Advertisements

Europe Squanders $1.2 Trillion on Wind/Solar Subsidies & Still CO2 Emissions Soar

What matters is seeming green, not actually doing it. And it’s even easier to ride the sanctimonious magic green carpet with $1.2 TRILLION of other people’s (taxpayers) money.

When will this eco-insanity and criminal waste of other people’s money end? And how many more must suffer and even die from fuel poverty, before we (they) learn?

STOP THESE THINGS

burnt Euros

If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then European energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.

In the following pieces, the delicious term ‘irony’ springs to mind: a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result.

The wind cult’s defence for crushing entire industries and whole economies, driving thousands insane with incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, and for the slaughter of millions of birds and bats has run out of legs.

No longer can they claim that total economic, social and environmental havoc is all for the ‘greater good’.

The hundreds of $billions thrown as subsidies at wind and solar have abjectly failed to…

View original post 1,334 more words

Advertisements

Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling – Billions of research dollars are being spent in this single minded process

97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Yet we base, literally, trillions of dollars of other people’s (taxpayers) money on climate change policy, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills/solar) on overheated, predictive models that do not observe climate reality.

CMIP5 IPCC climate models still don’t even ‘model’ clouds, the sun or ocean currents (AMO/PDO).

What possibly could go wrong? /sarc.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/97-of-climate-models-say-that-97-of-climate-scientists-are-wrong/

Watts Up With That?

Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science

By PATRICK J. MICHAELS and David E. Wojick

The Cray Ecoplex NOAA GAEA supercomputer used for modeling at Oak Ridge Lab. Gaea was funded by a $73 million American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 investment through a collaborative partnership between NOAA and the Department of Energy. The Cray Ecoplex NOAA GAEA supercomputer used for modeling at Oak Ridge Lab. GAEA was funded by a $73 million American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 investment through a collaborative partnership between NOAA and the Department of Energy.

What we did

We found two pairs of surprising statistics. To do this we first searched the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use at least one of the words model, modeled or modeling. This shows that there is indeed a widespread use of models in science. No surprise in this.

However, when we filter these results to only include items that also use the term climate change, something strange happens. The number of articles is only reduced to roughly…

View original post 545 more words


Climate Modelling Dominates Climate Science

97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Yet we base, literally, trillions of dollars of other people’s (taxpayers) money on climate change policy, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills/solar) on overheated, predictive models that do not observe climate reality.

CMIP5 IPCC climate models still don’t even ‘model’ clouds, the sun or ocean currents (AMO/PDO).

What possibly could go wrong? /sarc.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/97-of-climate-models-say-that-97-of-climate-scientists-are-wrong/

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-modeling-dominates-climate-science

An interesting study from Pat Michaels and David Wojick:

Computer modeling plays an important role in all of the sciences, but there can be too much of a good thing. A simple semantic analysis indicates that climate science has become dominated by modeling. This is a bad thing.

What we did

We found two pairs of surprising statistics. To do this we first searched the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. There are roughly 900,000 peer reviewed journal articles that use at least one of the words model, modeled or modeling. This shows that there is indeed a widespread use of models in science. No surprise in this.

However, when we filter these results to only include items that also use the term climate change, something strange happens. The number of articles is only reduced to roughly…

View original post 545 more words