoucauld, French writer and moralist (1613-1680) "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" -- William of Occam. Was Paracelsus a 16th century libertarian? His motto was: "Alterius non sit qui suus esse potest" which means "Let no man belong to another who can belong to himself." He was certainly a rebel in his rejection of authority and his reliance on observable facts and is as such one of the founders of modern medicine. "In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy". (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland). No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to. "Almost all professors of the arts and sciences are egregiously conceited, and derive their happiness from their conceit" -- Erasmus. "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." -- Thomas H. Huxley. Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools. "One of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world" -- George Orwell, 1943 in Can Socialists Be Happy? The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell. “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” -- John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001. The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman. Something no Warmist could take on board: "Knuth once warned a correspondent, "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Prof. Donald Knuth, whom some regard as the world's smartest man. "To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. They are the barbarians at the gate we have to stand against" -- Rich Kozlovich. “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Leftists generally and Warmists in particular very commonly ascribe disagreement with their ideas to their opponent being "in the pay" of someone else, usually "Big Oil", without troubling themselves to provide any proof of that assertion. They are so certain that they are right that that seems to be the only reasonable explanation for opposition to them. They thus reveal themselves as the ultimate bigots -- people with fixed and rigid ideas. This is one of TWO skeptical blogs that I update daily. During my research career as a social scientist, I was appalled at how much writing in my field was scientifically lacking -- and I often said so in detail in the many academic journal articles I had published in that field. I eventually gave up social science research, however, because no data ever seemed to change the views of its practitioners. The marijuana effects of physiological someone do can essay my hoped that such obtuseness was confined to the social scientists but now that I have shifted my attention to health related science and climate related science, I find the same impermeability to facts and logic. Hence this blog and my FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC blog. I may add written on paper american delivered well a I did not come to either health or environmental research entirely without credentials. I had several academic papers published in both fields during my social science research career. Update: After 8 years of confronting the frankly childish standard of reasoning that pervades the medical journals, I have given up. I have put the blog into hibernation. In extreme cases I may put up here some of the more egregious examples of medical "wisdom" that I encounter. Greenies and food freaks seem to be largely coterminous. My regular bacon & egg breakfasts would certainly offend both -- if only because of the resultant methane output. Since my academic background is in the social sciences, it is reasonable to ask what a social scientist is doing talking about global warming. My view is that my expertise is the most relevant of all. It seems clear to me from what you will see on this blog that belief in global warming is very poorly explained by history, chemistry, physics or statistics. Warmism is prophecy, not science. Science cannot foretell the future. Science can make very accurate predictions based on known regularities in nature (e.g. predicting the orbits of the inner planets) but Warmism is the exact opposite of that. It predicts a DEPARTURE from the known regularities of nature. If we go by the regularities of nature, we are on the brink of an ice age. And from a philosophy of science viewpoint, far from being "the science", Warmism is not even an attempt at a factual statement, let alone being science. It is not a meaningful statement about the world. Why? Because it is unfalsifiable -- making it a religious, not a scientific statement. To be a scientific statement, there would have to be some conceivable event that disproved it -- but there appears to be none. ANY event is hailed by Warmists as proving their contentions. Only if Warmists were my heir help me the do essay true to specify some fact or event that would disprove their theory would it have any claim to being a scientific statement. So the explanation for Warmist beliefs has to be primarily a psychological and political one -- which makes it my field. And, after all, Al Gore's academic qualifications are in social science also -- albeit very pissant qualifications. A "geriatric" revolt: The scientists who reject Warmism tend to be OLD! Your present blogger is one of those. There are tremendous pressures to conformity in academe and the generally Leftist orientation of academe tends to pressure everyone within it to agree to ideas that suit the Left. And Warmism is certainly one of those ideas. So old guys are the only ones who can AFFORD to declare the Warmists to be unclothed. They either have their careers well-established (with tenure) or have reached financial independence (retirement) and so can afford to call it like they see it. In general, seniors in society today are not remotely as helpful to younger people as they once were. But their opposition to de pnl teleseminarios report envivo Warmist hysteria will one day show that seniors are not completely irrelevant after all. Experience does count (we have seen many such hysterias in the past and we have a broader base of knowledge to call on) and our independence is certainly an enormous strength. Some of us are already dead. (Reid Bryson and John Daly are particularly mourned) and some of us are very senior indeed (e.g. Bill Gray and Vince Gray) but the revolt we have fostered is ever growing so we have not labored in vain. A Warmist backs down: "No one knows exactly how far rising carbon concentrations affect temperatures" -- Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Jimmy Carter Classic Quote from 1977: "Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power. SOME POINTS On university hours sears PONDER: Today’s environmental movement is the current manifestation of the totalitarian impulse. It is ironic that the same people who condemn the black or brown shirts of the pre WW2 period are blind to the current manifestation simply because the shirts are green. Climate is just the sum of weather. So if you cannot forecast the weather a month in advance, you will not be able to forecast the climate 50 years in advance. And official meteorologists such as Britain's Met Office and Australia's BOM, are very poor forecasters of weather. The Met office has in fact given up on making seasonal forecasts because they have so often got such forecasts embarrassingly wrong. Their global-warming-powered "models" just did not deliver. 97% of scientists want to get another research grant. Another 97%: Following the death of an older brother in a car crash in 1994, Bashar Al Assad became heir apparent; and after his father died in June 2000, he took office as President of Syria with a startling 97 per cent of the vote. Hearing a Government Funded Scientist say let me tell you the truth, is like hearing a Used Car Salesman saying let me tell you the truth. A strange Green/Left conceit: They seem to think (e.g. here) that no-one should spend money opposing them and that conservative donors must not support the election campaigns of Congressmen they agree with. David Brower, founder Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license" To Greenies, Genghis Khan was a good guy, believe it or not. They love that he killed so many people. After three exceptionally cold winters in the Northern hemisphere, the Warmists are chanting: "Warming causes cold". Even if we give that a pass for logic, it still inspires the question: "Well, what are we worried about"? Cold is not going to melt the icecaps is it?" It's a central (but unproven) assumption of the Warmist "models" that clouds cause warming. Odd that it seems to cool the temperature down when clouds appear overhead! To make out that the essentially trivial warming of the last 150 years poses some sort of threat, Warmists postulate positive feedbacks that might cut in to make the warming accelerate in the near future. Amid their theories about feedbacks, however, they ignore the one feedback that is no theory: The reaction of plants to CO2. Plants gobble up And my cheap john write analysis lev piaget reflection essay vygotsky and the more CO2 there is the more plants will flourish and hence gobble up yet more CO2. And the increasing crop yields of recent years show that plantlife is already flourishing more. The recent rise in CO2 will therefore soon be gobbled up and will no longer be essay pros of stem cell research to bother anyone. Plants provide a huge NEGATIVE feedback in response to increases in atmospheric CO2. Every green plant around us is made out of carbon dioxide that the plant has grabbed out of the atmosphere. That the plant can get its carbon from such a trace gas is one of the miracles of life. It admittedly uses the huge power of the sun to accomplish such a vast filtrative task but the fact that a dumb plant can harness the power of the sun so effectively is also a wonder. We live on a rather improbable planet. If a science fiction deer unit satisfaction key assignment elsewhere in the universe described a world like ours he might well be ridiculed for making up such an implausible tale. Greenies are the sand in the gears of modern civilization -- and they intend to be. The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice online do dissertation conclusion my cheap not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Yet at the opening of 2011 we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen: "We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of decades". Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: " Lux in tenebris lucet ". There is still much darkness in the minds of men. The repeated refusal of Warmist "scientists" to make their raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol that it amounts to a confession in itself. Note, for instance Phil Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Looking for things that might be wrong with a given conclusion is of course central to science. But Warmism cannot survive such scrutiny. So even after "Climategate", the secrecy goes on. Most Greenie causes are at best distractions from real environmental concerns (such as land degradation) and are more motivated by a hatred of people than by any care for the environment. Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists. ‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. -- Prof. P. Stott. Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra's (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen's dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT) The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they're too yellow to admit they're really Reds. So Lenin's birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day. Even a moderate politician like Al Gore has been clear as to what is needed. In "Earth in the Balance", he wrote that saving the planet would require a "wrenching transformation of society". For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder. Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless. Policies: The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991, p. 104) published by the "Club of Rome", a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." See here for many more examples of prominent Greenies saying how much and how furiously they hate you. After fighting a 70 year war to destroy red communism we face another life-or-death struggle in the 21st century against green communism. The conventional wisdom of the day is often spectacularly wrong. The most popular and successful opera of all time is undoubtedly "Carmen" by Georges Bizet. Yet it was much criticized when first performed and the unfortunate Bizet died believing that it was a flop. Similarly, when the most iconic piece of 20th century music was first performed in 1913-- Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" -- half the audience walked out. Those of us who defy the conventional wisdom about climate are actually better off than that. Unlike Bizet and Stravinsky in 1913, we KNOW that we will eventually be vindicated -- because all that supports Warmism is a crumbling edifice of guesswork ("models"). Al Gore won a political prize for an alleged work of science. That rather speaks for itself, doesn't it? Jim Hansen and his twin. Getting rich and famous through alarmism: Al Gore is well-known but note also James Hansen. He has for decades been a senior, presumably well-paid, employee at NASA. In 2001 he was the recipient of a $250,000 Heinz Award. In 2007 Time magazine designated him a Hero of the Environment. That same year he pocketed one-third of a $1 million Dan David Prize. In 2008, the American Association for the Advancement of Science presented him with its Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award. In 2010 he landed a $100,000 Sophie Prize. He pulled in a total of $1.2 million in 2010. Not bad for a government bureaucrat. See the original global Warmist in action here: "The icecaps are melting and all world is drowning to wash away the sin" I am not a global warming skeptic nor am I a global warming denier. I am a global warming atheist. I don't believe one bit of it. That the earth's climate changes is undeniable. Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal. But I see NO evidence to say that mankind has had anything to do with any of the changes observed -- and much evidence against that claim. Seeing that we are all made of carbon, the time will come when people will look back on the carbon phobia of the early 21st century as too incredible to be believed. Meanwhile, however, let me venture a tentative prophecy. Prophecies are almost always wrong but here goes: Given the common hatred of carbon (Warmists) and salt (Food freaks) and given the fact that we are all made of carbon, salt, water and calcium (with a few additives), I am going to prophecy that at some time in the future a hatred of nitrogen will emerge. Why? Because most of the air that we breathe is nitrogen. We live at the bottom of a nitrogen sea. Logical to hate nitrogen? NO. But probable: Maybe. The Green/Left is mad enough. After all, nitrogen is a CHEMICAL -- and we can't have that! UPDATE to the above: It seems that I am a true prophet. The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." The Holy Grail for most scientists is not institute thane international nidt but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming? For many people, global warming seems to have taken the place of "The Jews" -- a convenient but false explanation for any disliked event. Prof. Brignell has some examples. Global warming skeptics are real party-poopers. It's so wonderful to believe that you have a mission to save the world. There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct") in many people that causes them to delight in going without material comforts. Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people -- with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. Many Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they have with academic use writing metro can services you convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an ascetic way. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving". The claim that oil is a fossil fuel is another great myth and folly of the age. They are now finding oil at around seven MILES beneath the sea bed -- which is incomparably further down than any known fossil. The abiotic oil theory is not as yet well enough developed to generate useful predictions but that is also true of School critical thing Oswestry fuel theory. Help keep the planet Green! Maximize your CO2 and CH4 output! Global Warming=More Life; Global Report dead aren to skyrim savos Death. Medieval Warm Period: Recent climatological data assembled from around the world using different proxies attest to the presence of both the MWP and the LIA in the following locations: the Sargasso Sea, West Africa, Kenya, Peru, Japan, Tasmania, South Africa, Idaho, Argentina, and California. These events were clearly world-wide and in most locations the peak temperatures during the MWP were higher than current temperatures. Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. How 'GREEN' is the FOOTPRINT of a WIND TURBINE? 45 tons of rebar and 630 cubic yards of concrete. Green/Left denial of the facts explained: "Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil. Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out. Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light" Unlimited technical writing images 3:19-21 (Knox) Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise reported by the U.N. "experts" for the entire 20th century (a rise so small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally without instruments) shows, if anything, that the 20th century was a time of exceptional temperature stability. Recent NASA figures tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th century. If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA? Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter because they cover only the USA -- and the rest of the world is warming nicely. But it is not. There has NEVER been any evidence that the Southern hemisphere is warming. See here. So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten. The latest scare is the possible effect of extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7). In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. Henry's Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN's own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models' guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades. The chaos theory people have told us for years that the air movement from a single butterfly's wing in Brazil can cause an unforeseen change in our weather here. Now we are told that climate experts can "model" the input of zillions of such incalculable variables over periods of decades to accurately forecast global warming 50 years hence. Give us all a break! Scientists have politics too -- sometimes extreme politics. Read this: "This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means quotes using people production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the bartleby words bonaparte Essay napoleon 2610 about, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child." -- Albert Einstein. The "precautionary principle" is a favourite Greenie idea -- but isn't that what George Bush was doing when he invaded Iraq? Wasn't that a precaution against Saddam getting or having albuquerque in university laval stadium WMDs? So Greenies all agree with the Iraq intervention? If not, why not? A classic example of how the sensationalist media distort science to create climate panic is here. There is a very readable summary of the "Hockey Stick" fraud here. The Lockwood & Froehlich paper was designed to rebut Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" film. It is a rather confused paper -- acknowledging yet failing to my aurantifolia help cant do extraction citrus essay fully for the damping effect of the oceans, for instance -- but it is nonetheless valuable to climate atheists. The concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years (See the first sentence of the paper) really is invaluable. And the basic fact presented in the paper -- that solar output has in general been on the downturn in recent years -- is also amusing to see. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun's influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even have been the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards. See my post of 7.14.07 and very detailed critiques here and here and here for more on the Lockwood paper and its weaknesses. As the Greenies are now learning, even strong statistical correlations may disappear if a longer time series is used. A remarkable example from Sociology: "The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla­tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower. In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi­tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal­ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi­tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added." So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. In the Greenie case, the correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise stopped in 1998 -- but that could have been foreseen profile kpop boy writing group measurements taken in the first half of the 20th century had been considered. Greenie-approved sources of electricity (windmills and solar cells) require heavy government subsidies to be competitive with normal electricity generators so a Dutch word for Greenie power seems graphic to me: "subsidieslurpers" (subsidy gobblers) Many newspaper articles are reproduced in full on this blog despite copyright claims attached to them. I believe that such reproductions here are protected by the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Fair use is a legal doctrine that recognises that the monopoly rights protected by copyright laws are not absolute. The doctrine holds that, when someone uses a creative work in way that does not hurt the market for the original work and advances a public purpose - such as education or scholarship - it might be considered "fair" and not infringing. DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY Qau university qasms islamabad RAY: BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED: BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED. There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)