Facts and Data Don’t Support Global Warming Hysteria

d

(Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris) Throughout the United Nations Climate Change Conference wrapping up in Bonn, Germany this week, the world has been inundated with the usual avalanche of manmade global warming alarmism.

Anti-Fracking 'Keep It In The Ground' Protestors Fail To Draw Crowd

Photo by ItzaFineDay

The UN expects us to believe that extreme weather, shrinking sea ice, and sea level rise will soon become much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels that provide over 80 percent of the world’s energy.

There is essentially nothing to support these alarms, of course.

We simply do not have adequate observational data required to know or understand what has happened over the past century and a half.

Meaningful forecasts of future climate conditions are therefore impossible.

PREVIOUSLY: Calls to Imprison “Climate Change Deniers” Grow in the Wake of Hurricane Irma

Nevertheless, this year’s session has been especially intense, since the meeting is being chaired by the island nation of Fiji, a government that has taken climate change fears to extremes.

COP23 (the 23rd meeting of the Conference of the Parties on climate change) conference president, Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, has called for “an absolute dedication to meet the 1.5-degree target.”

This is the arbitrary and most stringent goal suggested by the Paris Agreement.

Facts and Data Don't Support Global Warming Hysteria

Frank Bainimarama/IMAGE: YouTube

In support of Bainimarama’s position, the COP23/Fiji Website repeatedly cites frightening forecasts made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One prediction stated: “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.”

To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulas to represent atmospheric conditions, and reflect the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is the principal factor driving planetary warming and climate change.

PREVIOUSLY: AL GORE: Battle Against Climate Change is Like Fight Against Slavery

However, we still do not have a comprehensive, workable “theory of climate,” and thus do not have valid formulas to properly represent how the atmosphere functions.

We also lack data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past.

Without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history, or the future, of average weather conditions – what we call the climate.

An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the “HadCRUT4” global average temperature history for the past 167 years.

This was produced by the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, both based in the United Kingdom.

Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data were collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia.

Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations, and none of the Earth’s oceans (which cover 70% of the planet) had more than occasional stations separated from the next ones by thousands of kilometers of no data.

Temperatures over these vast empty areas were simply “guesstimated.”

PREVIOUSLY: Obama Administration Falsified ‘Climate Change’ Data

Making matters even worse, data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees F), and oftentimes no better than +/-1.0 degree C.

Climate Alarmist Scientists Admit Models Wrong; There is a Pause in Global Warming

Photo by woodleywonderworks (CC)

Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine past or future global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful – and certainly nothing accurate or valid enough to use in making critical energy policy decisions.

Modern weather station surface temperature data are now collected using precision thermocouples.

But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4.

Initially, this was done because governments believed satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection.

However, the satellites did not show the warming that climate activists and computer models had forecast.

So, bureaucrats closed many of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, while many stations in the vast frigid area of Siberia were closed for economic and other reasons.

The net result was that cold temperature data disappeared from more recent records – thereby creating artificial warming trends, the very warming that alarmists predicted, desired and needed for political purposes.

Today, we have virtually no data for approximately 85 percent of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960.

That means HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless.

Combining this with the sensitivity (accuracy) problems in the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above Earth’s surface, the conclusion is unavoidable: It is not possible to know how or whether Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half.

The data are therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions.

But the lack of adequate surface data is only the start of the problem.

The computer models on which the climate scare is based are mathematical constructions that require the input of data above Earth’s surface as well.

The models divide the atmosphere into cubes piled on top of each other, ideally with wind, humidity, cloud cover and temperature conditions known for different altitudes.

But we currently have even less data above the surface than on it, and there is essentially no historical data at altitude.

Many people think the planet is adequately covered by satellite observations – data that is almost global 24/7 coverage and far more accurate than anything determined at weather stations.

But the satellites are unable to collect data from the north and south poles, regions that are touted as critical to understanding global warming.

Moreover, space-based temperature data collection did not start until 1979, and 30 years of weather data is required to generate a single data point on a climate graph.

The satellite record is far too short to allow us to come to any useful conclusions about climate change.

In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind – temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, et cetera – to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past, much less predict the future.

The IPCC’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world.

Sherlock Holmes warned that “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote this famous quote for fiction, of course.

But it applies perfectly to today’s global warming debate, especially where the IPCC’s scary conclusions and forecasts are involved.

Of course, this will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing IPCC “science” in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe.

We should use these facts to spotlight and embarrass them every time.

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

* * MORE CLIMATE CHANGE SCAM COVERAGE at LibertyHeadlines.com * *

  • Kevin Carl

    Regardless of what we do . . . When Mother Natures wants to make an adjustment, there’s nothing we can do. Remember the year without a summer? We probably should cut back but when will that happen? . . . never.

    • Naval Lint

      The “year without a summer” was caused by a major volcanic eruption. Any given eruption spews VASTLY more pollutants into the atmosphere than man possibly could. Maybe if we sacrifice virgin Liberals by throwing them into these caldera, those polluting volcano gods will cease their polluting. Of course, one would need to find an actual VIRGIN Liberal…a little like searching for an ACTUAL unicorn…

      • stluyjuy

        Naval Lint I enjoyed your comment immensely.

      • Francisco Machado

        Tectonic activity has been on the rise, lava plumes rising. NASA attributes some of the Antarctic melting to it. And the U.N. is doing nothing about it.

        • independent thinker

          I saw a headline early today that said “experts” expect the number earthquakes to double next year. Wish I had taken the time to read the article because I cannot find it now to read and form an opinion about it.

        • chasaragdy

          Francisco Machado: The “Tectonic activity” you refer to is probably activity from recent years–the past two hundred years or so. Therefore, any prior activity is based on…assumptions and suppositions?

          As for using the U. N. for honest and correct data–in just about every cause or endeavor–is almost as useless as teats on a boar.

      • chasaragdy

        Naval Lint: Remember, using a “virgin” liberal will not give the same result(s) as using a normal, non-liberal virgin in similiar situations. First finding a “virgin” liberal over the age of twelve is near impossible. Next, the aging of the liberal “virgin” is not comparable to other normal, non-liberal virgins, what with liberal “virgin” suffering much more and frequent wear and tear over longer periods of time.

        More than likely, the volcano gods will immediately, every time, spew the liberal “virgin” out, therefore never being immersed for any amount of time–meaning one should never consider using a liberal “virgin” (if one can be found) for comparison in any endeavor. Caution: This comment is an attempt at levity and no one was injured during the survey for this writing.

        • Naval Lint

          My name is Naval Lint, and I endorse this message!

          • chasaragdy

            Naval Lint: Thank you, kind Sir.

            USN Vet.

  • Lmcyber

    What tripe! And people on the right believe this garbage, instead of trusting their own senses and brains. What a shame! Since Trump has been in office, we have fallen to the bottom of the barrel in the world. No respect! No leadership! And undoubtedly, pure unadulterated narcissism, self-absorption, and stupidity that is beyond comprehension. If you want to follow stupid, be my guest.

    Btw, how about that oil leak on the keystone pipeline?! One of these days, it is going to get in the water table in the middle of the country, and then they’re done with their water source.

    • William Konrad

      Speculation and rumor and lots of words signifying nothing. You can’t deal with climate change based on information from a few hundred years. The world has been around for billions of years and we think a few hundred years will give us any reliable answers. Is there change: yes! how long will it last? We don’t know. What is causing it? We don’t know. Can we do anything about it? Probably not. Should we continue to worry? No one can stop you from worrying, so worry away, it might help.

      • Lmcyber

        William, climate scientists don’t deal with a few hundred years. Their study incorporates evidence from hundreds of thousands of years and longer. Paleoclimatology studies ice cores and tree rings. From ice cores that are hundreds of thousands of years old, they are able to accurately determine what has happened over many, many years. You really need to read about climate science as you haven’t grasped even the basics of what is involved. It is fascinating and very enlightening. I did not mean that as a criticism, but truly from you answer, I know you have not researched it. Take a look at it. I think you will be very surprised.

        • R G

          Maybe if THEY stop the “chemtrail spraying”, mother nature will repair the damage done all by herself.

    • R G

      You REALLY need to stop watching CNN.

      • Lmcyber

        I don’t watch CNN! I read and I do what people like you obviously don’t know how to do. I use my own intellect to study an issue and make up my own mind based on the facts, instead of ignoring the facts and repeating talking points put out by Fox, an arm of the GOP, which I have to assume is who you are listening to instead of reading the facts and objectively assessing those facts. I feel sorry for people like you!

        • R G

          Well your “intellect” is misguided. My study is geology. My daughters is solar weather. Together we HAVE the facts , you don’t. I wouldn’t waste my time explaining reality to you, because you’re too busy whining.
          Buh bye Lmcyber . Try opening your mind .

          • Lmcyber

            You see RG, all you did is come in and throw some negative useless comment about how someone YOU THINK might be watching CNN. Then you come back trying to establish some sort of credential, but no, no, you can’t possibly defend that 97% of all climate scientists disagree with you, and the facts are not on your side, which explains you comments and your strategy.

          • R G

            Those 97% of climate scientists are ALL on the DNC / Soros payroll, and were told to come to those conclusions or lose their govt. grants. That is a fact exposed when some lost their grants anyway. There are more independent scientists that outnumber and disagree with the phony 97% number you were “told” to believe, and you are too lazy to look up the facts yourself.

          • Lmcyber

            Sorry but you know I know what I am talking about and you also know that that statistic is true. Most climate scientists are not from the US. This is not a political issue. This is black and white science issue.There is no subjectivity, and if you say you are a geologist you know what scientific method is all about. There is not even a question about the existence of global warming which has been caused by mans use of fossil fuels and that is what 97% of all climatologists internationally believe in. For you to even bring up the dnc and soros causes you to lose all credibility.

            Have a good evening!

          • R G

            Obviously you buy the flat earth and we never landed on the moon scenarios as well. Sorry Lmcyber but you’re not a rational person.
            Goodbye

          • chasaragdy

            Lmcyber: Let’s make this easy for both sides of the climate “change” issue. Anyone–group, sect, individual, quorum, conference—who has such renown and revered personage as (former [thank God]) Albert S Gore Jr, is and are losers, without rudders nor paddles!! Your–your side–take him, own him, worship and adore and idolize him. We–our side–lay no claim of or for him, he’s yours, hook, line (liar) and sinker!!

          • David Kledzik

            97% of the scientists in that peer group……. Not of all scientists. Bought and paid for their false data and responses by the so called green energy cabal. Solyndra rings a bell. No,, the facts are not on your side, as to more and more “Real” scientists and climatologists are speaking out about the global warming hoax. But keep taking your talking points narrative from the AL Gore global scam… Rube.

    • Beeker D.

      Well Hello “STUPID”, I’ll Be Your Guest!

    • Rolpho Signetti

      Btw… how about all those birds, some endangered… flying into windmills? Or are the just deplorable hawks, eagles, gulls, etc. they must be the price we pay… and what do they make all these new energy items from? Eco-Fairy dust? And when the windmills have outlived thier usefulness… what do we do with them? Make a Obama tribute statue from them. More toxic waste to get rid of!
      Typical demo! Throw taxpayer money at it! The government knows what they are doing! Maybe build a special edition Solar Powered Clinton Pizza Joint for kids?

    • chasaragdy

      Lmcyber: It appears you ran out of “respectful” adjectives for your descriptions of and “love” for OUR (yours and my) President of the United States! Moreover, for your use now and into the future (and to save yourself from any further embarrassment), the current XL pipeline has nothing, NOTHING, to do with OUR President Trump! And, just to show you that I am a “fair and balanced” person, neither does nor was your presumed savior of the universe and walker on water, Barry Soetoro-Obama!

  • Rolpho Signetti

    Maybe… Maybe not?

    The only thing is if it is getting warmer… how come my HEATING BILL goes up every winter?

    • Lmcyber

      My electrical bill is virtually non existent as it is much smarter to use solar. I suggest you look into it before this administration takes away all the incentives to put up a system.

      • ChicagoBob

        Most likely you paid 5K or more in advance off paying your bill. That’s about 4 years of electric here in Chicago. Solar has come a long way but if you live in overcast skies life Chicago it doesn’t pay for 10 years or more. I car wait for something to make sense in the alternative power space

        • Lmcyber

          In Chicago the most cost effective form of energy is wind power. Look at Germany. Most of their electricity is generated by wind and some by solar. They are years ahead of the US.

          So I agree with you that solar is not necessarily the best choice for Chicago but wind is a great alternative.

          Much of the area around Palm Springs Ca uses wind power even though there is no issue with lack of sun there. It works very well for that area.

          • Mike Colson

            I have seen a wind turbine that is made for urban areas. The turbine rotates on a vertical axis. I even saw a turbine that looks like an artistic tree. The “leaves” point upward and each is a small generator. The drawback is that it is not good in bad storms.

          • thejbk7

            As Palm Springs migrating bird population gets inhialated by spinning blades and sub acoustics drive people insane.

          • chasaragdy

            Lmcyber: One factor that is almost never mentioned nor used in the discussion of “so-called green” energy, is the footprint usage. The usable land area, or footprint, for wind (mills) power energy is more considerable than solar and coal, and most definitely more so than oil and natural gas use. Solar is not cost effective compared to natural gas, as solar panels are good for (or life span of) about 20 years, due to the type water used in the area, and the deterioration of washers, gaskets, nuts. bolts, piping, etc, of the solar panel. Additionally, every 12 to 15 years the cost of a new a minimum sized 80 gallon solar hot water tank which must be replaced.

            About every 20 years or so new roofing, drip edge moldings, and other related necessities on the house, must be replaced, and at the same time the solar panel must be removed and replaced when the new roofing is done. The cost to rehab a hot water solar panel at the time of replacing the roofing is about twenty-five hundred ($2,500.00) dollars, plus the additional cost of removal and replacement of the solar panel, an additional cost of about twenty-five huundrd dollars. The solar panel cost to rehab, removal and replacing during new roofing is at minimum another total recurring cost of about five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars or more These recurring costs are in addition to the initial cost and installation of the solar panel, piping and other necessities, and the cost of a new, larger 80 gallon tank for solar hot(ter) water usage.

            Don’t get me wrong. In late 1987/early 1988 we installed solar–and new larger, costlier tank–for our hot water due to the advantage of living south of Tampa Bay, Florida and the abundance of sunshine. There has been pleasant, but not all that dramatic, cost savings for our solar hot water over the past 30 years or so, compared to the only source of electricity-heating throughout most of Florida. There is no panacea, cost-wise and, unproven so far, ecologically-wise!

      • Jose Cisneros

        Solar is a suckers, looser alternative. To do it right it costs anywhere from $25,000 to $45,000 just for start up costs. Then you have ongoing maintenance costs. This is more than a life time of electrical costs

        • jackcandobutwont

          It is cheaper and easier to simply move to a warmer climate!!

        • Rolpho Signetti

          I find old tires put out a lot of heat! Lot of smoke… but if the wind is strong and blowing in the right direction… a viable option! Lot of tires out there!

          • chasaragdy

            Rolpho: Old used ties have and are being used for road material usage twenty-five (25) years–give or take a few years. The old used tires are also used for boat-bumpers on lakes and waterways for years; and many backyard gardens are edged with old times. There are many and varied uses for old tires; burning them in the open is not one of the best uses though.

        • Lmcyber

          You have no idea what you are talking about! Truly!! Solar companies in CA are charging next to nothing for the solar panels and installation. Then you get a 30 year warranty, just like a roof. You have no output no maintenance costs and no outrageous electric bill. I had a 3600 sq ft house that was costing anywhere from $600 – $1200 a month. You cannot imagine how many home in So Ca that have put solar in and are now getting paid money from the gas and electric company for the excess electricity their systems are generating. If you are so stuck on fossil fuel, that you don’t want to save a whole ton of money while having renewal energy being generated that is not hurting our environment, well then I would say fine and in the same breathe I would call that decision illogical and pure stupidity.

          It’s no wonder CA is doing so well financially. They are making logical and cost effective decisions, while many states in the rest of the country are backward and stuck on stupid.

          • Zap

            California and the rest of the south west are unique. May friend in Arizona has 4 panels at $200 a piece on his roof with plenty of power to run his house during the day. The local electric subsidized his inverter and safety shut off, so it cost him < $2000. Those panels have to be replaced frequently because the panels get so hot in the Arizona sun.

            My home in the midwest requires 40 panels to power the house because of the lack of sunshine and orientation of the roof. A battery bank, inverter, and safety shut off has to be installed by a licensed electrician by law. The cost of the system easily exceeds $25000.

          • Blogengeezer

            In NM, the govt subsidies of $12,000 covered a roof of home owned and designed by engineer friend . note: ‘Doctorate’ Govt solar energy engineer scientist that fully understood the tax plan {Madoff would be proud}.

            The energy in sunshine of Alb NM generates enough under this pyramid plan, to payback each month, more than the house consumes.

            Of course under Govt mandates, the Pubserco grid subscribers funded the system. A 12 year limit was in the contract. Naturally rates for all of the rest of the people went up… to fund the ‘buying’ of excess solar power.

            A system today [as the realization of the law of diminishing returns] will cost a solar aficionado, far more than the Govt taxPayer subsidies.

            Reality is beginning to come into play, as the numbers of solar users begins to outpace fossil fueled electrical generating systems.

            When the scale of “Clean Green” {research the entire chain of events necessary from raw materials to finished and operational product, and nothing is further from the truth} users tips, the solar [wind turbines are on equal costs] energy generating systems will become necessarily exorbitant.

            All in comparison to the fossil fueled {including nuclear] past, which will of course will become increasingly taxed by politics, into archaic memory..

            “Downsizing’..ever more dense urbanization.. is the new fad [the solution] today promoted by the global leftists… for reasons that do not require explanation.

          • sweetqueen777

            A neighbor in San Antonio, Texas, has several panels on his roof, and was telling us that although the initial cost was pretty large, he gets bills from the Electric company that are minimal, and frequently, they pay him for the power that he generates. We have not taken the time to look into it, but it does sound worthwhile. I personally do not freak out over this whole global warming thing. Unless you want to start eliminating our modern conveniences, that we cannot live without, or start exterminating a LOT of humans, there is no real solution. It is waht it is, andour Texas coastline has not changed, so where is the meltwater going, if anywhere?? I do wish humans would stop cutting and burning huge areas of forest. I Love trees, and I plant several each year. Maybe we could each try to generate less GARBAGE every day?

          • chasaragdy

            Zap: My sentiments exactly, living just south of Tampa Bay, Florida. My quick recap, cost’s comparisons versus electricity (the only source for most of Florida) is delineated about 10 comments ago, 37 minutes above.

          • Jose Cisneros

            I see you didn’t refute the start up costs. I pay $36.00 to $48.00 a month for electricity. Seems cost effective to me. Well if you want to waste you money it is ok with me but it would seem to me that it would be pure stupidity and totally illogical to throw away your money like that. One of the states totally backward and stuck on stupid look at your costs of gas, higher than any where in the USA and still full of pollution. But no wonder look at your backward politicians stuck on stupid just like you.

          • Lmcyber

            You didn’t read my comment clos my enough. I said there are literally NO STARTUP COSTS. That means free! Got it?!

          • Blogengeezer

            Wow so much ‘Free’ stuff. No wonder that California is filled with Democrats, Liberal Leftists of Progressive imagination. Free.. what a concept.

            One California dreamer actually told everyone in his circle of devout worshipers, that wind turbines [solar is equal] pay for themselves…. scores of times over.

            Of course he failed to understand physics, the proven hard science that tell of actual 20-25% efficiency. In his new ‘Free’ California think. 20% is 20 ‘times’.

            Now lets hear how Free is actually funded?

            added note: Hugo gave everyone of his ‘Chavista’ voters ‘Free’ motorcycles. Hundreds of thousands of Free rides for the Chavista ‘Motorizados’.

            In case no one understands history, nor economics, Venezuela was Hugo Chavez utopia of Free stuff. Check out Venezuela today.

          • Lmcyber

            Again, let’s talk about the free consumption of dirty oil you have been partaking, by all the subsidies that have been going to the oil and gas industry. It is a limited energy source, dirty, unhealthy, expensive, and will never employ as much labor as green energy. There’s your free stuff bud, as we have been subsidizing oil and gas ever since it existence.

            Free systems are being offered by solar companies with tax incentives. The systems are considerably less expensive than they were 5 years ago. In the long run, it has actually saved the taxpayer money, as every government building in Ca. has to be built using green energy. So, the Investment into green energy in the long run saves.

            You really need to do your research before you make your snide comment.

          • Blogengeezer

            ‘Physics’ the historically Proven Hard Science… Fact is that far too few students ever even attempt the difficult subject matter. For agenda focused Liberalism, add nature’s laws of Physics to the reality of unsustainable socioeconomic history… another seldom understood subject.

            The hocus pocus of Progressive Liberal leftism has taken the place of reality.

            When big business, in Fascist [one hand washes the other] collusion with ever bigger Government, increasingly provides the [unsustainable] sustenance for it’s people, the history [including societal death spiral] of the Mayans [including others] comes to mind.

          • Lmcyber

            Oh man, you are way out there aren’t you?! Good luck with that mumbo jumbo.

          • chasaragdy

            Lmcyber: Thank God that someone–‘Blogengeezer’ and others–is willing to be first and, is as you state “…way out there…:!! As Lee Iococa of Chrysler said, “lead, follow, or get out of the way” (my sentiments exactly)!

          • thejbk7

            By the way, how is solar energy stored up and how environmentally friendly is that to manufacture and dispose of?

          • chasaragdy

            Lmcyber: Your expounding on the subsidizes for gas and oil drilling, fails to consider the taking back of those subsidizes the federal government and most all states tax by tacking onto the fuel prices, whether at the pump and/or your monthly electric bills. The (federal) government taketh away (more) and giveth back (less)!

          • chasaragdy

            Blogengeezer: Your comment is very well stated, and I’m sure from a more logical mind than the “tree huggers”!!

          • w edgar green

            As commented to you previously, there is no free, someone else is paying for your system, most likely the American taxpayer.

          • Lmcyber

            As taxpayers, we have been paying for your fossil fuel consumption for years and years!! The American taxpayer has been subsidizing fossil fuel for dozens of years, and the fact that it is extremely harmful to all of us, and our environment, why should we be subsidizing oil and gas? We shouldn’t! As far as I am concerned, everyone should be on green energy. Take away Exon and Mobil’s tax subsidies and give it to the renewable energy industry, which in turn would save everyone tons of money every month, no end to the energy source, and it is healthy for the environment and to the world’s inhabitants. On top of it, you have a brand new industry that will need much more labor than any fossil fuel industry. You have to be plain stupid to not switch over to renewables, either that or you are getting paid off by oil and gas industry. All government buildings in Ca have to go to renewable as most of them already had. Can you imagine the amount of money they are saving every month?! Again, it is no wonder that California is doing so much better financially that most other states.

          • w edgar green

            Even though it is obvious you have drank the cool aid and no amount rational arguements will dissuade you it must be attempted to try and get through the California fog (smog?).
            1. California is broke
            2. California has one of the highest combined tax rates in the United States
            3. NOTHING IS FREE
            4. Until the problem of how to store massive amounts of electricity is solved solar and wind will remain alternate energy sources and will have to be backed up by coal, gas or nuclear energy plants. With current technology we would need a battery farm roughly the size of California or Texas to insure against outages.
            5. The free clean energy you speak of is currently brought to you through the use of near slave labor mining for the rare and exotic minerals required for the production of both solar panels and wind turbines. Additionally some of the materials, once they are used up (example lithium) are not currently recyclable so they will just add to the pollution cycle which is a much bigger problem than the false and misleading CO2 fiasco.
            6. CO2 increasing in the atmosphere is actually improving and increasing plat growth around the globe.
            7. Solar panels do not last forever and contain highly toxic components which for the most part are not currently recycled.

            There are no absolutes and some of the issues listed above may be solved in the future but we are not there yet and the current panic being created by the likes of Al Gore and the rest of the MMGW fanatics is not helping. Do not be fooled, they are selling this program for personal and elitist power and money.

          • America1st

            You are correct. Solar and Wind “sustainable” power generation cannot provide the CONSISTENT level of energy required to maintain power electric grid demands and therefore must be SUBSIDIZED with RELIABLE fossil fuel power generation (largely natural gas) plants.

          • chasaragdy

            I have made several comments thus far on this thread based on my hot water solar usage, costs comparisons, sustainability, etc, from the point of having lived south of Tampa Bay, Florida the past 31 years.

            Through my thought processes of those several comments, I failed to mention that we also have a second (secondary, non-homestead) four bedroom, three bath, two story, plus an almost full walkout basement on the second largest inland lake in Michigan (that my wife still calls a “cottage”) home we’ve owned for 41 years. My point is that alternative energy sources are limited up there, except Consumers Energy (our electric company) uses every energy source available (EXCEPT solar) including nuclear, wind (mills), even to using “pumped water storage” during peak hours and the four hot, very humid months in the summer when tourists–attracted by beaches, swimming, boating, Michigan’s Queen of State Parks, are all nearby in Central West Michigan on the coast of Lake Michigan– are 10X the local population, and when air conditioning MUST be used!! The electric cost is very reasonable, however during the winter and other cold months, heating is by LP gas (or natural gas in larger, urban areas), which is moderately priced. Fortunately, Consumers Energy is the lowest, consumer cost utility within the state of Michigan.

          • Blogengeezer

            Family ancestry had lived in Canada, as well as Michigan. As noted, your statements are correct. When Detroit was the driving force, Michigan became quite self sufficient and creative.

            Following the reality check of booms and busts, certain areas where political parasites became the majority, not quite so creative…., nor sustainable.

            Further north, the ‘Canucks’ we associate among periodically, often deal with the northern winters by fleeing south.

            They shut down their houses in the north, as the heating costs in the north are more than the living costs along the Gulf Coast shoreline parks.

            Our touring RV has 200 watts of solar maintaining the battery bank of four deep cycle batteries. As we often roam the southern states, I sometimes sell imported solar panels and controllers while assisting in the applications.

            The all LED system [including flat screens] consumes little energy. The LP sources the refrigeration, as well as hot water and heat… when required.

            Reliable and highly efficient shore power [50 amps in our application] is very welcome during the hot and moist climate periods.

          • America1st

            Michigan ranks 33rd in states average cost of electricity at 10.84 cents per kilowatthour. WA, LA, OK, and WY all under 8.00 cents based on 2015 data. Remove wind/solar subsidies and they become non competitive energy sources. Wind/solar require backup power generation to provide Consistent power levels to sustain the power grid demand requirements. Typically, Natural Gas is becoming the preferred backup energy source. Therefore the cost of Natural Gas Power Generation is an inherent cost of wind/solar making wind/solar unnecessary cost components of total power generation.

          • Blogengeezer

            As often noted by the productive sector [the sustainable sector] of socioeconomic infrastructure, the parasitic Liberal Leftist brain synapse connectivity, DRD 4-7 R by genetics, cannot fathom the laws of physics.

            Liberal Leftist [Progressives] cannot wrap their own version of imaginary logic around the ‘law’ of diminishing returns.

            Liberal Leftists have naively allowed themselves to become programmed by agenda, into the concept that those unbreakable ‘laws’ are mere suggestions.

          • Stephen Kirtland

            God save us all from “free” things. There is nothing so expensive as something somebody tells you is free. TANSTAAFL, friend. Somebody has to pay for it or it couldn’t exist. Read the second law of thermodynamics. It applies to all exchanges of energy, including money.

          • thejbk7

            I did read your comments closely and you don’t even have a home anymore!

          • Lmcyber

            Who cares!

          • David

            California? Doing well financially? What have you been smokin’? Some of the highest taxes in the entire country, drought killing off what hasn’t already been abandoned by farmers giving up financially, the list goes on. The most beautiful state in the country . . . if all the people would move out!

            At the same time, you are correct in your statements about cost effectiveness as prices continue to decline on alternatives for the homeowner. Microgeneration is the key to the future. Only commercial and industrial users should pay for the grid. Homeowners should generate all their own electricity. Newer technologies are coming to play with even natural gas or propane generators that are efficient small scale.

          • Lmcyber

            The difference is the people in California have chosen to pay the higher state sales tax. That’s it. They want real services from their gov. and they want investments in education and healthcare. There are many countries throughout the world who choose to have things like universal care, and pay for it with higher taxes. I find the benefit outweighs it.

          • David

            I disagree with all your statements, including Californians “choosing” to pay higher taxes. I know a lot of Californians, because a lot of them move here to Arizona, and I have family living there. I have yet to meet ONE who raves about how great all that “benefit” is and none are happy about the cost of living there. I’m sorry, but I’ll stick with the free enterprise system which doesn’t allow for “bail-outs” either. If a company is poorly managed, let it fail. Why should the rest of us rescue a bad company just because it’s “too big to fail?” I’ve been nearly bankrupt, where’s my bailout money? In the meantime, please stop spreading the California attitude to the surrounding states. Just like immigrants from foreign countries, Californians should assimilate wherever they decide to relocate and not try to change their new home into Commiefornia.

          • Lmcyber

            You can disagree all you want, but many of those taxes are voted on by the people in California who want investments into infrastructure, education, innovation, etc. if you disagree with the majority then there are other states you can move to, where the education is of less quality(which Arizonas is) and the infrastructure is not kept up, where they don’t provide real services for their citizens, etc.

            The state of California is the 5th largest economy in the world, and is running an 11.5 Billion dollar surplus. Ca. pays more into the federal coffers than it ever gets out. You should be happy that CA is doing so well as many red states benefit from the taxes that CA pays into the federal coffers.

            California is definitely a state that is ran very well, unlike states like Kansas, that has decimated their educational system, infrastructure, etc., so much so that they are rapidly raising taxes. The best system is a combination of capitalism and socialism. Free enterprise needs to be strong as does government as history has shown!

          • America1st

            BS – just how well did your infrastructure investment work for the Orville Dam failure? Several $100 million required for maintenance never spent became due because priorities were focused on supporting illegal aliens in sanctuary unsafe cities ignoring Federal law.

            By all means continue your reckless irresponsible spending and taxing, just please please require everyone to continue living in commiefornia because the rest of us do not want to bail out too big to fail states. California is rapidly becoming a state of only ultra wealthy and the super poor.

          • Lmcyber

            I really am amazed at the lack of intelligence that are apparent with some of these comments. Do you ever graduate from high school and if so, did you not read about the Depression of the 1920’s, or what happened after with the WPA? Between 1935 and 1948, the WPA employed 8.5 million and cost this country 4.9 Billion, which was 6% of GDP. We still have the results of many of those projects around today. The WPA provided many with jobs and was only disbanded because of low unemployment. We didn’t have enough people to work those projects.

            We currently have 6.5 million jobs available and we can’t fill them because we do not have enough skilled workers. Most of trump supporters were low skilled workers and they are refusing job training as with the coal miners. So, why not do the same thing now as these projects employ low skilled workers?

            Historically, infrastructure projects employ millions of unskilled workers, and are a very successful way of improving a crumbling infrastructure, and increasing GDP and growth. It is a critical investment. It is not reckless spending, and if you actually think infrastructure investment, something that trump agrees with, is a waste of money, then I have to assume you are not educated on history, economics or business. I would suggest you start your research and learn about it.

            Btw, this tax cut your boy is supporting will do very little for the middle and working class. This is completely for the donor class, the swamp, which the republicans has admitted to. Historically, all tax cuts for the wealthy do is increase economic inequality in a society. We currently have one of the worst rates of inequality for a developed nation and all this will do is increase it even more, cause a hole in our debt and deficit, and deplete the revenues needed to keep up military, first responders, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. etc. And trust they also plan on destroying Medicare and Medicaid. Look what they are currently doing to millions of children in the CHIP program. They are the scum of the earth if they let children die, while they give massive tax cuts to the upper 1%!!

          • America1st

            That a weak deflection argument that is irrelevant.

            The point that either you don’t or can’t comprehend that is your California fatherland has no problem spending its money on illegal alien benefits not available to US citizens while neglecting your infrastructure like the Oreville dam that needed $150 million in improvements years ago to keep the dam safe. Now you have a pending tragedy due to irresponsible management. There is no excuse for incompetence.

          • America1st

            California squanders millions by protecting illegal alien criminals that increase crime and by paying for illegal alien benefits that your legal citizens don’t receive at the expense of investing in necessary infrastructure projects like your roads and the failing Oreville dam that should have been repaired years ago at $150 million to make it safe.

            The proposed tax cuts will benefit businesses. This will level the playing field and make them more competitive with international businesses that have significantly lower tax rates. It will also allow writing off capital investments in one year rather than over 5 to 10 years. This will encourage business investments to expand. This’s is a dramatic change from the past 8 years where Obama declared war on all businesses. Remember “you didn’t build that?” Regulations strangled businesses and stagnated economic growth to 1.6% GDP. This was the slowest growth since the Great Depression. Have you read about the Depression yet in Jr. High? Businesses create jobs not government. Capitalism is what created the strongest economy in the world. Even the poorest live better in the USA than the majority of most countries.

          • chasaragdy

            David: Your comments are RIGHT on!! We’ve all, meaning most American citizens, have been close to bankruptcy at one time or other, but we picked ourselves up by our boot strap’s, tightened our belts, I took on a second job (my first job was at least 50 hours a week, my second job was at least 20 hours a week and almost two (2) hours travel time daily between home and the two (2) jobs). We (and out two (2) kids) literally ate hot-dogs (which we did for a good three (3) years starting in the 1978 to the 1982 time period, due to “Reverend” Jimmah Carter’s tenure of instituting federal socialism), and we managed to keep our heads above water–while still managing to contribute to our IRA’s–and also 401-k’s a little later when they were legislated. These were goals my wife and I vowed when we married in 1965, and based on principled priorities, managed to accomplish in timely fashions.

            Socialism–and worse–never ever work! Look at Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Cuba (communism and socialism), United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR = Russia today), etal, and almost, just about the next to financial and socioeconomic failure, Commifornia!!

          • chasaragdy

            Lmcyber: You–probably as a Liberal Progressive–are talking Socialism at best, and Fascism at worse. At this point, this thread is long, and you are vastly outnumbered, judged by comments. These roughly observed numbers indicate you as the most limited and vocal spokesman for the (seemingly) minimal “greenies” are losers (as in losing your arid azzes). So, move on! There’s nothing here to see.

          • Stephen Kirtland

            Small scale electricity production is a sensible alternative, but problems remain in the areas of maintenance, storage, backup power generation, deterioration and eventual failure of the power generating system and disposal of outdated or unrepairable equipment. Changing to natural gas generators for small scale home electricity production may be a viable stop gap, the equipment being repairable, durable and recyclable and not needing toxic storage systems. Natural gas is plentiful enough to last until the problems with wind, water and solar are solved, or safe nuclear or thermonuclear power are developed. No subsidies, please. TANSTAAFL.

          • David

            I think technology is catching up quickly. Tesla has some of the best battery technology going right now and hydrogen cells are coming into their time as well. You are correct, there has to be consideration for issues such as maintenance and waste disposal. But look how far we’ve come with awareness already. Few are building McMansions anymore; the tiny house may not be the new norm, but house sizes in general are shrinking. On the topic of maintenance, etc, in the last 20 years or so, I’ve noticed a huge downturn in the the willingness and desire to learn anything practical. Things like how to unjamb a garbage disposal or unclog a sink. Forget about the really involved things like swap out a car battery! Yes, I understand there are a lot of repairs that require more than just common knowledge, which isn’t so common anymore, but there seems to be zero desire for self-sufficiency. That, ultimately, will be the downfall when a large-scale natural or manmade disaster occurs. Why would so many starve if the grid went down? Because few know how to grow their own food!

          • w edgar green

            Is that why California is over $1.5 TRILLION in debt? The solar companies are “giving” the systems away because the federal and local governments are giving them BILLIONS of our tax dollars, otherwise they will go bankrupt . Wake up, there is no free lunch!

          • thejbk7

            Go ahead and try to remove oneself from the grid.

          • Lmcyber

            What are you talking about?! Do you have any idea?! Solar generated electricity goes through the normal grid and it will come to a point where everyone will end up being responsible for their own electricity generation as the costs are so much more minimal compared to fossil fuel generated. Whether you like it or not we are moving into the age of fully renewable energy. Technology has demonstrated that it is entirely frasible and cost efficient and of course not destructive to human beings and the environment!

          • thejbk7

            You envision everyone being responsible for their own electricity? Hahaha. The great majority of people find it difficult to use a toaster let alone eing their own electrical source.
            Your aware of the dependency as most of the toaster perplexed citizens are under your political parties following.

          • chasaragdy

            Lmcyber: I was with you–to a small extent–until you just could not resist inserting the last paragraph of your (5 days ago) comment/post, “…It’s no wonder CA is doing so well financially…”! So well financially??? You have got to be kidding!! That ONE sentence ALONE tells me, and I’m sure–including those of much lesser intelligence than myself–and many others having normal knowledge, speaks volumes about your (lack of and flat-lined) intelligence quotient!! I won’t comment further to that post as that sentence alone speaks (loudly) for itself.

        • Mike Colson

          True, the start up costs are large. They are coming down. There are innovations that can now take even a very large home completely off the grid, including the swimming pool. Hot and cold water, electricity, heating and cooling. Not to mention the point that by doing this, the strain is reduced on our failing electrical grid. What maintenance? As for conventional utilities costs, you must live in a very mild climate. Many times people are spending thousands of dollars per month on utilities costs. Personally, I don’t believe that your argument holds water.

      • Rolpho Signetti

        Incentives that the tax payer has to pay for. So you tree huggers can think you are making a difference.

      • w edgar green

        You mean like the Obama Administration “funneled” $525 million of your and my money to Solyndra who failed within 2 years.
        If we have to financially support “new” technologies then they most likely do not need to exist.

        • Lmcyber

          Oh you mean like we are currently doing with all the oil and gas subsidies that are being shoveled out to Exxon and Mobil and all the rest of them that are getting more money every year. I don’t think an energy source that is called FOSSIL FUEL, should be getting any subsidies do you? And on top of it it’s dirty for the environment and not a renewable. Renewable energy industry in this country employs significantly more people so much so that it dwarfs the coal industry alone. In CA alone, there are over 375k employed in green energy with the entire coal industry that potentially could only employ 75k. It is not logical nor is it cost effective!

          • Candyman

            First. The oil and gas companies do not receive “subsidies”. They take advantage of the tax system just like every other business. Subsidies are given out to your renewable buddies. Second. I don’t think that solar and wind, that produce less than 2% of our energy (less than we get from burning wood chips) should be called a reliable energy source. Third. How can an industry that needs almost 4 times the employs to produce a fraction of the total energy produced by FOSSIL FUEL, be efficient or cost effective?

          • Blogengeezer

            Solar [equate with turbine], wind fanatics have absolutely no knowledge of physics.

            To their education level, 20% equates to 20 X. I found this widespread belief on more than several websites arguing for the ‘Clean Green’ energies.

            They have no understanding of mining, processing of raw materials, nor manufacturing. They do not even know of the billions of gallons of clean water consumed in the process, nor the diesel, hydro, coal, nat gas and nuclear energy consumed during the process from conception to viable product.

            In their utopian idealistic, limited thought process, ‘Clean and Green’ is after a unit sits on their roof aging into evermore reduced output under the sun’s destructive ultra-violet, or spinning idly in the soft winds, during natural lows and highs of barometric pressures, with alternating, prevailing winds bringing rare positive outputs to fruition.

          • w edgar green

            Please look up the amount of tax credits that go to fossil fuel companies (in total maybe a billion dollars) versus the “incentives” going to especially wind power which in 2016 (latest data available) was in excess 4 billion.
            To quote Warren Buffet “ We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them”
            Wind power is neither reliable (as the wind) or financially viable. If you look at who really owns the farms and who benefits from the production of the generators you will see that the big money is there not any altruistic save the environment types.
            Buying into the hoax to save the planet is buying in to make Al Gore and his buddy billionaires even richer.

          • David

            China. They are making the money. They produce the wind turbines, which are sent here on ships and unloaded in west coast ports, Portland, for example. Then, for just ONE tower, seven or more semi trucks transport the equipment to an Idaho wind farm where the life expectancy is about 30 years, give or take. This doesn’t even include the infrastructure! As for solar, Germany is light years ahead of us. Why? Because it’s important to them. Solar panels in Germany are far more efficient and adjustable to pick up the infrared spectrum. Pretty soon, they will be producing solar energy at night!

          • thejbk7

            Having been fortunate to have lived in the far East and stayed in Switzerland and Germany quite a bit, I’ve become cynical that our lifestyle in America is what we should expect. Their roadways are crack and pothole free,there is no trash on the side of the roads nor are buildings tagged. The trains are clean and on time. The citizens shut down for lunch an hour n half then close by at 6. People spend 2 hrs enjoying dinner and visiting, then theyll walk for awhile. Somehow we Americans have been put on a treadmill and fed alot of misinformation.

        • thejbk7

          Well said w e green, great name to Segway into my position on global warming…..I meant climate change lol. It’s called the green initiative cause it puts a lot of our green into their hands. Does anyone realize that the reasons why were out of the last ice age is cause of this cycle of warming and cooling off Earth? This craziness is akin to saying the summertime is getting hotter than spring, and we should stop this change…..with money of coarse.

      • Deplorable wizard

        Don’t know about where you live, but in sunny Arizona we have to pay the electric company to use solar.

      • thejbk7

        Why do you need incentives to put up solar if it saves so much money? Your a solar snake oil salesmen that preaches how evil fossil fuels are. The sheep following the democratic ideology are of two types:. 1) Ignorant and or brainwashed Berkeley isolationists desperately trying to invent a purpose to their existence.
        2). Democratic puppet master’s that prey on the gullible uneducated desperate human beings (like Illegal aliens) to fill their ranks and vote their way based upon false misleading info.
        Lymcyber your own words are typical as you tout solar, if you’d saved so much money then why did you lose your house? You lead readers Into believing you have no electric bill, no house either. Last not least-. You’re driving around while consuming fossil fuels then trying to act as if your Mr clean green. Snake oil salesmen.

      • chasaragdy

        Lmcyber: Let’s analyze, using your suggestions for more, outlandish uses of our hard working taxpaying citizens dollars (or resources as used in the governments vernacular) : 1) Incentives? Normally means rewards (taxpayers money) to someone–or some entity–to do something they would not normally do without rewards (NO taxpayers money). 2)Administration? Usually means the political party in control (meaning power) at any given time. That said, the current administration of our (yours and my) President Trump will not–based on a guess of 99.99% certainty–will not be funding any further “pie-in-the-sky” (solar) projects, that are doomed to failure from the git-go!!

      • chasaragdy

        Lmcyber: Let’s analyze, using your suggestions for more, outlandish uses of our hard working taxpaying citizens dollars (or resources as used in the governments vernacular) : 1) Incentives? Normally means rewards (taxpayers money) to someone–or some entity–to do something they would not normally do without rewards (NO taxpayers money). 2)Administration? Usually means the political party in control (meaning power) at any given time. That said, the current administration of our (yours and my) President Trump will not–based on a guess of 99.99% certainty–will not be funding any further “pie-in-the-sky” (solar) projects, that are doomed to failure from the git-go!!

      • thejbk7

        Your electrical bill is virtually non existent cause and I’ll quote you “had a home”. The wife probably divorced you for having no common sense and for installing ugly heavy antiquated solar panels on the roof. What’s the chances that all the democratic hot air raising temps? In the future Archaeologists will discover a democraticasore, will be puzzled why cranial cavity had shrunk.

  • CCblogging

    Obama’s “Paris Climate Agreement” that President Trump rescued us from, is part of UN Agenda 21 & UN Agenda 2030. The Globalist Elite’s religion is climate change and the globalists want total control of America, Americans and America’s resources. Climate change is being pushed for an excuse for that World Government but “climate change” is in actuality, a globalist scheme to redistribute America’s wealth and power to the entire world.

    • Francisco Machado

      Obama’s climate agreement was just that – Obama’s agreement. It was never submitted to the Senate for ratification, so never became an agreement with the United States. Obama can keep the agreement – but Obama’s not the President any more and Trump has not signed on to the agreement.

    • America1st

      BTW – few mention that the UN Agenda 21 & UN Agenda requires a $54 Trillion investment (communist word for TAX) to possibly reduce Global temps by 1/2 degree C by year 2100 which instruments can not accurately measure. Meanwhile the UN disperses the $54 Trillion collected to human rights focused countries like Iran, Yemen, and North Korea. Thankfully, Trump pulled the US out because we would have been on the hook for 20% of the $pay scam.

      • CCblogging

        Correct, it’s all a giant wealth redistribution scheme. Human made Climate Change or warming is total BS and been proven to be a Globalist lie. Most of the erratic storms we have had is actually caused by Planetary Alignment. Much like our moon affects the ocean tides.

  • MarcJ

    China
    is presently constructing 22 nuclear electricity-producing reactors and is
    planning for 136.more. Chinese expertise is based on the transfer of the US
    engineering know-how that occurred back in the 1980’s. China is also now exporting
    those nuclear technologies to Iran and Pakistan, and Russia has exported them
    to North Korea and Iran. It is clearly a security risk for the U.S. to have abandoned
    the industry. “We are ceding our leadership at the international table frankly
    on nuclear issues,” Korsnick told the House committee. Correction – we are nor
    ceding that leadership – we have already ceded it years ago. The murder of
    nuclear electricity is the biggest victory of our Democrats, communists, and
    Eco-Nazis in American history so far. The last nuclear electric power plant was
    placed in operation back in 1988; when we inevitably rediscover nuclear
    electricity we will have to buy the necessary engineering and reactors from
    communist China. By the way the nuclear electricity is – together with water
    power electricity – the only kind with ZERO influence on the Globaloney Warming
    scam. Sorry – after 21 consecutive years of GLOBAL COOLING as prescribed by the
    Solar Cycle – that scam was renamed by our Eco-Nazis as the Climate Change
    hoax. In order to cover up that cooling our eco-Nazis “re-programmed” their
    computers and “re-calibrated” their thermometers RETROACTIVELY – thus
    committing a scientific crime of the first order.

    • Lmcyber

      It’s not like people want nuclear reactors in their back yard. They dot. Why would they especially after what happened in Japan. There is still a very unstable reactor that the. Ore could easily melt down and all they are doing is buying time until someone comes up with technology that could get them in there to be able to shut it down. And their radioactive waste is still floating and showing up in places like Ca. Most states want nothing to do with nuclear. It has nothing to do with the Dems rather you can blame the people and the technology, that is still not sophisticated enough to get them out of bad situations. Case in point – Japan!

      • MarcJ

        That accident in Japan was not nuclear – it was a historical tsunami that destroyed the plant. Number of nuclear radiation victims = ZERO.

        • Lmcyber

          We understand that what precipitated it was a tsunami! But once the reactor was damaged, they literally do not have the technology to take it offline. That is not a safe form of energy in many people’s opinion …. and the waste is another issue.

          If you find safe forms of energy that are renewable where it doesn’t damage our environment then why would you not prefer it as an efficient, and productive alternative?

          • David

            Look up slow breeder reactors. Go ahead, I dare you.

            Not breeder reactors, which are extremely dangerous. SLOW breeder reactors. We’ve had the technology for decades, but nobody can really benefit financially from it, so nobody wants to pursue it. Beach sand for fuel . . .

            Just follow the money, or lack thereof, and you will find all the answers to the questions that begin with the word “why.”

          • Lmcyber

            Regardless, I do understand that some nuclear power can be acceptable, as long as they work out the waste issue and the safety. My point is it is not politically feasible or popular right now and hasn’t been for years, which is why no reactors have been built in recent years in the US.

        • thejbk7

          The Fukushima failure was due to engineering and failsafe errors, probably cause they rushed into getting system up and running. That and maybe intentionally under engineered.

  • Joseph111

    its amazing how these globalist can look the facts, the truth and reality (in general) in the eye and deny it!

    • ChicagoBob

      Thats what they declare your doing when you deny feel good numbers that have been advertised as FACT

  • We are on our way to alternate energy sources. Be patient

  • RonyG

    This is not a surprise to all of us! The question that is never asked by the Global Warming Group is, “How many active Volcanoes are spewing out Billions of Tons of Pollutants and this has taken place for Millions of Years”? The answer is ‘625 Active Volcanoes’ are currently spewing out Billions of Tons of Pollutants each Year! Man only contributes less than 1% of the Total Pollutants into the atmosphere each Year!

    • David

      Not to mention the focus on Carbon Dioxide is ridiculous. The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is WATER VAPOR. What are you going to do about that, Al Gore. Oh, you don’t even mention it, do you? Forget about the fact that we are dependent on greenhouse gases to survive here!

    • thejbk7

      Your talking facts and they won’t hear you. Maybe a more viable option is to hook up wind turbines to their mouths to use all the hot air they expend, then solar panels on our a#@$ to capture all that sunshine being blown up there! Call it the Brown initiative

      • chasaragdy

        thejbk7: Your “…Call it the Brown initiative…” is a great, and viable, play on words!

  • Gregg Parker

    We can solve global warming over night without doing anything spectacular. We can just simply sign over all the money we collectively possess to the global cartel and then the climate models will all show the problem has been fixed. This slow blood letting is getting tiresome…

  • gideonrockwell

    It is know as the weather. These cycles have been going on since the beginning of time. A sudden warm up in Europe assisted Europe from moving from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance. Volcanoes were discovered under the Northern ice layer. Hmm, volcanoes, heat , maybe that has something to do with the ice layer melting around there. Nature effects the climate, Moon phases, Solar Spots, polar shifts. Is man so arrogant he believes his presence and advancement will damage the Earth?

    • Lmcyber

      That is such a draconian argument and has no basis in fact. Please research global warming and then take a look at green energy. And yes bro, man who has created an energy source that has been very damaging to the earth. And there is proof to that premise. Please look it up!

      • thejbk7

        Please research the last ice age and cyclical periods the Earth has experienced. Damned cavemen and their fires huh?

  • deanbob

    “To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formula” ……GIGO!

  • pnmnm

    I agree with a lot of what the author says, but a red flag went up with the statement, “But the satellites are unable to collect data from the north and south poles,…” If nothing else, the polar regions are areas covered most often by Sun-Synchronous satellites, which include among many the NOAA, TIROS, and JPSS series that together extend from the 70s to the present. Most research satellites are Sun-synch and give great polar region, viewing a given area up to 14 times a day. The best instruments, including those that provide the temperature record referred to in the article, are on Sun-Synchs. The trouble with the polar regions is interpretation of the data. It is often difficult because of the extreme conditions and isothermal nature of the polar night atmosphere. Given the misstatement about polar satellite coverage, I wonder if any of the other facts are erroneous.

    • chasaragdy

      pnmnm: Your words in the last sentence, “…I wonder…” is more fact than fiction!

  • Cleavis Nowell

    When Dr. Michael Savage hears the lies of climate change dung beetles he points to the Vladivostok/Russian ice core samples which show massive climate shifts long before fossil fuels. It suits the political agenda of some countries to pretend there is man made climate change. Totalitarian countries such as the O.I.C. islamist exporters of terror can and will use fossil fuels as they please with no infidel oversight of their violations of all treaties and conventions.

  • napalm204

    Here is why I cannot take the global climate change theory seriously. Most of the “sky is falling” predictions made since the early 70’s have simply not materialized. If the scientists and supporters of this idea could make a serious, measurable prediction and have it come to clear and obvious fruition, maybe I would give them more credibility. They have eliminated any contradictory evidence, ostracized those who would offer differing opinions and yet still cannot offer solid proof that their dire warnings have any validity. And no one will ever convince me that what we are experiencing right now has never happened before in the history of this planet. What they can and will continue to do however, is ask for pallets of cash to further their “research” and line their pockets. Wow, a great gig if you can get it.

    • Francisco Machado

      Whenever one side of a debate starts to attack and demonize the other side, you know that they do it because they have no sound argument to defend their position. The AGW cabal has resisted attempts to enter into direct debates with those who dispute carbon dioxide as the climate determinant. They resort to name calling. When twenty years with no change despite carbon dioxide level changes couldn’t be explained, they “adjusted” the temperatures. Sea level temperatures have been going down. I haven’t heard their explanation on that yet, but it does have a downside that suits them: When land is warmer than the water, storms tend to move onshore.

  • dannyo66

    I wonder if they even discussed the fact that just recently, a volcano was discovered under Antarctica which is believed to be the cause of the vast majority of the ice sheet shrinking on the continent. Scientists discovered that the thickness of the sheet has shrunk and that there is liquid water under the ice in places, and that the scientists think it may have also been the cause of the huge chunk of ice that broke off a few months ago.

    • Gregg Parker

      Are you trying to color the debate with facts? That always works against popular sentiment like an alarm clock during a good nights sleep…

      • dannyo66

        Never let facts undermine a perfectly good lie.
        Democ(ough…excuse me)rat playbook.

        • Gregg Parker

          LOL… Al Gore is a scientist… lol…

          • dannyo66

            In his own mind.

          • Charles Covington

            Remember he , ole ale discovered the internet, oh he is everything he says he is, a frigging joke

          • Gregg Parker

            Lol…. If you can recall the old footage of his awkward hand clapping at events and such (like the baby seal or an animated piece of wood) we used to say then that he was the inventor of the “algorithm”…

          • thejbk7

            It was all true! When some fool showed Gore how to use the internet was when he discovered it. Named Al-gore-rythm as witnessed by handclapping mastery.
            With democrats the truth is in the way you disguise it to be not…?

          • Gregg Parker

            Nice to know others remember the head shaking piece of wood like I do… he also imcenred breathing when the soctor smacked his can!

  • dannyo66

    30 years ago, there were cries about the earth cooling too fast. Evidently that one didn’t work so they switched to the earth was heating up too fast.

    • thejbk7

      15 thousand years ago I’m sure they starting crying about the end of that ice age and receding glaciers. At the time it was blamed on the cooking fires that Cromagdon man was using, reason why they went extinct according to no one yet.

  • Ron haymaker

    Rule of thumb……If Obama was for it….Something had to be wrong with it. The truth is the Polar Ice Caps are getting bigger. They show icebergs melting in one part of the world, while in another part of the world they are getting bigger. Studies show there is more increase than decrease overall.

  • Texas Belle

    Data from scientists who don’t agree with the global warming hoax are ignored by the naysayers. It is all political based on flawed information, but designed to scare everyone to death. Just look at what Gore etal predicted about 10 years ago and you can see what a hoax he started.

    • Lmcyber

      Who would bother reading what less than 3% of what is considered unanimous agreement on global warming by 97% of scientists internationally. Global warming has more agreement in the scientific community that just about any other issue. Of course, nobody is going to read what a few crackpots have to say about a heavily researched and valid issue. Their arguments have no basis in fact or reality.

      • chasaragdy

        Lmcyber: “Scientists are, in the vernacular, akin to lawyers. Once there were too many “graduates” from college, and were sitting around looking for work (a job), they put their collective pea-brains together to “discover” how to “make work”, getting the media on their socialist side. Their scheme has worked almost flawlessly! They’re intelligent, but common sense challenged.

        • Lmcyber

          Honestly, I am without words. Unbelievable!

  • jackcandobutwont

    Global warming / climate change….the largest con ever foisted on the planet….and an ingenious way to take people’s money….by making gullible softheads feel guilty and brainwashing them into giving them (the liars, thieves and con men) their money, or having yourtaxes pay for the con!!

  • therealworld

    When it’s cold in the house my Solar System works great and we had it installed over 60 years ago and for aprox $200. We Open The Drapes and Let the Sunshine In.

  • OttoZeit

    “Global Warming” is the term we use to describe the intervals between Ice Ages. We’re in one now.

  • Bill Harrison

    Climate change is political not scientific. Wealth redistribution and population control spread by liberal. If there is no crisis to take advantage of, invent one.

    • chasaragdy

      Bill Harrison: And as Rahm Emanuel (Obama’s wingman) said, “…never let a crisis go to waste…”! Pure turkey (no offense to turkeys) dung, pure and simple!

  • Russell

    More and more people are putting stuff in the water. Ships Subs and anything you can imagine. Then the water get higher. Did you know if you take all the hard matter in the world and make it into a hard round ball we will be two miles under water.

  • Greg

    These manmade “global warming” idiots should blame volcanic activity for the cause of it as they spew out billions of tons of greenhouse gases,
    more than all of the industrialised nations combined for hundreds of years. If Al Gore strongly believes in this crap, why won’t he stop using his private jet and running around in his gas guzzling limosinies and ride a horse to his lectures and seminars? After all his transportation contributes to what he’s supposedly against. This man is making hundreds of millions of dollars off of this scam and found hundreds of proxies to support him.

  • Sylvia Avila

    Thank you for the truth, No such thing as Climate Change just a scam by Al Gore and others to get people to give them more money. The is always trying to convince the people of coming dangers they make up just so they can control us more and line their pockets with our money. Liberals lie for a living. Never Trust them or any MSM Media!

    • OttoZeit

      Actually, “climate change” is real — so real, in fact, that it’s nothing special. The climate is never stable…it’s ALWAYS “changing.” Sometimes it gets colder (“Ice Ages”), and sometimes it gets warm enough to live in (“Global Warming”). During the”Medieval Warm Period,” it was hotter than it is now…must have been because of all those SUV oxcarts the peasants were driving around in.

      • Sylvia Avila

        Yes, but Al Gore is pushing a fake Climate Change he and his elite rich want us to believe, just to make money for their selves. The change we are talking about is natural change due to Mother Earth herself, not fake and made up.

        • OttoZeit

          Absolutely. While “climate change” is real enough, its politically touted “dangers” are as fake as anything P.T. Barnum ever dreamed up — calculated to cultivate a “Chicken Little” mentality among the population. “Global Warming” is a stalking horse for global government

          • thejbk7

            Why has it been renamed climate change from global warming?

          • chasaragdy

            thejbk7: The term “global warming” was changed to “climate change” because all us “yokels” (all of us anti-global warming and anti-climate alarmists) were ferreting out the truth of the perpetrated scams and wealth distribution scams from the Socialist Left.

      • independent thinker

        Oxen “exhaust” caused it.

  • En Passant

    The dangers from Climate Change are fake news and a political hoax. +2 degrees and a doubling of CO2 would be a benefit for the world.

  • Mark

    According to Trunews dot com we’re going into a Mini-Ice-Age, that’s NOT created by man. I’d much RATHER have some warming instead

  • Phyllis Rasmussen

    Our weather is controlled by the sun, simple, every year count the sun flares. more flares then it’s warmer less flares and it’s colder. Study the Little Ice Age we had in the 1800s.

  • LarryW

    First, you might ask, why do they go back 150 years? Probably because that’s about the time the last mini-ice age ended, and you would expect some warming after any ice age. Who knows how long this warming will last, if it’s not over already. Second, I just read a report that they discovered a cauldron of hot magma under Antarctica, much like the one under Yellowstone Park. Antarctica’s ice is breaking up because of what’s going on under the ice. But who in the news is reporting this? Finally, I thought plants love CO2. Why would more of it hurt us? Seems to me that more would make our planet greener (as the satellites were unfortunately proving). But then again, I don’t have all the facts yet.

    • thejbk7

      I believe you meant 15.000 yrs the last ice age began to withdraw. As far as going back to check data points man has catalogued,. Insufficient data as well as scattered points of reference. No real atmospheric temp. Reading that accurately guage levels and ratios.

      • LarryW

        No, I meant what I said. There was a “mini-ice age” from about 1100 to 1850 AD. See? You don’t know about this because the Left-Stream Media and the Climate Change bunco artists don’t want us to know all the facts. Facts contradict the Left at every turn, so if you don’t know the facts then you’re more likely to buy their bunk.

        By the way, sometime back around the 1200’s a Chinese galleon sailed over the North Pole – it was totally melted back then.

  • Murphmeister

    But all the data, whether true or false, leads to peripheral conclusions. The central and indisputable issue is that humans continue to populate and stress the planet in non-climate change areas such as de-forestation, potable water, changes in ocean ph and other factors that promote a thriving aquatic life. We trash the land and the oceans and there are islands of plastic debris.

    Rather than reduce the carbon footprint of every human, it would be saner and far more effective to reduce the number of humans generating those footprints. But no one wishes to address that because no one wants to say who can stay and who must go. It would violate our egalitarian sense. Sadly, the places that are the most overpopulated are the places that can least sustain those populations. The migrations we now see from Central and south America to North America and from Africa to Europe will soon strain the resources of Europe and North America. Resistance is forming and when push comes to shove we know what it will lead to. My fear is that War and Nature are going to do our dirty work for us and we will not like their methodology.

  • nitramK

    Well said! Current culprit of CO2/GHGs has NOT been proven. Temperature data is averaged and manipulated and the current most likely source for Global Warming and Climate Change has only begun to be thoroughly studied, namely core heat from the Earth itself. We don’t need more debate, we need to determine the source(s) of GW/CC and then determine if, how and what we can do to minimize its effects or turn them into positives.

  • Louie Rey

    I’d ask Al Gore if it’s true or not but he’s flying all over in his Gulfstream jet spewing cubic tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so I can’t get a hold of him.

  • gideonrockwell

    I love these Libs crying about our carbon foot print while they are flying around in privately owned jets that burn more fuel in an hour than I burn all month. Besides carbon dioxide feeds plants which create oxygen. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Get out there create more Carbon Dioxide and save some plants.

  • Build a burger

    Back in 1984, the smartest man in the world told us we would be all out of o’l by the year 2000.
    Shortly after the year 2000, we were told that in a few years, very few people would see snow in winter. Back in the ’70’s, the politically approved scientists were warning us the next ice age was just around the corner. Before that, bathing was bad for you. Scientists don’t agree weather it is the fat or sugar that is bad for us. President Reagan’s tax cuts would make inflation go out of control. Weapons of mass destruction. No new taxes. You can keep your doctor. I am not a crook.
    But we are still supposed to believe every new thing that has the liberal’s stamp of approval???

  • Stephen Kirtland

    The bottom line is that the factors affecting climate are so numerous and so unknown in the magnitude of their effects that any climate model is just a guessing game. That’s not science; that’s science fiction. What’s not a guess is that trillions of dollars are going to change hands via the carbon credit exchanges and you’ll never guess who invested most of the money from the sale of his cable news network to Al-Jazeera in one of those exchanges. It might be interesting to know who else is invested in businesses poised to prosper from the global warming hoax. Check out sunspot activity cycles and climate shifts and you’ll understand just how much of a hoax it is. If we can open up the market for energy production and/or distribution and provide more alternatives without government subsidies and cronyism, the entire picture of man-made pollution would be changed, but the lives of consumers, because of choices available, would not be impacted negatively.

  • chasaragdy

    Lmcyber: In a word, Bullshiitt. You, sir or ma’am, are a poster-child for why communist/fascist propaganda is so very successful. And worse, you even have the advantages of common sense, fair and balanced media (FNC/FBN) and radio, and democratic–small d–technology. But yet, the majority of Commifornia is brain challenged and knowledge-atrophed. I’m not talking about IQ’s nor intelligence; my comments are and with the majority of Americans, normal, basic, common sense and historically American democracy.

    • Lmcyber

      I guess I was wrong – the current surplus is actually 15 million. Read the news today, and you will understand that I am right, and you are wrong. Most of your comment is just frustration, because you know a budget is a budget, which is a budget. Budgets don’t lie. There is no propaganda. There is no media. There are only numbers and accountants.

      Actually, I am not surprised. I could show you a blue sky and people like you would call it red. However, I am surprised that Liberty Headlines did not censure your comment for your use of the word B——-!!