« Sandbox - 5dec18 | Main | Sandbox - 8dec18 »

07 December 2018


Todd Juvinall

I recognized the hoax in the very beginning. These "scientists" are grifters. They take the grants, tell the people in charge what they want to hear and submit another grant application.

Bill Tozer

Climate change, weather, water vapor, and CO2...



' These "scientists" are grifters.'

I think to a certain extent they've always had to be. Convincing other people to give you money so that you can write down some results that don't turn a profit is not an easy thing. The modern fixation on made-up social sciences is the champion, though.

It all confuses me a bit in any case. Assuming that man-made greenhouse gases are our single biggest threat from having so darned many people on the planet, there sure are a lot of rules.

. You can't build new nuclear plants.
. Fracking is bad (so let's use coal and imported crude oil)
. Pipelines are bad (so let's use ships)
. The US is bad (at 15% of global output)
. Electric cars will save the day (they're roughly equal to a high MPG car in terms of emissions)
. Importing millions and millions of people from the Third World to the First, where they can make more greenhouse gases, is the highest good.

It's hard to escape the idea that 'climate change' is just a lever to nudge the world to an ill-defined utopia by whatever means.


It's bloody hell to discuss the issue rationally when gibberish like this surfaces.

"Listen to the biggest science heist in history and you will understand the hoax."

I read the transcript. I see no "hoax".

Here's a list of hoaxes.

Compare the Calaveras Skull hoax or Piltdown Man hoax to the climate change "hoax" that you see. Yes, climate "scientists" are guilty of acting guilty... or are they just trying to keep prying eyes from their bad data and other record keeping practices until there's enough "good" data that will be unmistakable in its support for catastrophic warming driven by CO2.

I see the latter. The folks at the center of the "hoax" haven't been burying bones and lying about it for fun. When NASA-GISS's Gavin Schmidt denounced Nir Shaviv's research as "bogus", simulcast on NPR and PBS, in the 2007 IntelligenceSquared debate... he really believed it. He just never believed Shaviv could be correct. Probably still doesn't. He'd have to admit he might have made a multi-billion dollar mistake.

Russell Steele

The First Shots in the Climate Wars

Joel Kotkin

In launching their now successful protests against President Emmanuel Macron’s gas hike, the French gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) have revived their country’s reputation for rebelling against monarchial rule. It may well foreshadow a bitter, albeit largely avoidable, battle over how to address the issue of climate change.

[. . .]

In California the zealous apparatchiks of the Air Resource Board are working overtime to make life worse for most residents — even though the state since 2007 has trailed 35 states in emission declines. California’s gains are further clouded by the fact that the state exports its pollution to other states as well as overseas. And the fires, which produced massive emissions, were made much worse by state’s mismanaged forest policies — and those imposed on federal lands by environmental groups. (Just because Trump says something doesn’t make it de facto untrue).

Ultimately politics may force a shift in these policies. Unlike China, people in democracies sometimes fight back against their governments. Already political leaders in Alberta and Ontario have broken with federal climate policies seen as hurting their provincial economies. In the US many states, including left-leaning Washington and Colorado, rejected such things as carbon taxes and bans on oil drilling, in part due to concerns over energy bills.

Like Macron and leaders elsewhere, the woke folks running California may not escape a citizen rebellion forever. There’s already a major lawsuit against climate policies brought by 200 veteran civil rights leaders on behalf of mostly minority working class voters. In the trial deliberation Attorney General Xavier Becerra has all but admitted that the state does not consider class or race as relevant in climate policies which may not play so well with that part of their own political base.

Hopefully grassroots pressure will shift the policy agenda. Already some environmentalists are approving of trimming the forests. Others are proposing more expenditures on resiliency — coastal walls, dispersed power systems, better storage of water — to meet the challenges presented by climate change.

The world, California included, needs to respond to the climate challenge with a pragmatism based on realism and respect for citizens’ aspirations. No democratic society can be expected to openly impose a radical decline in living standards; that has already been made clear in France, and may be shape politics here in the US, and even here in California, for years to come.

Read the full article HERE.


re: Russell Steele@6:09AM

It's funny how 'climate change' efforts seem to focus so much on transportation. I suppose that it's an attractive source of taxes for a .gov, but it isn't like commercial transport would change much. They tend to be optimized already and they'd simply pass through the cost. I think there's something about personal cars that the Green Libertarians just don't like, so there is that.

In the First World, you can see things ease off over time. Lacking 3rd world immigration, there's ZPG (or NPG), electric cars keep on keepin' on due to their other advantages, the general push for efficiencies will lop off fossil fuel inputs I think.

If you want to save the world, encourage the Chinese to continue cutting their population and carpetbomb sub-Saharan Africa with condoms. Growing an economy by growing the number of people is a ridiculous concept, the doubling rate always lands you in the soup at some point. 10 billion people who sort their trash is a lot more precarious thing than 2.5 billion wasteful people.

Bill Tozer

7:47 am

“I think there's something about personal cars that the Green Libertarians just don't like, so there is that.”

Quite true. There are quite a few people from the East Coast from major cities who have never owned a car. They have bemoaning the West for decades for their “driving culture.” Too much open land for their tastes.

Despite the topic of this thread, I am shifting more focus from the science debate towards the practicality of implementing such fighting Climate Change proposals. Namely the huge gigantic footprint it would take ultitiy companies to achieve 35%-50% renewables by 2030, 2035 or 2040 as theses goals are put on the electric grid. The footprint would be enormous. That alone is not environmental friendly. As mentioned in a Sandbox comment, the largest solar field in CA could only runthe NY subway system, not the city or buildings.

Right now I drive home and park the car. No electricity used. What happens when millions of workers come home and park their cars and plug in their electric cars...after dark when solar does not work? Sure, cover parking lots with overhead solar panels like at the Rood Center or schools since they are closed at night. There is a Community College in LA that replaced athelic fields outdoor rec areas with solar fields that took up all the outdoor open space, lol. The cost of the replacement land was worth more than any return the college would get in a 100 years, lol.

So, what would the implementation of all these Climate Chage Fighting ideas look like where the rubber meets the road? Windmills on every ridge? Heck, they can’t even put up a cell tower on a ridge around here without neighbors and ssociations filing suit.

Bottom line:

Bernie Sanders said last week we have 12 years to save the planet. That would be 2030. 12 years before we pass on to our children a sick planet beyond the point of no return. Gov. Brown said if we reduce the carbon, our forests would be healthy again, no bones about it. So why bother to tidy up our forests? Renewables are the key.

Meanwhile, Japan just signed contacts to build coal fired plants across Asia. As Germany put its Nuke plants off line, they are replacing the energy with coal...and natural gas. Don’t think my turning the lights off when I leave a room, recycling AL cans, turning the heater way down, unplugging the AC unit , or buying an electric buggy is going to compensate for population growth or all the coal fired plants being built by 2040. :).

Where once was a sign in GV that read, “Timber: Nevada County’s Renewable Resource.” How big of a green footprint would it take (in hundreds of thousands of acres) to stop Man Made Climate Change? How many electric cars? How many windmills on ridges? How many parks covered in solar panels?

Please, draw me a picture that I can see.

Bill Tozer

Making Mexico great again.

Well, they better start doing some investment in refineries or else they will become another Venezuela. Only 25% is siphoned off the for corruption. Wonder how much is earmarked for saving the planet?


The comments to this entry are closed.