Global warming and the end

[Interplanner]

And Warmists cherry pick too, though, not about the photos above (and how is the Antarctic on that...?). Here are my examples: those same years is when Hole in the Wall formed.

I have a better one those for picking and shouting: today I was looking at a nice panorama photo of the Hoh and Blue Glaciers in Olympic Nat'l Park, from the north. In my last notes, I mentioned the slope of the floor under these glaciers and how that can be a factor. Well, the photo shows just that. The Hoh is curving for its run straight west and the slope doubles and the glacier thins. The steeper part is subject to the most variation. It means this is one of many glaciers that may recede from time to time without alarm. But the media is sure alarmed this time!

The Russians had maps of the north shore of Canada from the 1800s and then could not get through until the 2nd half of the 1900s (I'm only going on memory about a presentation on that). Normal cycles.

 

[eclipsenow]

And Warmists cherry pick too, though, not about the photos above (and how is the Antarctic on that...?). Here are my examples: those same years is when Hole in the Wall formed.

I have a better one those for picking and shouting: today I was looking at a nice panorama photo of the Hoh and Blue Glaciers in Olympic Nat'l Park, from the north. In my last notes, I mentioned the slope of the floor under these glaciers and how that can be a factor. Well, the photo shows just that. The Hoh is curving for its run straight west and the slope doubles and the glacier thins. The steeper part is subject to the most variation. It means this is one of many glaciers that may recede from time to time without alarm. But the media is sure alarmed this time!

The Russians had maps of the north shore of Canada from the 1800s and then could not get through until the 2nd half of the 1900s (I'm only going on memory about a presentation on that). Normal cycles.

This whole post is an example of cherry-picking. You cherry-pick the one eighth of the world's glaciers that peer-reviewed scientists readily admit are growing in size, and then you go on about this like it's some kind of data-supressing conspiracy! Dude, when the peer-reviewed agencies happily report that these local conditions prevent them from melting, what on earth are you going on about? Where's the conspiracy? What do you actually think you're proving, especially when the same information can be grabbed right out of the ice-experts you appear to be criticising as specialists?

 

[eclipsenow]

Some timely advice (from a few years ago now) by Dr Andrew Cameron, head Ethics lecturer at Moore Bible College of the Sydney Anglicans.

How much scepticism is too much scepticism? We face this problem in every area of life, from whether or not we can trust our work colleagues, to whether our loved ones really love us and whether Christian faith is really true. Too little scepticism is gullible, but there comes a time when too much scepticism is a crippling disconnection from reality.

Humans can be wrong: maybe the problem has been overstated. That is unlikely in the case of the IPCC, which is an inherently conservative body whose processes have the effect of stripping out all but the most agreed-upon claims. But if it turns out that a false alarm has sounded, have we done wrong to respond to an alarm? Of course not; only fools ignore alarms. When an alarm turns out to be false, we may roll our eyes; yet the wise continue to sound alarms and respond. Holdren's position therefore sums up the SIE's current view. An alarm has been sounded, and it is prudent to trust those sounding it and work with them.

One more point is worth adding. Human induced climate change is sad, and there is a place for feeling that sadness. But the best response to this sadness is not denial, but to humbly remember the sovereignty of the God who still loves His world and who regularly helps people to solve the messes we make. Even if humanity's excesses are changing the climate, we may still be people of quiet confidence and hope.

#63 Climate change part 3: How sceptical is too sceptical? | Apologetics | Blogs

 

[berachah]

And now for some real science
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

 

[eclipsenow]

And now for some real science
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

1. It's by Roy Spencer, a known denialist who cannot usually get his rubbish published because he's so 'free-market-fundamentalist' that he doesn't want ANY laws changing fossil fuel use (even though we have the alternative energy systems ready to go!) and even though coal will run out someday (so we'd better get investing in the alternatives before coal peaks) and even though coal kills millions of people through pollution. But hey. The free market is the most important thing here right? We can't let the government REGULATE stuff that kills people, can we?

2. From Skeptical Science:

Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, which we examine at Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal". Some key excerpts from Wagner's editorial:

• I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author’s personal homepage, the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes, and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News, to name just a few.
• Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.
• The editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors
• The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.

Details of Wagner's resignation have been added to the "Roy Spencer finds negative feedback" rebuttal which has the short URL http://sks.to/negspencer

http://sks.to/negspencer
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-editor-resigns-over-fundamentally-flawed-paper-Roy-Spencer.html

 

[Biblewriter]

1. It's by Roy Spencer, a known denialist who cannot usually get his rubbish published because he's so 'free-market-fundamentalist' that he doesn't want ANY laws changing fossil fuel use (even though we have the alternative energy systems ready to go!) and even though coal will run out someday (so we'd better get investing in the alternatives before coal peaks) and even though coal kills millions of people through pollution. But hey. The free market is the most important thing here right? We can't let the government REGULATE stuff that kills people, can we?

2. From Skeptical Science:

Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell['quote]

• The editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors

And even after you have personally seen the unquestionable PROOF that an editor was forced to resign for publishing opposing views, you STILL deny that there is a systematic suppression of opposing views?????

 

[eclipsenow]

1. It's by Roy Spencer, a known denialist who cannot usually get his rubbish published because he's so 'free-market-fundamentalist' that he doesn't want ANY laws changing fossil fuel use (even though we have the alternative energy systems ready to go!) and even though coal will run out someday (so we'd better get investing in the alternatives before coal peaks) and even though coal kills millions of people through pollution. But hey. The free market is the most important thing here right? We can't let the government REGULATE stuff that kills people, can we?

2. From Skeptical Science:

Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell

And even after you have personally seen the unquestionable PROOF that an editor was forced to resign for publishing opposing views, you STILL deny that there is a systematic suppression of opposing views?????

What a strange, sad, weird, paranoid world you must live in.

Yes, I deny a 'systematic suppression of opposing views'. It's called science, and rubbish science that denies the data gets thrown out. The editor wasn't FIRED for publishing anti-climate claptrap: instead he RESIGNED in DISGUST at the fact that that journal was no longer worth working for as it was publishing tabloid junk!

Which leads me to ask whether or not you actually read those paragraphs before you replied? Or are your powers of comprehension diminishing even further? Are you getting enough sleep?

Rubbish assertions that repeat and repeat the same tired old myths just gets thrown out of court. The world is NOT flat, the moon is NOT made of cheese, and Arctic ice is NOT recovering volumes of ice lost over the last 4 decades!

What I find quite disturbing is that YOU are the scientist but you appear completely unable to admit when the data tells you a story that you don't want to hear: the Arctic ice losing volume over decades. You're so ideologically opposed to this idea that you will NOT admit you were simply misinformed when you went on your previous rant. But now that you know the data, this is becoming a question of character, not science.

When are you going to admit the Arctic ice is losing volume?

As I said before...


BTW, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not scientific but anecdotal. It's a historical fact that the Skate went through the ice in 1958, but why?

Because 'leads' happen, even in pre-warming 'normal' climates. Arctic ice is constantly in motion, and stresses from wind and even the rotation of the earth can crack it open, and create 'leads'. These cracks can be a couple of metres through to hundreds of metres wide. This is all normal, even in the 1958 when the Skate, not the Nautilus, broke through the ice at the North Pole. (If you're going to use an anecdote instead of science, at least try to the get the story right. There's more at the Skate wiki here).

The USS Skate in August, 1958.

Now what this story DOES NOT give us is any science. It's history. But as far as science goes, this is what we call an anecdote. It's about as scientific as sticking your head out the window and saying "Wow, today sure is cold. Maybe there isn't any global warming?" Or even looking at the sun rise and set and concluding the sun moves around the earth. It's that bad.

What you need to prove is that the total sea ice volume then was roughly the same as today's to show that there's really no problem today. Or better, that the sea ice has vastly increased over 1958. But every scientific agency we investigate shows otherwise. The multi-year thickness is down, down, down. What Denialist's do is cherry-pick the data they want and scream "LOOK! This month the ice is GROWING! Isn't that amazing as it totally disproves climate change!"

Denialist's are either really not very informed at all, confusing annual 'seasons' with something that takes decades to measure like 'climate'. Heads up: there's also this thing called 'weather' guys. You might want to buy a dictionary! But I think this is not sheer stupidity, but a sinister and intentional misdirection put out by Denialists. And to think some here swallowed it!

Now, back to reality...

 

[eclipsenow]

What were you all doing 120,000 years ago?

The Arctic hasn’t been this hot for 120,000 years | Grist

 

[eclipsenow]

What we knew about climate change back in the 1980's. How did all this pan out?

Global Warming: What We Knew in 82 - YouTube

 

[berachah]

So thats how it works.....

Somebody has an opposing view, so you give him a tag, which if you use in a derogatory manner often enough you hope that alone will,eventually discredit him and his view.

At the end of the day the banksters (including Al Gore) hope to get their carbon commodity to trade and make zillions. The rest is rubbish.

False data being used,
Legitimate data being ignored, distorted or replaced,
Modelling that nobody is allowed to analyze and scrutinize,
Opposing views, rediculed and shamed into silence,
have all become routine in this dash for cash frenzy..

 

[eclipsenow]

So thats how it works.....

Somebody has an opposing view, so you give him a tag, which if you use in a derogatory manner often enough you hope that alone will,eventually discredit him and his view.

At the end of the day the banksters (including Al Gore) hope to get their carbon commodity to trade and make zillions. The rest is rubbish.

False data being used,
Legitimate data being ignored, distorted or replaced,
Modelling that nobody is allowed to analyze and scrutinize,
Opposing views, rediculed and shamed into silence,
have all become routine in this dash for cash frenzy..

Not at all my friend. Science works by analysing data. The name calling only starts after someone stubbornly refuses to accept the data, and continues to tell everyone the moon is made of cheese. Take Biblewriter. He's actually a scientist. Cool hey? Except his ideologies prohibit him from accepting the data. So apparently a submarine breaking through some ice somewhere undoes everything we can see from satellite measurements of the Arctic Ice volumes over decades. That's what he'd rather believe. Oh, and the rest is all an unprovable 'conspiracy'. Yeah, right. And the moon is made of cheese.

But please note that you seem to enjoy the name calling as well, don't you?

At the end of the day the banksters (including Al Gore) hope to get their carbon commodity to trade and make zillions. The rest is rubbish.

So much for your objectivity. Ooops.


But here's the real risk! Because climate change is real science with the real laws of physics in the real world (and not in hyper-conspiracy theories on the net!), there's an enormous financial challenge facing investors. The carbon bubble. Your superannuation is NOT safe from this problem unless you Divest from fossil fuels, NOW!

People have been lambasting Al Gore here, so I'll throw some Gore back at you. I happen to agree with him here.

The world is on the brink of the "largest bubble ever" in finance, because of the undisclosed value of high-carbon assets on companies' balance sheets, and investment managers who fail to take account of the risks are failing in their fiduciary duty to shareholders and investors, Al Gore and his investment partner, David Blood, have said.


"Stranded carbon assets" such as coal mines, fossil fuel power stations and petrol-fuelled vehicle plants represent at least $7tn on the books of publicly listed companies, and about twice as much again is owned by private companies, state governments and sovereign wealth funds.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/01/gore-warns-carbon-bubble

 

[eclipsenow]

Oh, and as for Interplanner and his glaciers?

"The IPCC report also found that between 1993 and 2009 about 275bn tonnes of ice were melting from the world’s glaciers every year."

Climate scientists want business leader to apologise for 'serious slur' | Science | theguardian.com

But that would be a conspiracy of misinformation, wouldn't it? Cherry-picking, because we all know that the ice is gathering for the next ice age, the moon is made of cheese, and we can't ever trust publicly funded scientists ever!

(After watching the ABC's Catalyst on Statin drugs, I'm wondering if we can EVER trust the science from corporations! We've got to remove the profit motive from science if we're going to get the truth. The world pays $25b a year for drugs they just don't NEED!)

 

[berachah]

Eclipsenow,

Firstly let me say that the facts behind the global fraud committed by banks and financial institutions is beyond debate and they are rightly called banksters. (And no one is suggesting discrediting all their views simply because of their ongoing fraud (as you seem to propose for people that reject the false science of the IPCC). The truly amazing fact is that no one has gone to jail for this massive fraud and abuse of the capitalist system. I rightly call these banksters because it is clear they operate in the same manner as the mobsters of the early 20th century and indeed seem to be untouchable.

So untouchable that they have been encouraged on this next fraud (anthropogenic global warming) which surpasses any fraud of the past. Needless to say the same people and companies have lined up to fleece humanity again. This is indisputable fact!

The only reason why carbon aligned investment is at risk is because of the deceptive policies of the discredited IPCC (who are funded by the same banksters) They are putting people's super at risk by their false science. Meanwhile China and India are building 100's of coal fired power stations which should protect all coal aligned investments for years to come in spite of the hysterical claims of the IPCC. But I guess if you control the media its quite easy to change policies of countries without real science being called upon. (repeat a lie often enough.....)

The reality is that man's impact on climate is frankly insignificant. The sun goes through cycles and greater activity just as it has throughout time. Right now Nasa ia actually disputing the claims of their own climate branch, stating that ice levels in the poles are thicker than ever.... Alarmists then defend by saying colder than usual air is being directed over the poles causing this phenomenon but then reject the reality of warmer air being directed over land masses... You just cant win with these liars.

Time will show this whole global warming drama to be a money making hoax. Those that are perpetuating the myth are set to make trillions of dollars. And that is the end of the matter. Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[eclipsenow]

Eclipsenow,

Firstly let me say that the facts behind the global fraud committed by banks and financial institutions is beyond debate and they are rightly called banksters. (And no one is suggesting discrediting all their views simply because of their ongoing fraud (as you seem to propose for people that reject the false science of the IPCC). The truly amazing fact is that no one has gone to jail for this massive fraud and abuse of the capitalist system. I rightly call these banksters because it is clear they operate in the same manner as the mobsters of the early 20th century and indeed seem to be untouchable.

I think I'm onto your argument strategy here, but it won't work. You see, you need the ruby slippers first. It only works if you tap them together each time you say "Fraud, fraud, fraud" while you wish with all your heart! Good luck with that!

So untouchable that they have been encouraged on this next fraud (anthropogenic global warming) which surpasses any fraud of the past. Needless to say the same people and companies have lined up to fleece humanity again. This is indisputable fact!

Ruby slippers still required.

The science is sound: we KNOW what CO2 does. Do you defy the basic physics any physics lab on the planet can demonstrate? Do you deny its radiative forcing capacity? Seriously dude, CO2 redirects heat wavelength energy. This has been proved again and again and again. It's like the boiling point of water. It's an established fact you look up in a book rather than re-test it, but if you ask nicely I'm sure a climate lab would demonstrate it for you. (Yeah, you, being open minded to even bother talking to a real climatologist. See what I did there? That's my own wishful thinking coming out. )

They are putting people's super at risk by their false science.

You talk about science, but only share your wishful thinking, your cognitive dissonance, because the reality of climate change frightens you.

Meanwhile China and India are building 100's of coal fired power stations which should protect all coal aligned investments for years to come in spite of the hysterical claims of the IPCC.

Yes, they are building many but the rate is slowing due to local pollution concerns. Coal kills tens of thousands every year, even in America. If any other industry did that they'd have to pay, wouldn't they? Why does coal get out of that free? Oh yeah, because coal owns so many Republicans and Tea Party nutters.

But I guess if you control the media its quite easy to change policies of countries without real science being called upon. (repeat a lie often enough.....)

If only it were so. If ONLY it were so. I WISH climate science controlled the media! But sadly, Fox news and climate deniers like Australia's Andrew Bolt are always asked onto a show for 'balance'. Sadly, there is truth, and there is fraud, and offering Denialism a place in the public dialogue is not 'balanced' but unbalanced.

The reality is that man's impact on climate is frankly insignificant.

Incorrect as the Radiative Forcing Equation shows.

The sun goes through cycles and greater activity just as it has throughout time.

The sheer arrogance and shallow-mindedness of Denialists amazes me. As IF climatologists haven't studied solar effects. Good one! You must be wearing those ruby slippers of yours out by now, you've clacked them together so many times!

Right now Nasa ia actually disputing the claims of their own climate branch, stating that ice levels in the poles are thicker than ever.... Alarmists then defend by saying colder than usual air is being directed over the poles causing this phenomenon but then reject the reality of warmer air being directed over land masses... You just cant win with these liars.

Thanks for the links to the evidence, great stuff. Really convincing. (I can see what you're doing there. )

Time will show this whole global warming drama to be a money making hoax. Those that are perpetuating the myth are set to make trillions of dollars. And that is the end of the matter. Anything else is irrelevant.

Money certainly is influential, which is why it funds the kinds of Fox news and Tea Party Republicans you've no doubt been listening to. Denialist's even BRAG about how such a small number of them are having such a big effect, through their careful strategy of misinformation and hatching conspiracy theories. And you've just swallowed them all hook, line, and stinker.

 

[berachah]

I think I'm onto your argument strategy here, but it won't work. You see, you need the ruby slippers first. It only works if you tap them together each time you say "Fraud, fraud, fraud" while you wish with all your heart! Good luck with that!

It appears the only thing you are apparently on(to) is the abuse of strong medication...

Unlike you I listen to both sides of the argument. You seem outraged that someone might offer a different viewpoint to your doctrine. (And the IPCC modelling is not science even by the most stretched of imaginations) There are thousands of (silenced/marginalised) scientists that disagree with your bizarre and unscientific theories but they have been denied a voice. You wont get here no matter how incensed and abusive you become.

I previously sent the link about Nasa which you have chosen to ignore.

I advise those interested to below site that has a lot of reader friendly and relevant info on this whole matter. And yes we know you have discounted the site already because it does not agree with your opinion. JoNova

 

[eclipsenow]

It appears the only thing you are apparently on(to) is the abuse of strong medication...

This character attack is against forum policy. My 'Dorothy' stuff was just playfully saying that your post seemed to include a lot of wishful thinking, but you're just getting abusive now.

Unlike you I listen to both sides of the argument.

I did, years ago. I was nearly convinced by "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that the whole thing was a myth. I did some research. That 'documentary' turned out to be the biggest bunch of lies ever complied into one hour! It also included the claim that the SUN did it (a claim you made but have not verified), then the contradictory claim that IT WAS NOT HAPPENING (do these Denialist's even listen to themselves as they contradict themselves so frequently) and then that it was all a conspiracy to stop Africa developing, and then it was all a conspiracy to TAX US and GIVE AFRICA all our money?!!! (That's Monkton's madness). Are these people for real?

1. You did not provide the NASA link in this most recent discussion. I'm not going back 20 or so pages to look for it. If you have an argument, it's up to you to provide the data. I'm not doing your job for you.

2. You did not debunk the Radiative Forcing properties of CO2.

There are thousands of (silenced/marginalised) scientists that disagree with your bizarre and unscientific theories but they have been denied a voice. You wont get here no matter how incensed and abusive you become.

Then why aren't they published in the peer reviewed literature? I'll tell you why: they're largely influenced by the Denialist myths and don't understand that these myths have been debunked again and again by legitimate Climate scientists, many of whom are your brothers and sisters in Christ. And yet you feel fine attacking their character and telling us all climatologists are part of a giant, global conspiracy.

I previously sent the link about Nasa which you have chosen to ignore.

I doubt that: show me the post and I'll see if I replied.

I advise those interested to below site that has a lot of reader friendly and relevant info on this whole matter. And yes we know you have discounted the site already because it does not agree with your opinion. JoNova

Before being duped by un-peer-reviewed myths pushed on sites like this, I invite everyone to check out the following Denialist myths being DEBUNKED at Skeptical science.

Berachah has already shown he cannot link to peer-reviewed material and has no respect for the many Christians involved in climate science. (John Haughton, the previous head of the IPCC, is an evangelical Christian). Berachah would have you throw out your brains as you follow his politically driven anti-science. I ask you to read the peer-reviewed responses to the following Denialist myths.

Here is the top 10 of 165 Denialist myths debunked at Skeptical Science. See them all at: Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says. This site was founded by a Christian concerned for our stewardship of this good planet God has given us.

It goes "Myth" then peer-reviewed response.
"Climate's changed before"
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

2"It's the sun"
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

3"It's not bad"
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

4"There is no consensus"
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

5"It's cooling"
The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.

6"Models are unreliable"
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

7"Temp record is unreliable"
The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

8"Animals and plants can adapt"
Global warming will cause mass extinctions of species that cannot adapt on short time scales.

9"It hasn't warmed since 1998"
For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

10"Antarctica is gaining ice"
Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

 

[eclipsenow]

World Bank dumps coal!

If you want to keep your superannuation afloat, invest in renewables and nuclear.

World Bank kicks coal, but will the rest of the world follow?


Capitalist ideation prefers conspiracy theories to science!
This has been empirically measured and proven.

Background

Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”
Methodology/Principal findings

We conducted a propensity weighted internet-panel survey of the U.S. population and show that conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predict rejection of climate science, in contrast to their weaker and opposing effects on acceptance of vaccinations. The two worldview variables do not predict opposition to GM. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, predicts rejection of all three scientific propositions, albeit to greatly varying extents. Greater endorsement of a diverse set of conspiracy theories predicts opposition to GM foods, vaccinations, and climate science.
Conclusions

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested. We highlight the manifold cognitive reasons why conspiracist ideation would stand in opposition to the scientific method. The involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science has implications for science communicators.

PLOS ONE: The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

 

[eclipsenow]

Just to show you all that I am actually optimistic about our future technology, this is my view on the dangers of nuclear power (the only real alternative to fossil fuels).

Meltdown shmeltdown!! The EBR2 (an Integral Fast Reactor prototype built in the 1960's) would *easily* have survived a Fukushima-style power outage. A tidal wave knocks out your cooling systems? Big deal!

"Argonne's advanced fast reactor (AFR) has demonstrated its passive safety conclusively on a working prototype. "Back in 1986, we actually gave a small prototype advanced fast reactor a couple of chances to melt down," says Argonne nuclear engineer Pete Planchon, who led the 1986 tests. "It politely refused both times." "
Passively safe reactors rely on nature to keep them cool

The real crime was that the IFR program was cut by Clinton in the 90's, and that the world' doesn't have GE's waste-eating S-PRISM model commercialised yet. The technology is there, just waiting for us all to stop day dreaming and get real about our climate emergency.
Experimental Breeder Reactor II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Interplanner]

German scientists say that alternative energy will never provide more than half a percent of need. That's after 20 years of trying.

Another new report says that there is a fatal flaw in wind energy devices, which is their vibration stress or harmonics. The use will peak and succumb and the replacement cost is not built in. Perhaps that is why the recent video on US news of the failed one just being pulled down, not repaired.

A new island just formed near Japan. Did Al factor that (ongoing thermal activity) into the ocean levels, either the level or the temperature? (note that it's in the north Pacific, and drifts to the American coast.) If we know all that kind of thing, why did the US weather service have to delay its snowpack survey in Washington state 2 years ago by one month to May 1 because "there was so much snow that most access roads were blocked." It was the first time since the program began that that was ever necessary. In 2012! The very year/decade/half century when it ought to have been otherwise! Nay, nay, its just anecdotal nonsense. It's "insensitive to warming"!

The nice thing about theories is they are always right:

Biologist to GP Dr Gibson in Gaskell's WIVES AND DAUGHTERS (19th cent.): "You really should be reading Lamarke. You will see that animals adapt over time."

Gibson: "Ahh, duck's webbed feet, etc. But you see, you're talking to a doctor. I've been studying membranes for 40 years now, and they have to work perfect the first time."

Just old insensitive-to-warming, Interplanner.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry, but another frightful anecdote just broke: most northwest ski areas opened 2 weeks before normal. How insensitive can they be? I think BoyBama better regulate them, too, because think of all the warming caused by people driving there early!