Al Gore has put a price tag on ending global warming and it is enormous. According to Constitution a group of executives calling themselves the Energy Transition Commission (ETC) want some countries (think USA) to spend up to $600B per year for 20 years on this imaginary problem. They say that an additional $300B to $600B per year does not pose a major macroeconomic challenge to meet the goals of the Paris agreement. Continue reading “Global Warming: Gore’s Huge Cost Estimate – Kill this Plan in its Cradle”
The data I show here demonstrates the claims by CLIMATE ONE and their parent organization, the Commonwealth Club, are refuted by data and publications in the public domain. Claims of the “Settled Science” of catastrophic warming are without foundation, if you look at the data. In science, the debate is never over and the science is never settled.
Anti-fossil fuel SCC relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor
“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said. “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.
Data denier, [James] “Hansen says the science is settled and there are no data which contradict the alarmist view of imminent catastrophic [global mean] temperature change and tipping points. Hansen can’t accept the fact that measurements, observations, facts and data show that present temperatures are quite ordinary and that the rates of temperature change are among the smallest of the past 10,000 years, despite present CO2 concentrations.”
This item describes interactions between Bob Endlich and data denier, James Hansen, at The Santa Fe Institute in 2013 during, and subsequent to, a presentation there by Hansen. In response to a question about inconsistencies between the measured data and Hansen’s alarmist contentions, Hansen chose to deny the data. At the time, Hansen was the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; he has since retired from that post. We are reproducing Bob’s account of the exchange here for the archives.
A short piece in Science (AAAS) by Kelly Servick (Mar 6, 2017) ignores carbon dioxide in explaining how increased sunlight has caused U.S. corn yields to grow over the past 3 decades. Servick says the increased sunlight was due to decreased atmospheric aerosol content and that projections by global climate models indicate that this will not continue into the future due to rising temperatures and drought. Interestingly, the positive effects of carbon dioxide on plant drought tolerance and fertilizing effect were not mentioned.