Google+ Followers

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Hey Al Gore Did You Know, This? Earth Cooler Now Then When Al Gore Won Nobel Peace Prize for Global Warming work

 Image result for Al Gore hand in the air

A new study shows that global temperatures are cooler today than they were when climate change alarmist Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 — and one top meteorologist is hammering Gore over the very inconvenient truth.

Respected meteorologist Joe Bastardi recently penned on op-ed hammering Gore for his awful climate predications made in his hit 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” while noting that today’s global temperatures are cooler than they were when Gore’s won the Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming work.

Bastardi’s study shows that while global temperatures were anomalously warm when Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, they are less warm now and they were even less warm in the years between today and when Gore won the peace prize.
Image via Joe Bastardi/The Patriot Post
Image via Joe Bastardi/The Patriot Post
“Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based on warnings of future events — the same future events that have not happened. The fact is that global temperatures from 2006-2007 while Gore was basking in the glory of his apocalypse-driven fame were warmer than they are now,” Bastardi wrote.
Bastardi, who used to work for AccuWeather and now works at a weather consulting firm, lamented over the fact that Gore won the peace prize for his awful predictions over a woman, Irena Sendler, who helped save thousands of Jewish Poles during World War II.
“Al Gore’s new movie reminded me of what a travesty it was for him to even accept the Nobel Prize over what” Sendler did, Bastardi said.
The op-ed comes as Gore’s follow up, “An Inconvenient Sequel” is currently in theaters.
Many of Gore’s most famous climate predictions have failed to come true, such as rising sea levels and the complete melting of ice in the Arctic.
Gore’s latest movie explores the predictions that he made a decade ago. It also dives into the Paris Agreement on climate change and what it means for the future of the globe in the eyes of climate change alarmists, while exploring the significance of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Al Gore Shameless fear-mongering--versus reality

 Image result for al gore a liar

Before I could enjoy a movie last week, I was forced to endure five minutes of climate and weather fear-mongering, when the theater previewed Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Sequel.” His attempt to pin every weather disaster of the past decade on humanity’s fossil fuel use felt like fifty minutes of water boarding.

Mr. Gore has made tens of millions of dollars pedaling this nonsense and his demand that modern society undergo a “wrenching transformation” from oil, natural gas and coal to a utopian make-believe world powered by biofuels, wind and solar power, electric vehicles and batteries.

Every alarmist prediction has been falsified by actual events

Every alarmist prediction has been falsified by actual events: from soaring temperatures to an ice-free Arctic to monstrous hurricanes that have not hit the USA since 2005. His attempt to blame New York City floods during Superstorm Sandy ignored inconvenient truths like construction that narrowed the Hudson River by hundreds of feet, forcing any incoming water to rise higher…and flood Manhattan. Mr. Gore conveniently ignores even well known climate change and weather events of past centuries. No wonder this devotee of SUVs, private jets and multiple homes doesn’t have the spine to debate anyone over these issues. When he lectures us, he won’t even take questions that he has not preapproved.

Thankfully, those seeking an antidote or healthy dose of reality have alternatives. The Climate Hustle documentary film debunks scores of whacky predictions that never came true and presents solid evidence-based science from dozens of scientists who don’t accept “manmade climate crisis” claims. A new Australian book presents detailed and expert but fast-paced, readable material on key climate issues.

Climate Change: The Facts 2017 is the third in a series. Dedicated to the memory of the late, eminent Aussie geologist and climate scientist Bob Carter, its 22 chapters cover climate changes through the ages, the multiple natural forces that primarily drive climate and weather fluctuations, devious tricks that alarmist researchers have used to modify and “homogenize” actual temperature data, attempts to silence experts who focus on natural causes of climate change or on adaptation rather than costly “prevention,’ the historic context behind climate debates, and coral reef resilience amid alleged ocean “acidification.”

Carbon dioxide has been demonized because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel use

Assumed coral, shellfish and other asserted disasters from even slight changes in ocean pH are based on computer simulations that often extrapolate from laboratory experiments. John Abbott, Peter Ridd and Jennifer Marohasy point out that some of those experiments actually added hydrochloric acid to fish tanks to simulate acidification presumed to result from slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide!

Carbon dioxide has been demonized because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel use, and many activists want to eliminate the oil, natural gas and coal that provide over 80% of US and global energy. Moreover, while it helps trap solar heat and keep Earth inhabitable, CO2 is the polar opposite of a “dangerous pollutant.”

CO2 is vital plant food and fertilizer, essential for photosynthesis. Without it, life on Earth would cease to exist. In conjunction with slightly warmer global temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended (and modern industrial era began), rising atmospheric CO2 levels are helping to “green” the planet, by spurring crop, forest and grassland plants to grow faster and better, Craig Idso and Matt Ridley explain. 25-50% of vegetated parts of our planet have gotten greener over the past 33 years, from the tropics to the Arctic, and 70% of that greening is due to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only 4% has gotten browner.

Ian Plimer, Ken Ring and Nicola Scafetta discuss natural climate cycles and the long planetary and human experience with major climate changes and weather events. Nothing seen today is unprecedented, and most is far more benign than in the past, they note. Bjorn Lomborg and other authors explain why we must end our obsession with the “climate crisis” and other exaggerated threats, and with false solutions to fabricated climate disasters. We need to spend our limited time, money and resources on the many real, pressing problems that confront mankind in developed and developing nations alike.

In just two centuries, via discovery and progress powered by fossil fuels, billions of people doubled their life spans and became healthy, well fed, prosperous

My chapter in The Facts addresses those pressing humanity problems, largely in the context of Pope Francis’s Laudato Si encyclical. For countless millennia, I note, humans endured brutal, backbreaking lives cut short by malnutrition and starvation, wretched cold and poverty, foul air, filthy water, myriad diseases, absent sanitary practices, and simple wounds that brought gangrene, amputation and death.

Then, in just two centuries, via discovery and progress powered by fossil fuels, billions of people doubled their life spans and became healthy, well fed, prosperous, increasingly mobile, and able to afford wondrous medical and other technologies, foods, services, luxuries and leisure-time activities that previous generations could not even imagine.

Mechanized agriculture—coupled with modern fertilizers, hybrid and GMO seeds, irrigation and other advances—enable smaller numbers of farmers to produce bumper crops that feed billions, using less land, water and insecticides. Improved buildings keep out cold, heat, and disease-carrying rodents and insects, and better survive earthquakes and extreme weather. Electricity transformed every aspect of our lives.

“How can we not feel gratitude and appreciation for this progress, especially in the fields of medicine, engineering and communications?” His Holiness asks. Unfortunately, he then presents romanticized references to consistently mild climates, benevolent natural worlds and idyllic pastoral lives that never existed. He insists that Earth’s poorest people will soon face “grave existential risks” from planetary warming, if we do not quickly and significantly reduce fossil fuel use.

Over the past three decades, oil, gas and especially coal have helped 1.3 billion more people get electricity and escape energy and economic destitution

He ignores the absence of Real World evidence that greenhouse gases are causing climate chaos—and the compelling evidence that fossil fuels continue to bring enormous benefits.

Over the past three decades, oil, gas and especially coal have helped 1.3 billion more people get electricity and escape energy and economic destitution. China connected 99% of its population to the grid, mostly with coal. Average Chinese are now ten times richer and live 32 years longer than their predecessors did barely five decades previously. India is building numerous coal power plants to electrify its vast regions.

But more than 1.2 billion people (more than the USA, Canada, Mexico and Europe combined) still do not have electricity; another 2 billion have electrical power only sporadically and unpredictably. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 700 million still cook and heat with “renewable” wood, charcoal and animal dung.

Hundreds of millions get horribly sick—and five million die—every year from lung and intestinal diseases, due to breathing smoke from open fires and not having refrigeration, clean water and safe food. Hundreds of millions are starving or malnourished. Nearly 3 billion survive on a few dollars per day.
Continued below...

Al Gore, the IPCC, alarmist modelers and researchers, and EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme and carbon dioxide “endangerment” decision have all depended on the climate bogeyman

These destitute masses simply want to take their rightful, God-given places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. Instead, they are being told that “wouldn’t be sustainable.” They’re being told that improving their health, living standards and life spans is less important than avoiding the “looming climate cataclysm” that “threatens the very survival” of our wildlife, civilization and planet.
These claims—and the false solutions being offered to dire problems that exist only in alarmist movies, press releases and computer models—examine only far-fetched risks that fossil fuels supposedly might cause. They never consider the numerous dangers and damages those fuels reduce, prevent or eliminate. These attitudes are anti-science, anti-human, unjust, unethical—and genocidal.
Noted observer of popular culture Clive James wraps up this fascinating book. Proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end, he says. And yet it would be unwise to think mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense can be cured anytime soon. When this “threat” collapses, it will be replaced with another.

Al Gore, the IPCC, alarmist modelers and researchers, and EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme and carbon dioxide “endangerment” decision have all depended on the climate bogeyman. Eternal vigilance, education and pushback by the rest of us will be needed for years to come.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Al Gore's House Uses 34 Times the Electricty as an Average House

Hypocrisy, thy name is...Al Gore?
Al Gore's House Uses 34 Times the Electricty as an Average House
A new, more-than-slightly amusing report from The Daily Caller alleges that the former vice president just might not be practicing what he preaches when it comes to the environment. Namely: his house in Nashvile uses 34 times as much electricity than an average house. According to the Daily Caller, the amount of electricty that Gore uses to heat his swimming pool over the course of a year could power six average households.  
In just this past year, Gore burned through enough energy to power the typical American household for more than 21 years, according to a new report by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The former vice president consumed 230,889 kilowatt hours (kWh) at his Nashville residence, which includes his home, pool and driveway entry gate electricity meters. A typical family uses an average of 10,812 kWh of electricity per year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
It gets worse.
Last September alone, Gore devoured 30,993 kWh of electricity. That’s enough to power 34 average American homes for a month. Over the last 12 months, Gore used more electricity just heating his outdoor swimming pool than six typical homes use in a year. (Daily Caller)
Yikes. That's...certainly something. 
Of course, Gore has argued in the past that this is okay, because he pays for solar panels and contributes to a green energy fund, but his house still receives the same non-renewable energy as his neighbors. Plus, Gore owns two other properties that presumably also use electricity. 
Since leaving office, Gore has spent a considerable amount of time and has received dozens of awards for his work on protecting the environment. This is certainly a laudable goal, but it'd seem less shallow if he actually practiced what he preached.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Gore tells mayor his island is shrinking due to ‘climate change’ — but here’s the real reason

See The Blog Post Below Al Pic

Coastal erosion is not do to Not Global Warming I do not know how many time , Al Gore And Army , have play the Coastal erosion card , it getting old! if Al Gore would read his bible , he see going back to  (Genesis 5:32). After the flood , he see Coastal erosion were the Global Warming? if Al Gore was to read Matthew 3, he see Coastal erosion and beach erosion, 

John the Baptist in a river and what happen, look for Beach erosion , were the Global Warming,  If Al Gore was to read Matthew 8:23-27 were Jesus Calms the Storm , he see  he see Coastal erosion and beach erosion,  not Global Warming so again, AL Gore is full of shit! 


Coastal erosion is common phrase referring to the loss of subaerial landmass into a sea or lake due to natural processes such as waves, winds and tides, or even due to human interference. and the  Tidal cycles bring sand onto the beach and carry it back into the surf. Rivers carry sediment to the coast and build deltas into the open water. Storms cause deeperosion in one area and leave thick overwash deposits in another. ... Natural processes that change the water level also affect coastal dynamics, Not global warming
Image result for al gore a liar

A commercial crabber of more than 50 years recently stumped Al Gore with a question about climate change.
“If sea level rise is occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it?” James “Ooker” Eskridge, a longtime crabber who is also mayor of Tangier Island, asked Gore at a CNN town hall on climate change. Tangier Island in Chesapeake Bay is gradually disappearing, something that Eskridge credited to ordinary erosion, not the rapidly rising sea levels predicated by climate change activists.
On Wednesday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program,” Glenn Beck, Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere listened to the Q&A fail and talked about other examples of erosion that occur in nature.
“The cliffs of Dover weren’t always cliffs,” Glenn pointed out. Erosion is part of the natural world, not an environmental crisis.  Cliffs erode, and rocks are turned into sand by the ocean. “That’s erosion,” he said.Another example of erosion is the Grand Canyon, which was formed as the Colorado River gradually wore away the landscape, Stu noted.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Corruption! Australia’s Weather Bureau Caught Tampering with Climate Data

Image result for al gore thumbs up

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.
Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.

Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website.
“The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau.
The bureau would later restore the original 13 degrees Fahrenheit reading after a brief question and answer session with Marohasy.
“The bureau’s quality ­control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman told reporters Monday. BOM added that there are limits placed on how low temperatures could go in some very cold areas of the country.
Bureaus Chief Executive Andrew Johnson told Australian Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg that the failure to record the low temperatures at Goulburn in early July was due to faulty equipment. A similar failure wiped out a reading of 13 degrees Fahrenheit at Thredbo Top on July 16, even though temperatures at that station have been recorded as low as 5.54 degrees Fahrenheit.
Failure to observe the low temperatures had “been interpreted by a member of the community in such a way as to imply the bureau sought to manipulate the data record,” Johnson said, according to The Australian. “I categorically reject this ­implication.”
Marohasy, for her part, told reporters that Johnson’s claims are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being “quality assured” out. It could take several weeks before the equipment is eventually tested, reviewed and ready for service, Johnson said.
“I have taken steps to ensure that the hardware at this location is replaced immediately,” he added. “To ensure that I have full ­assurance on these matters, I have actioned an internal review of our AWS network and associated data quality control processes for temperature observations.”
BOM has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations. The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.
Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.
Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.

Monday, July 31, 2017

An inconvenient commentary: 5 times Al Gore's climate alarmists made horribly wrong predictions

Image result for al gore hand in the air

Climate-change alarmist Al Gore’s newest fear-mongering film, “An Inconvenient Sequel,” arrived in select movie theaters over the weekend. Unsurprisingly, the film is full of dire warnings about the future of mankind and its allegedly dangerous use of fossil fuels.

However, before you trade in your car for a bicycle or your steak for insects, consider that for nearly 50 years, climate alarmists have been desperately trying and failing to predict the downfall of human civilization.

Here are just five examples of the many times climate alarmists gazed into their crystal balls and ended up looking more than a little foolish.

1. New York Times: Polar explorer predicts end of ice at the North Pole (1969)

Way back before Leonardo DiCaprio, the rise of Gore and the rampant politicization of climate science, polar explorer Col. Bernt Balchen was convinced the North Pole would melt by as early as 1979.

The New York Times reported on Feb. 20, 1969, “Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. … A number of specialists believe that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would not freeze again.”

Needless to say, the North Pole didn’t melt. In fact, we now know the global climate was at the tail end of a decades-long cooling period.

2. Al Gore: Only 10 years left to avoid total disaster (2006)

In 2006, CBS News asked Gore a series of questions about global warming at the Sundance Film Festival, where Gore was promoting “An Inconvenient Truth.” Throughout his movie, Gore consistently gives the sense that unless something is done immediately, we’re all doomed, but he often (not always) refrains from giving a specific timetable.

CBS News’ report, however, notes Gore had predicted that the “point of no return” would come within “10 years” if greenhouse-gas emissions weren’t reduced substantially.

“And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said,” according to CBS News’ story.

Have we reached a “point of no return,” as Gore suggested? If so, “An Inconvenient Sequel” would seem to be rather pointless, wouldn’t it? Gore was asked about this during a June interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, to which he responded: “Well, we have seen a decline in emissions on a global basis. For the first time, they’ve stabilized and started to decline. So, some of the responses for the last 10 years have helped, but unfortunately, and regrettably, a lot of serious damage has been done.”
Rather than simply admit he was wrong, Gore, amazingly, doubled down by suggesting that carbon-dioxide emission reductions have somehow immediately stopped the “point of no return” from materializing. This is a remarkably stupid claim.

Global carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the International Energy Agency’s estimates, increased by several gigatons from 2006 to 2016. If we were on the edge of a climatic disaster in 2006, we should have crossed the threshold by now — if Gore’s prediction was correct.
Further, and perhaps most importantly, the IEA attributes much of the drop in carbon-dioxide emissions to the United States’ use of natural gas, which has boomed because of fracking, a process environmentalists and Democrats largely oppose!

“The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%,” IEA reported in March. “The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%.”

Don’t be fooled by the “more attractive renewable power” line, either. Renewable energy sources solar and wind only account for less than 3 percent of the United States’ total energy use.

3. New York Times: ‘New ice age on the way’ (1975)

Here’s another report from the New York Times, this one published on May 21, 1975. In this news story, reporter Walter Sullivan noted many scientists believed global cooling was “inevitable,” but he also said there were numerous researchers predicting massive, catastrophic global warming within the next century.
Here are some of the highlights from the article:
The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.
There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way—the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere. And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head off an ice age.
Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that it may already have begun are evident. …
There is general agreement that introducing large amounts of smoke particles or carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can alter climate. … If worldwide energy consumption continues to increase at its present rates, catastrophic climate changes have been projected by M.I. Budyko, a leading Soviet specialists. He says that the critical level will probably be reached within a century. This, he has written, will lead to “a complete destruction of polar ice covers.” Not only would sea levels rise but, with the Arctic Ocean free of ice, the entire weather system of the Northern Hemisphere would be altered.
Virtually no one today is predicting the “complete destruction of polar ice covers” in the near future or a new ice age, showing that 40 years ago, the scientific community clearly overestimated the effects of human activity on climate.

4. United Nations: ‘Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth’ (1989)

United Nations environmental official Noel Brown predicted absolute chaos in 1989, including dramatic coastal flooding, crop failures, “eco-refugees,” and more. The only way to save the world, Brown warned, was to reverse course on burning fossil fuels within 10 years. Sound familiar?
The San Jose Mercury News (Calif.) reported on June 30, 1989, “A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human [control].”

5. Al Gore: The final ‘snows of Kilimanjaro’ (2006)

One of the more powerful moments in Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is when Gore shows a series of images of the famed Mt. Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa, progressively losing snow. Perhaps the most common error perpetrated by climate alarmists, especially in the mainstream media, is that warming is proof of their theory. It isn’t. Many climate scientists believe it is currently warming, albeit very slowly, but that the warming isn’t being caused by humans and/or isn’t catastrophic.

However, this prediction from Gore is just too juicy to ignore. During Gore’s movie, in 2006, he predicted, “Within the decade, there will be no more ‘snows of Kilimanjaro.’”
More than a decade later, the snow is still there, and no reputable scientist I’m aware of expects it to be gone in the immediate future. You can see pictures of the snow-covered mountain by going to the blog operated by the University of Massachusetts’ Climate System Research Center, titled “Kilimanjaro Climate & Glaciers.”

Friday, July 28, 2017

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Sequel' Meets with Skepticism, Even from Left

 Image result for al gore shut up

Nobody is more excited about Friday’s release of Al Gore’s sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth” than climate skeptic Marc Morano, which comes as an ill wind for the movement to stop global warming, not to mention Mr. Gore.

For months, Mr. Morano and his team have tracked the Democrat at advance screenings of “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” ambushing him with stunts such as asking him about his prediction that without drastic measures, the planet would reach a “point of no return” in a decade.
The former vice president made that claim 11 years ago in “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary whose warnings of climate doom propelled Mr. Gore to the forefront of the movement against global warming — while turning him into something of a punchline.

“Al Gore is the gift that keeps on giving,” said Mr. Morano, who runs the skeptical Climate Depot website, a project of the free-market Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Even the left has its doubts about whether the sequel will do more harm than good by reinforcing Mr. Gore’s status as the face of the movement to protect the climate.
Read the full s

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Image result for al gore an idiot

Al Gore At It Again, Gore: 'Some Levels of the Earth System Have Crossed a Point of No Return'

Image result for al gore an idiot

WASHINGTON – Back with a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore reflected on his 2006 prediction that “the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years” if “drastic measures” were not taken to combat climate change.

Gore was asked why he made that prediction in the first film and if he has another prediction to make about climate change now 11 years later.

First of all, we’ve seen a lot of progress since the first movie came out. We have the Paris agreement now. The cost of renewable energy has come down so quickly that people are switching over. Unfortunately, some levels of the Earth system have crossed a point of no return,” Gore said during an interview with PJM on the green carpet of the An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power screening Wednesday evening at the Newseum.

“The big chunk of the West Antarctic ice sheet, for example, makes a considerable amount of sea level rise inevitable in the future. But we still have the ability to stop short of other points of no return and we now have the solutions available to really solve this crisis. We need the political will, but political will is a renewable resource,” he added.

Gore recently said the U.S. still has time to “avoid catastrophe” related to the effects of climate change. PJM asked Gore what specific catastrophe he thinks might occur.
“I’m very optimistic because the entire world has now reached the agreement in Paris to go down to net-zero global warming pollution as early in the second half of this century as possible,” Gore replied. “Many countries are making dramatic changes now and, regardless of President Trump’s statement about the Paris agreement, our governors and mayors and business leaders are stepping up to fill the gap. I think we’re going to meet our obligations under the Paris agreement regardless of what he does.”
Jeff Skoll, a producer of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, said Gore was not predicting the “end of the world” when he said in 2006 that the “point of no return” would be reached within 10 years.
“The 10 year ago prediction wasn’t that it would be the end of the world, it would just be it’s going to be a lot harder 10 years from now if we don’t get started,” he said. “So here’s the good news: we actually have solutions now that we didn’t have 10 years ago. We have solar panels and wind that are less than the price of coal, which has always been, sort of, the lowest energy cost. We have batteries that are about to hit the next generation. We have electric cars that are a lot of fun to drive and are taking off.”

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Princeton Scientist William Happer DESTROYS Bill Nye "the science guy" o...

AL Gore Climate Scientist "The Ocean Ate My Global Warming" How DId It Taste?

If Global Warming Is Real, Why Is Antarctic Ice Growing?

What Ever Happened To The Hole In The Ozone Layer?

The Corrupt History Of Al Gore NASA Temperature History


In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and a 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 5.10.41 AM
Climatologists blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on the global cooling that was occurring.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 5.16.30 AM-down
In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences reported the same thing, and said global cooling is inevitable.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 5.37.32 AM-down
In 1989 Tom Karl, the Director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said Earth had cooled from 1921 to 1979.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 6.57.29 AM-down
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.03.19 AM
In 1981, NASA reported about 0.2C warming from 1921 to 1979.
But by 1999, NASA had changed the 1921 to 1979 cooling which Tom Karl reported into almost 0.3C warming, and had erased most of the 1940 to 1970 cooling.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.10.59 AM
By 2001, NASA had increased the fake 1921 to 1979 warming to more than 0.3C, had further erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and showed about 0.5C warming from 1880 to 1999.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.19.13 AM
NASA now shows 0.5C warming from 1921 to 1979, have completely erased the 1940 to 1970 cooling, and show 1.1C warming from 1880 to 1999. They more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their 2001 graph.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.33.07 AM
The next image overlays the 2016 NASA graph on top of  Hansen’s 1981 NASA graph, at the same scale on both axes. It shows how NASA has cooled the past far outside their own blue error bars. This indicates that they do not understand their own data and are not doing science.
Summarizing : NASA has completely erased the post-1940 cooling. They turned Tom Karl’s 1921-1979 cooling into 0.5C warming, and have more than doubled 1880 to 1999 warming since their own 2001 temperature graph. Malfeasance like this in most professions would have serious consequences for the perpetrators.

The NASA temperature record is wildly unsupportable garbage. Unfortunate that clueless people like Steven Mosher and Brian Cox believe it is gospel truth.
Screen Shot 2016-08-23 at 7.54.22 AM-down

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Hey Al Gore? What You Got To Say About Thins? New Research Calls Global Warming Data 'Not a Valid Representation of Reality'

Image result for AL gore mad

A new report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data generated by NASA and the NOAA found that it's complete bunk.

The paper was peer-reviewed by some notable scientists with some pretty impressive credentials who agree with the report's conclusions. Among them:
Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015; Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.; Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant; B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette; M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; M.A, Economics, University of Michigan; Fulbright Professor of International Economics; Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela; Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group.

Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado; Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado; M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado; B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University.
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer; Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Ph.D.,; Atmospheric Science, Purdue University; M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
The authors of the study, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso, have reached some devastating conclusions:
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified.  It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Hey Al Gore? Are You Seeing The Hand Writing On The Wall? Al Gore Wind and Solar Energy Are Dead Ends

 Renewable energy is the way of the future, we are told.  It is inevitable.  Some renewable energy advocates boldly claim that the world could be powered by renewable energy as early as 2030 – with enough government subsidies, that is.  And of course, the mainstream media play their part, hyping up the virtues of solar and wind energy as the solution to climate change.

In one regard, they are quite right: in terms of generational capacity, wind and solar have grown by leaps and bounds in the last three decades (wind by 24.3% per year since 1990, solar by 46.2% per year since 1990).  However, there are two questions worth asking: (i) are renewable energies making a difference, and (ii) are they sustainable?

To answer the first question: No, wind and solar energy have not made a dent in global energy consumption, despite their rapid growth.  In fact, after thirty years of beefy government subsidies, wind power still meets just 0.46% of earth's total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).  The data include not only electrical energy, but also energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc.  Solar generates even less energy.  Even combined, the figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together contribute less than 1% of Earth's energy output.

Bottom line: Renewables are not making a difference.  It would be far more cost-effective and reasonable to simply invest in more energy-efficient technology.  But of course, doing so would not line the pockets of billionaires like Elon Musk.

To answer the second question: Is renewable energy sustainable?  Is the future wind- and solar-powered?

Looking first at wind energy: Between 2013 and 2014, again using IEA data, global energy demand grew by 2,000 terawatt-hours.  In order to meet this demand, we would need to build 350,000 new 2-megawatt wind turbines – enough to entirely blanket the British Isles.  For context, that is 50% more turbines than have been built globally since the year 2000.  Wind power is not the future; there is simply not enough extraditable energy.  Unfortunately, better technology cannot overcome this problem: turbines can become only so efficient due to the Betz limit, which specifies how much energy can be extracted from a moving fluid.  Wind turbines are very close to that physical limit.
The state of solar energy is only slightly more promising.  Recent findings suggest that humanity would need to cover an equatorial region the size of Spain with solar panels in order to generate enough electricity to meet global demand by 2030.  Not only is this an enormous amount of land that could otherwise be used for agriculture, or left pristine, but it also underestimates the size of the ecological footprint, since only 20% of mankind's energy consumption takes the form of electricity.  Were we to switch to electric vehicles, the area needed would be five times as large.

Even if the world agreed to take this project on, it would not be possible due to resource limitations.  For example, each 1.8-square meter solar panel requires 20 grams of silver to build.  Since there are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer, 11.1 tons of silver is needed per square kilometer of solar panels.  Spain is 506,000 square kilometers.  Covering this much space with solar panels would require 5,616,600 tons of silver.  As it turns out, that is 7.2 times as much silver as is estimated to exist in Earth's crust.  Granted, new technology could mitigate the need for silver, but this same logic applies to dozens of other minerals present in solar panels.  They are simply not feasible on a large scale because they are resource-hungry.

One must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of the same minerals as do solar panels.  Increased competition for a finite supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as the price of electricity.  Of course, this analysis wholly ignores the many other problems with solar and wind energy, such as the problem of intermittency and the hidden systemic risks it entails.

This is not to say wind and solar energy have no uses.  In some cases, they may be preferable to other types of energy.  For example, in remote locations townships and homesteads can benefit greatly from local electricity production, especially since renewable energy does not require fuel.  However, wind and solar energy are unlikely to underpin the global energy supply, so long as more cost-effective and efficient options remain on the table.