- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,046
- Reactions
- 12,613
If you have evidence that the NASA data is wrong, please present it.
Everybody gets their info from the same place(s). How the data is tortured depends on bias.
For instance you are showing a strong bias in your post by uncritical acceptance of a graph, that the data is negative and by regurgitating the malodourous ad hominem taunt of "denier" for anyone that doesn't share your bias.
If you have evidence that the NASA data is wrong, please present it.
If you have evidence that the NASA data is wrong, please present it.
Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA | Real Science
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-...
The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to ..... They don't want to believe the models have been wrong.
How Forbes got it wrong: real climate change data from NASA
www.themanufacturer.com/.../how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-...
Jun 2, 2015 - The article in Forbes titled 'Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat' based its entire argument around a single ...
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming ...
www.forbes.com/.../new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming...
Jul 27, 2011 - Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife. NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far ...
Is NASA Wrong About Global Warming? Ex-Employees ...
www.natureworldnews.com/.../nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-...
Apr 16, 2013 - Comprised largely of ex-NASA engineers and scientists, the team acknowledges in their report that "climate science is not one of our data ...
NASA GISS caught changing past data again – violates ...
wattsupwiththat.com/.../nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violat...
Sep 26, 2012 - In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, ..... Every one knows the real data is wrong and must be adjusted to fit the models ...
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-...
Jan 17, 2015 - Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. ... Data: Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ...
Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global ...
www.politifact.com/.../foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-...
Jun 25, 2014 - Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming .... saying he was very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote.
NASA's Own Data Discredits Its Predictions of Antarctic Doom
www.thenewamerican.com/.../20915-nasa-s-own-data-discredits-its-predi...
May 20, 2015 - However, other NASA data released in May dispels this gloomy ... Fortunately, Gore has been wrong before and was wrong about this claim.
This is climate skeptics' latest argument about melting polar ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-w...
May 27, 2015 - Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at ... is climate skeptics' top argument about Antarctica ”” and why it's wrong].
I'd trust an organisation that can put a vehicle on a shiny dot in the night sky over a bunch of recalcitrants who have done nothing except argue for the sake of arguing.
So you are uncritically accepting of anything NASA says?
Hey, you know, everybody's talkin' about the good old days, right
Everybody, the good old days, the good old days
Well, let's talk about the good old days
Come to think of it as, as bad as we think they are
these will become the good old days for our children, hum
Why don't we, ah
Try to remember that kind of September, when
When life was slow and oh, so mellow, hum
Try to remember, and if you remember then follow
Oh, why does it seem the past is always better
We look back and think
The winters were warmer
The grass was greener
The skies were bluer
And smiles were bright
Can it be that it was all so simple then
Or has time rewritten every line
And if we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me
Would we
Could we
....... etc
I thought you smarter than to personify the moderate case with our favourite Lord.
So you are uncritically accepting of anything NASA says?
The peronal validation of Hansen must be particularly galling... but suffer in ways we all must.
Ahh, with regard the findings that NASA puts out all are under peer scrutiny; Alas the internal machinations of Multi national oil companies studies that have come to the same conclusions, precipitate disinformation campaigns that have deeply vexed the feeble scientific limitations of the hoi polloi... funnily enough their market.
The peronal validation of Hansen must be particularly galling... but suffer in ways we all must.
Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy
In less than 10 years the country has slashed its carbon footprint and lowered electricity costs, without government subsidies. Delegates at the Paris summit can learn much from its success
Renewables now provide 94.5% of Uruguay’s electricity. Photograph: Mariana Greif Etchebehere/Bloomberg/Getty Images
As the world gathers in Paris for the daunting task of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, one small country on the other side of the Atlantic is making that transition look childishly simple and affordable.
In less than 10 years, Uruguay has slashed its carbon footprint without government subsidies or higher consumer costs, according to the national director of energy, Ramón Méndez .
In fact, he says that now that renewables provide 94.5% of the country’s electricity, prices are lower than in the past relative to inflation. There are also fewer power cuts because a diverse energy mix means greater resilience to droughts.
It was a very different story just 15 years ago. Back at the turn of the century oil accounted for 27% of Uruguay’s imports and a new pipeline was just about to begin supplying gas from Argentina.
.....There are no technological miracles involved, nuclear power is entirely absent from the mix, and no new hydroelectric power has been added for more than two decades. Instead, he says, the key to success is rather dull but encouragingly replicable: clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sector.
As a result, energy investment – mostly for renewables, but also liquid gas – in Uruguay over the past five years has surged to $7bn, or 15% of the country’s annual GDP. That is five times the average in Latin America and three times the global share recommended by climate economist Nicholas Stern.
“What we’ve learned is that renewables is just a financial business,” Méndez says. “The construction and maintenance costs are low, so as long as you give investors a secure environment, it is a very attractive.”
...Méndez attributed Uruguay’s success to three key factors: credibility (a stable democracy that has never defaulted on its debts so it is attractive for long-term investments); helpful natural conditions (good wind, decent solar radiation and lots of biomass from agriculture); and strong public companies (which are a reliable partner for private firms and can work with the state to create an attractive operating environment).
....But, perhaps, the biggest lesson that Uruguay can provide to the delegates in Paris is the importance of strong decision-making. As has been the case at countless UN climate conferences, Uruguay was once paralysed by a seemingly endless and rancorous debate about energy policy.
All that changed when the government finally agreed on a long-term plan that drew cross-party support.
“We had to go through a crisis to reach this point. We spent 15 years in a bad place,” Méndez said. “But in 2008, we launched a long-term energy policy that covered everything … Finally we had clarity.”
That new direction made possible the rapid transition that is now reaping rewards.
As delegates at a Paris summit haggle over how to curb global warming, the role of nuclear energy in limiting climate-changing emissions is the subject of fierce debate between champions and critics of atomic power.
Energy production accounts for 35 percent of the greenhouse-gas emissions that fuel global warming, with 25 percent coming from electricity generation alone.
Unlike polluting coal, oil and gas-fired power plants, nuclear facilities do not generate emissions by producing electricity.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...he-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-changeNuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them
Radioactive material at the Opal nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney.
James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley
Friday 4 December 2015 00.00 AEDT
Last modified on Friday 4 December 2015 03.59 AEDT
Comments
414
Save for later
All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history and investigate future scenarios.
We have become so concerned about humanity’s slow response to this challenge that we have decided we must clearly set out what we see as the only viable path forward. As scientists we do not take advocacy positions lightly, but we believe the magnitude of climate change now presents an unprecedented moral challenge that compels us to speak out.
To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed. The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step, but unless there are strong measures to reduce emissions beyond 2030, global emissions would remain at a high level, practically guaranteeing that young people inherit a climate running out of their control. A new and intensified approach is clearly needed.
Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower – both commonly counted as renewable energy sources – can have terrible environmental consequences.
However the main point of the story was showing that in fact moving quickly to a renewable energy based economy can be done far more quickly and more economically than the current alarmists suggest. The process of a united political approach, a competent public/private partnership and the best mix of technologies (suited to the local situation) seems to be the key.
View attachment 65214
And you seriously think that is going to happen in Australia??
I can't stop laughing at the COMPETENT public/private partnership gag
(that will be a challenge but perhaps we need to set up competitive public utilities to make sure private operators do the right thing...)
Oh yes, like Medibank Private was suppose to moderate the demands of the private health funds, and where is it now ?
Point of order basilio. The moonbat is a writer with a degree in zoology, not a climate scientist... And I'm still gobsmacked at how Hansen has avoided being committed.
Carry on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?