The catastrophists cite rising temperatures in equatorial countries and expanding desertification in the Sahara as evidence for the climate change hypothesis. The exceptionalism from normal trends is difficult to prove. For generalists, we are asked to believe that a marginal increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to overwhelm the massive energy stream from the sun and related earth orbital variations that determine the planet’s climate. Hubris on a global scale that will depreciate for some time the reputations of the scientists and modellers who proclaim this fantasy. Meanwhile, the economic loss caused by massive investments in unprofitable ‘renewable’ power supplies will be substantial, and, of course, damage most the people with little discretionary income to pay the higher taxes and energy bills needed to support these grotesque blots on the natural landscape. The renewable supporters seem to have adopted the strategy of the proverbial general in Vietnam: we had to destroy the village in order to save it. The climate scare will go down in history as the madness of a culture in decline.
‘Never let a crisis go to waste.’ Except that climate change is not a crisis… the climate has changed for millions of years and it will continue to change with or without the help of mankind. As the great Thomas Sowell correctly stated, ‘people who have time on their hands (funded by taxpayers) will invariably waste the time (and money) of people with work to do (taxpayers).
The situation today reminds me of when I read about, ‘The great horse manure crisis of 1894,’ that urban centres would become uninhabitable due to the sheer volume of horse manure generated by the means of transportation back then.
At the time it was a ‘real’ crisis that was solved by adaptation to the motor vehicle - and like that if man-made climate change is real - man will find a way to adapt … before it turns to sh— like 1894!
Warming of the air due to the agency of man, is due to the replacement of photosynthesising vegetation with bitumen, concrete, ceramic tiles and brickwork.
Extremes in urbanization is due to the availability of the automobile. Vegetation cools the air via evaporation through plant stomata. We have to incorporate more vegetation in built up environments rather than adding mechanical air conditioning. China is showing us how this can be done. The answer is to adapt, to redesign how we live in cities. If we can do so without relying on automobiles and bitumen, the temperature of the air at the hottest time of the day could be reduced by 5C.
To attribute the increase in air temperature that has occurred to a tiny increase in the fraction of a trace gas that is present as little more than one molecule in two thousand three hundred and fifty molecules, is a mistake. That error is due to a failure to appreciate that convection is the countervailing force that efficiently cools the air via decompression as it ascends. Consider that coldest air at the level of the tropopause, that is the upper limit of the 'weather-sphere', is to be found in equatorial regions where convection is driven by the release of the latent heat of condensation when moisture transpired by tropical rain forests is precipitated in the form of rain or ice. At 15000 meters of elevation, in the tropics, the air temperature is minus 80C. That is due to decompression. In the mid latitudes where the air is warmed by compression as it descends the air at the top of the weather-sphere is 10C warmer.
Urban warming is a design problem. We must adapt the way we live. Consider what it would mean if we could walk to where we need to go rather than use an automobile.
Chris, have you read ‘State of Fear’ by Michael Crichton (yes, that Michael Crichton)? I read it in the ‘90s and it’s incredible just how prescient he was. Worth a look.
Absolutely, you are so right what a ripper of a book. We should base all our policies on Michael Crighton's novels. Probably a better predictor of the future than The End of History book.
We should be building nuclear for our children’s children, and exploiting fossil fuels in every way to make that possible. Use the feel good stuff for the edges & gaps. Say no to energy poverty.
Governments are onlookers willing to tell lies and engage in propaganda if it meets the ends they are chasing. However, they can only do this so many times before we stop listening, stop believing, and start protesting and acting out.
Thank you Chris, your Mother’s wisdom was well founded. Sadly, it’s wasted on ears that will not hear. After seven decades plus four on this “mortal coil”, I have come to regard the catastrophists as the greatest con that I have ever witnessed. The cruelest aspect is what the so-called education system is doing to our children. In collusion with the government, they are evil, and it’s probably not possible to undo the harm that they have caused.
The main problem with Net Zero myth is that, though it is a nonsense, it is also a gravy train for those who help to sustain that myth. Science has now been sadly corrupted by its efforts to support the myth, as with the support along come the research grants: seemingly billions of dollars of tax payer money, according to one analysis! Like-wise, the arts, big business, sport and the main media all support the myth for the grants, contracts and budget renewals. How can any sensible argument against Net Zero be maintained against this government financial onslaught? Only, it would seem, by people like those producing and supporting 'Power Lines' and other outspoken critics of Net Zero. There is still hope for sanity.
First point, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food, and there is no proven link between it and the plant's temperature (refer Unsettled by Steven Koonin, Obama's one time advisor). Second, if we've been lied to, isn't it time we called it out and went back to coal fired power stations, this time using HELE technology which was not what the previous generation of power stations were using? Probably faster and cheaper to build than nuclear (which we will need to build anyway so future generations can have cheap, reliable and yes, non-emitting power generation) we'd again have a solid electricity grid able to supply not only our citizens but also encourage industry to stay onshore.
Adoption of a sensible Energy Policy that's fair to all concerned, including the unreliables, is market driven with advance commitment via AEMO auction 30-days in advance, technology agnostic, excludes anti-competitive subsidies, requires clearly defined QOS performance standards together with substantial $penalties for failure to meet same, would bring this stupidity to an end sooner rather than later.
The catastrophists cite rising temperatures in equatorial countries and expanding desertification in the Sahara as evidence for the climate change hypothesis. The exceptionalism from normal trends is difficult to prove. For generalists, we are asked to believe that a marginal increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to overwhelm the massive energy stream from the sun and related earth orbital variations that determine the planet’s climate. Hubris on a global scale that will depreciate for some time the reputations of the scientists and modellers who proclaim this fantasy. Meanwhile, the economic loss caused by massive investments in unprofitable ‘renewable’ power supplies will be substantial, and, of course, damage most the people with little discretionary income to pay the higher taxes and energy bills needed to support these grotesque blots on the natural landscape. The renewable supporters seem to have adopted the strategy of the proverbial general in Vietnam: we had to destroy the village in order to save it. The climate scare will go down in history as the madness of a culture in decline.
Popular delusions and the madness of crowds.
‘Never let a crisis go to waste.’ Except that climate change is not a crisis… the climate has changed for millions of years and it will continue to change with or without the help of mankind. As the great Thomas Sowell correctly stated, ‘people who have time on their hands (funded by taxpayers) will invariably waste the time (and money) of people with work to do (taxpayers).
The situation today reminds me of when I read about, ‘The great horse manure crisis of 1894,’ that urban centres would become uninhabitable due to the sheer volume of horse manure generated by the means of transportation back then.
At the time it was a ‘real’ crisis that was solved by adaptation to the motor vehicle - and like that if man-made climate change is real - man will find a way to adapt … before it turns to sh— like 1894!
Warming of the air due to the agency of man, is due to the replacement of photosynthesising vegetation with bitumen, concrete, ceramic tiles and brickwork.
Extremes in urbanization is due to the availability of the automobile. Vegetation cools the air via evaporation through plant stomata. We have to incorporate more vegetation in built up environments rather than adding mechanical air conditioning. China is showing us how this can be done. The answer is to adapt, to redesign how we live in cities. If we can do so without relying on automobiles and bitumen, the temperature of the air at the hottest time of the day could be reduced by 5C.
To attribute the increase in air temperature that has occurred to a tiny increase in the fraction of a trace gas that is present as little more than one molecule in two thousand three hundred and fifty molecules, is a mistake. That error is due to a failure to appreciate that convection is the countervailing force that efficiently cools the air via decompression as it ascends. Consider that coldest air at the level of the tropopause, that is the upper limit of the 'weather-sphere', is to be found in equatorial regions where convection is driven by the release of the latent heat of condensation when moisture transpired by tropical rain forests is precipitated in the form of rain or ice. At 15000 meters of elevation, in the tropics, the air temperature is minus 80C. That is due to decompression. In the mid latitudes where the air is warmed by compression as it descends the air at the top of the weather-sphere is 10C warmer.
Urban warming is a design problem. We must adapt the way we live. Consider what it would mean if we could walk to where we need to go rather than use an automobile.
Chris, have you read ‘State of Fear’ by Michael Crichton (yes, that Michael Crichton)? I read it in the ‘90s and it’s incredible just how prescient he was. Worth a look.
Absolutely, you are so right what a ripper of a book. We should base all our policies on Michael Crighton's novels. Probably a better predictor of the future than The End of History book.
We should be building nuclear for our children’s children, and exploiting fossil fuels in every way to make that possible. Use the feel good stuff for the edges & gaps. Say no to energy poverty.
Governments are onlookers willing to tell lies and engage in propaganda if it meets the ends they are chasing. However, they can only do this so many times before we stop listening, stop believing, and start protesting and acting out.
Labor = Fear + Bread & Circuses.
Thank you Chris, your Mother’s wisdom was well founded. Sadly, it’s wasted on ears that will not hear. After seven decades plus four on this “mortal coil”, I have come to regard the catastrophists as the greatest con that I have ever witnessed. The cruelest aspect is what the so-called education system is doing to our children. In collusion with the government, they are evil, and it’s probably not possible to undo the harm that they have caused.
The main problem with Net Zero myth is that, though it is a nonsense, it is also a gravy train for those who help to sustain that myth. Science has now been sadly corrupted by its efforts to support the myth, as with the support along come the research grants: seemingly billions of dollars of tax payer money, according to one analysis! Like-wise, the arts, big business, sport and the main media all support the myth for the grants, contracts and budget renewals. How can any sensible argument against Net Zero be maintained against this government financial onslaught? Only, it would seem, by people like those producing and supporting 'Power Lines' and other outspoken critics of Net Zero. There is still hope for sanity.
First point, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food, and there is no proven link between it and the plant's temperature (refer Unsettled by Steven Koonin, Obama's one time advisor). Second, if we've been lied to, isn't it time we called it out and went back to coal fired power stations, this time using HELE technology which was not what the previous generation of power stations were using? Probably faster and cheaper to build than nuclear (which we will need to build anyway so future generations can have cheap, reliable and yes, non-emitting power generation) we'd again have a solid electricity grid able to supply not only our citizens but also encourage industry to stay onshore.
Adoption of a sensible Energy Policy that's fair to all concerned, including the unreliables, is market driven with advance commitment via AEMO auction 30-days in advance, technology agnostic, excludes anti-competitive subsidies, requires clearly defined QOS performance standards together with substantial $penalties for failure to meet same, would bring this stupidity to an end sooner rather than later.
Priceless observation and so true a recipe for disaster thank you
The catastrophists cite temperatures in equatorial
Sorry - a slip and an accidental post.