Posted tagged ‘Climate Change Science’

Earth Day 2016

April 22, 2016

On Earth Day 2016, let’s look at environmentalism, climate change and fossil fuels.

FOSSIL FUELS: THE GREENEST ENERGY, by Alex Epstein, from Prager University.

Some excerpts from the article:

“What if I told you someone had developed an energy source that could help us solve our biggest environmental challenges, purify our water and air, make our cities and homes more sanitary and keep us safe from potential catastrophic climate change? What if I also told you that this energy source was cheap, plentiful, and reliable? Well there is such a source. You probably know it as fossil fuel; oil, natural gas,and coal.”

Fossil fuels don’t take a naturally safe environment and make it dangerous. They empower us to take a naturally dangerous environment and make it cleaner and safer.”

CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY, from Prager University. MIT atmospheric physicist, Richard Lindzen, summarizes the science behind climate change.

Excerpt from the article:

Global warming alarmism provides politicians, environmentalists and media, more than any other issue, with the things they most want. For politicians its money and power. For environmentalists its money for their organizations and confirmation fo their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. For the media its ideology, money and headlines, doomsday scenarios sell.”

RATIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? NO CHANCE

Alex Epstein spoke in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee which was holding a hearing examining the Role of Environmental Policies on Access to Energy and Economic Opportunity. If you want to watch his 5 minute speech click here It is definitely worth watching. What I want you to see is how Barbara Boxer acts when she gets to ask questions of the panel. Watch the video and compare her antics to the logical calm arguments made by the two gentleman in the first two videos in this post. Her actions are exactly what Richard Lindzen was talking about in the video above.

 

SAVING THE PLANET – GEORGE CARLIN

Senator Boxer, I know he is not a scientist, but he makes a lot of sense when talking about the possibility that man can destroy the planet. Not only is this really funny, but it will make you think.

 

Recycling: Uneconomic Is Wasteful, by Robert Bradley Jr, at masterresource.org. Excerpt from the article;

“…if costs are greater than the revenues of a produce, then economic value is lost: if revenues are greater than the cost, economic value is created. Enter Recycling, which has turned (even more so) into an economic loser in the current era of low commodity prices. What this means is that the cost of sorting and transforming trash into useful products is less than the revenue-and recycling should not be done.

Naive Environmentalism Is Like Religious Fundamentalism, by Mark J. Perry, at carpediemblog. Economist Steve Landsburg tells how he dealt with his daughter being indoctrinated into environmentalism. Here is an excerpt from the article;

…my daughter’s teachers are honestly oblivious that there is a diversity in politics. Let me then make that diversity clear. We are not environmentalists. We ardently oppose environmentalists. We consider environmentalism a form of mass hysteria akin to Islamic fundamentalism or the War on Drugs. we do not recycle. We teach our daughter not to recycle. We teach her that people who try to convince her to recycle, or who try to force her to recycle, are intruding on her rights. The entire program of environmentalism is as foreign to us as the doctrine of Christianity ( Note: Landsburg is Jewish). We face no current threat of having Christianity imposed on us by petty tyrants; the same can not be said of environmentalism. My county government never tried to send me a New Testament, but it did send me a recycling bin.

Central Station Solar: Ivanpah Fail ($2.2 Billion Bust), by Stanislav Jakuba, at masterresource.org. It makes no sense to use a more expensive power source when there is less expensive power sources. Solar is not competitive even with government subsidies. Central station solar power is a scam. Solar will not be a viable alternative, until the real cost, without subsidies, is lower than the cost of power produced by fossil fuels or nuclear.

Natural Gas Use Slashes Air Emissions, by Joe Massaro, at energyindepth.org. The fracking boom has created a natural gas boom. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal. As power plants switch from coal to cleaner burning natural gas, CO2 emissions will start to decrease. But this isn’t why natural gas is being used. Natural gas is being used because it is simply cheaper. Lowering CO2 emissions is a serendipity phenomenon of using the cheaper alternative. Markets work.

RICO For Government Climate Deniers, by Paul Driessen, at cfact.org. When the left can’t convince people of its position on global warming, it will use RICO statutes to make you comply with their vision. This is what tyrants do.

Advertisements

Climate Change: Religion? Economics? Science?

October 2, 2014

The climate march that coincided with the UN’s climate summit a few weeks ago was entertaining to say the least. These two videos show how true believers act when the religion of climate change is challenged. They worship at the altar of climate change, and demand that all infidels accept the teachings of their climate science catechism. True believers never stop to think about trade offs.

QUESTIONS ABOUT TRADE OFFS

A world without fossil fuels is a utopian vision that exists cost-free in the minds of true believers. To their way of thinking, getting rid of carbon based fuels has no consequences. They never ask; how do we get there from here? What is the cost of trying to implement a world of carbon free energy? Will there be enough “green energy” alternatives to make up for the loss of the energy formerly produced by carbon based fuels? What is the cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour for “green energy”, compared to the cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour for carbon based energy? What was the standard of living in the US before we started using coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? How would your present standard of living change if you had to function on 33% less energy a day? What about 40% less, or 50%less? Would you be willing to trade off diminishing amounts of cleaner air against your present standard of living?

CREATING WEALTH ALLOWS US TO AFFORD A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT

Countries like India and China didn’t even attend the climate summit. They are willing to accept more polluted air for a higher standard of living. They won’t clean up after themselves until they have created enough wealth to make it possible to have both a higher standard of living and a cleaner environment. Only wealthy countries can afford to clean up after themselves. People in poorer countries are just trying to make it to the next day. In the case of the US we have clean air to breath and water to drink. Using increasing amounts of scarce resources to make infinitesimal increase in the quality of our air and water, will kill the wealth creation that allowed us to clean up our messes in the first place. There is a diminishing return for trying to create a utopian world. And at some point you start traveling down the “road to serfdom“.

TWO GREAT VIDEOS

Here is a video of Robert Kennedy Jr being interviewed at the People’s Climate March. How condescending is this guy? It wouldn’t take much to push him into a Ray Rice moment.

Here is a video of Alex Epstein at the People’s Climate March. I like the green “I ♥ Fossil Fuels” t-shirt he is wearing.

SCIENCE VS. REALITY

This article, “Stop The Scare Climate Models vs. Human Needs“, by Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton at masterresource.org, asks great questions about the trade offs involved in the discussion (actually it’s a monologue) about climate change. Here are some excerpts from the article.

“India’s Prime Minister Modi, ….. knows that a quarter to a third of India’s people – at least 300 million of its citizens – still have no electricity. In Bihar, four homes in five are still lit by kerosene. His priority is to turn the lights on all over India.”

“Electric power is the quickest, surest, cheapest way to lift people out of poverty, disease and subsistence agriculture, and so to stabilize India’s population, which may soon overtake China’s. Families that no longer have to worry about children dying before they are five, or need them to tend starvation-level crops, tend to downsize their families.”

Not one climate model predicted the severe Indian drought of 2009, followed by the prolonged rains the next year – a rainfall increase of 40% in most regions. These natural variations are not new. They have happened for tens of thousands of years.”

“Models are not ready to predict the climate. Misusing computers to spew out multiple “what-if” scenarios is unscientific. Most of the fundamental problems in our immature understanding of climate have remained unresolved for decades. Some cannot be resolved at all. The UN’s climate panel admitted in 2001 what has been known for 50 years: because the climate is a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic object,” reliable long-term climate predictions are impossible.”

“Misuse of climate models as false prophets is costly in lives as well as treasure. To condemn the poorest of India’s poor to continuing poverty is to condemn many to an untimely death…..It is time to put an end to climate summits. Real-world evidence proves they are not needed.”