Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

Liberals & Climate Alarmists (Al Gore, Ocasio-Cortez, etc)

More reasons why I am not a Liberal nor a Democrat, sheesh!










21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.  (Deuteronomy 18 )








***

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Democrat's Next Target: Your Stove!

More bad news from Political Party of Inconvenience and Confusion (how many genders exist??). You either laugh, or you cry, or you do both, YIPES!!!

Dems want No guns, No meat-eating, No borders; your baby can be killed at your convenience, Illegals come first, and now this --no cooking except on what they deem an acceptable appliance. And I had just recently installed my beautiful gas stove, for Pete's sake!!



The Next Target 

in the Democrat's Climate-Change Power Grab: Your Stove

Dozens of cities in liberal-leaning states such as California, Washington, and Massachusetts are studying proposals to ban or limit the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings. The movement opens a new front in the fight against climate change that could affect everything from heating systems in skyscrapers to stoves in suburban homes.


Berkeley, California, in July became the first U.S. city to pass an ordinance banning gas systems in new buildings, and it may soon be followed by many others, according to interviews with local officials, activists and industry groups. Los Angeles and Seattle are among those considering laws that could drastically reduce natural gas consumption.
“Berkeley is the opening salvo,” said Bruce Nilles, managing director of think tank Rocky Mountain Institute’s building electrification program.
Local officials and environmentalists cite mounting evidence that unburned gas leaking from pipes and compressor stations harms the climate more than carbon dioxide, the byproduct of burned fossil fuels.
Many environmentalists until recently considered natural gas a “bridge fuel” to a future of renewable energy because gas burns cleaner than oil or coal. Now local officials are stepping into what they call a federal regulatory void under the administration of President Donald Trump, who argues fossil-fuel restrictions needlessly damage the economy.
They want buildings switched to electric power from a grid that is increasingly powered by renewable energy. U.S. utilities currently derive about 35% of their electricity from gas but have also nearly doubled their use of renewable fuels in the past decade, from 9% to 17% of all power, according to the EIA.

Residential and commercial buildings account for about 12% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. They are also crucial to natural gas sales: Direct gas consumption amounted to about 8.45 trillion cubic feet in 2018, rivaling the 10.63 tcf used by utilities to power the grid, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
If gas bans in buildings become widespread, they could upend the business models of some of the world’s biggest energy companies, which are investing billions of dollars to produce and ship more natural gas on the belief the fuel will play a key role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy.

Big gas producers including Exxon MobilShell, and BP, argue gas improves the environment by replacing dirtier fuels such as coal.
Natural gas companies alarmed by the trend are pushing back with ad campaigns and research promoting gas as a superior cooking fuel and an affordable option in a country that has become the world’s top gas producer.
“We are trying to get ahead of it,” said Stuart Saulters, the Director of Government Affairs of the American Public Gas Association. “We think there is a chance this can domino.”
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the U.S. oil-and-gas industry, rejects claims that natural gas is bad for the environment, arguing its increased use has helped cut U.S. carbon emissions. Spokesman Reid Porter said that the industry is also limiting methane emissions with improved leak-prevention technology, citing DATA from the Environmental Protection Agency showing a decline in recent years.

LOS ANGELES, SEATTLE, MINNEAPOLIS RETHINK NATURAL GAS
Nilles, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, said some 50 California municipalities are studying new limits on natural gas in buildings, including Silicon Valley-area cities such as Palo Alto, Sunnyvale and San Jose, the nation’s 10th most populous city. Los Angeles set a goal in April of powering all its buildings with renewable energy by 2050, starting with new buildings by 2030.
San Luis Obispo last week became the second city, after Berkeley, to pass a law limiting gas installations in new buildings. Kate Harrison, the Berkeley council member who spearheaded the city’s gas ban, said she has been contacted by dozens of cities studying similar measures in states including Massachusetts and Minnesota.
Officials in the Boston suburb of Brookline, for instance, will vote in November on a measure to ban gas hookups in new buildings. In Minnesota, three-quarters of the state’s residential heating – largely fueled by gas – would have to convert to electricity to meet the state’s goal of an 80% carbon emissions reduction by 2050, according to a report by the McKnight Foundation, a philanthropic organization.

New York City in April also passed a bill requiring buildings of more than 25,000 square feet to cut greenhouse emissions 40% by 2030 – a standard expected to reduce natural gas use.
Seattle City Council Member Mike O’Brien is working on legislation to ban gas hookups in new buildings. The fuel, he said, “is odorless and invisible but has a huge impact on the climate.”
HOT SHOWERS AND CRACKLING FIRES
The American Public Gas Association’s ad campaign is aimed at 25- to 44-year-old homeowners with incomes of more than $75,000, according to a slide presentation about it seen by Reuters. It features Facebook and Instagram ads showing people enjoying hot showers, cooking on gas stoves and relaxing by a firepit. Campaign director Saulters said it was one of the group’s most expensive promotional efforts to date, without disclosing its cost.

In July, a group called Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions – formed by Sempra Energy unit SoCal Gas – held a press conference with Southern California restaurant owners who favor gas stoves.
“We need instant, really strong fire,” said Charles Lu, the owner of a Chinese restaurant chain who participated in the event. “Otherwise, I think it will kill the business.”

Wealthier homeowners may also resist electrification of kitchens and fireplaces, according to Nic Dunfee of environmental consulting firm TRC Companies Inc, who oversees an incentive program to rebuild homes in wildfire-stricken Sonoma County. Builders are pushing back on proposed mandates for electric stoves, he said at a recent meeting of California energy regulators.
“They don’t feel that they are able to sell a home that doesn’t have natural-gas cooking,” he said.








25.02.2020
***

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Science Matters: Paris Climate Agreement

What's in the Paris Agreement?
* Grand pronouncements, VAGUE specifics

* $100 trillion spent for only 0.3 Farenheit temperature reduction by end of the century


* Watch the short video below for a much better, measurable SOLUTION to global warming



ETA:
On August 4, 2017, the Trump Administration delivered an official notice to the United Nations that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it is legally eligible to do so. The formal notice of withdrawal cannot be submitted until the agreement is in force for 3 years for the US, in 2019. In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States is 4 November 2019. If it chooses to withdraw by way of withdrawing from the UNFCCC, notice could be given immediately (the UNFCCC entered into force for the US in 1994), and be effective one year later. - wikipedia




UNFCC: Paris Agreement





21.07.05.18



************

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Science Matters: Temperatures Rising?

NOPE, temps are not rising.  Planet Earth is actually on course for a little "Ice Age" in the next few years.  Surprise, Surprise.  Read all about it below:





Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.
This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years...

Research shows a natural cooling cycle that occurs every 230 years began in 2014 and will send temperatures plummeting even further by 2019.
Scientists are also expecting a “huge reduction” in solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 that will cause thermometers to crash.
Both cycles suggest Earth is entering a global cooling cycle that could have devastating consequences for global economy, human life and society as we know it.
If predictions of the world-wide big freeze come true, the plot to 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow would not be far from reality during winter. ...
from the  Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)



Link to article:  Earth has Not Warmed in the Past 19 Years






18.07.05.2018

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Science Matters, Part 3: What IS the Scientific Method?

FYI:  How to fairly assess what any Scientist says or claims --

Identifying 8 necessary criteria for a work to be considered useful science:



What is the “Scientific method”?
March 1, 2017's March for Science calls for “robustly funded” science and “political leaders and policymakers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest.”  But is this just an attempt to dress up the marchers’ political beliefs as science? And what do they mean by science?
Fortunately for those who care, there is a remarkable level of agreement in the writings of scientific pioneers such as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Benjamin Franklin on the nature of the scientific method. That agreement is also reflected in the definition provided by the Oxford English Dictionary.
We have expanded on the established definition and identified eight necessary criteria for a work to be considered useful science. The criteria include objectivity and full disclosure. We expect that most scientists would agree with these criteria as obviously true and important.
The pioneers of science charted the way by describing how to comply with the criteria. To be objective, according to Newton, the study should compare all reasonable hypotheses by using a fair and balanced experimental design.
We have summarized the eight criteria on a one-page checklist (available at guidelinesforscience.com  ). You can easily refer to it to assess whether something you are looking at is a work of science. By using the checklist, you do not have to depend on an authority to tell you “this is what the science says.” Knowing and agreeing with the criteria in the checklist does not help. To be useful, the checklist must be used.
The checklist is concerned only with the scientific method, so one does not need to be an expert in the field or topic to use it. In fact, experts may have difficulty rating the scientific compliance of works in their own field.  They are likely to be biased against findings that challenge conventional wisdom.
We found that the ratings of raters who did not use the checklist were unreliable. Their ratings differed substantially from those derived using the checklist. When faculty and students raters used the checklist, their ratings were remarkably consistent. The checklist is available at guidelinesforscience.com .
The checklist is badly needed. One cannot rely on the fact that a purported discovery was published in a high-status scientific publication. When we used the checklist to rate papers published in leading scientific journals, we found less than one percent of them to be compliant with the scientific method.
We suggest that you try out the checklist at the March for Science rallies. Show your respect for the scientific method and, as Newton emphasized, be willing to consider alternatives. Be fair in evaluating alternative hypotheses. You have to ask yourself the question, “Can I imagine any evidence that would prove my favoured hypothesis is wrong?” If you can’t, you are not approaching the subject with an open mind. You also fail Newton’s criteria for understanding science.
Speakers should comply with science. Listeners should be respectful and request of the speakers, “Please show us that you have complied with science.” It’s not enough for them to say that they have followed the scientific method.
Progress in all fields relies on the scientific method. Science is a never-ending, never-settled process.
Voting has no place in science. Scientific laws always eventually prevail over the political laws created by our elected officials.

The March for Science should not simply be another way for us to express our opinions. It should not be an effort to pressure scientists and voters to agree with us. The scientific method is the best way we have of engaging in factual disputes.
Written by: 
J. Scott Armstrong (jscottarmstrong@upenn.edu ) is a professor at the Wharton School at the University of PennsylvaniaKesten C. Green (kesten.green@unisa.edu.auteaches managerial economics in the University of South Australia Business School.
Science Matters, Part 1

Science Matters, Part 2


38.07.05.18
*************

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Science Matters Part 2: Climate Change is a Myth

Science Matters, Part 1 HERE.

Should we worry about mass extinction via Carbon Dioxide gas emission?  Do Scientists alone have THE answer?  See what Bill Nye versus another Science guy have to say:













43.07.05.18
**************

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Science Matters According to Gilligan

Science Matters, Part 1

A Gilligan's Island fan thought that Science matters as evidenced by the picture below during a recent Earth Day event attended by our neighbour.  


Earth Day 2017 coincided with the Science March held in many places.  IMO, the march was just another opportunity for Leftists to get world-wide (free) coverage as they demean the POTUS;  and flex the muscles of their superior brains as we ignorant, average folk shake in our non-designer boots.  Okay, I admit to being ignorant on many Science/Environmental issues, but information is out there.  Fact is, there is way too much information on this divisive subject. Thus, I appreciate short articles that get to the heart of the matter. Below is an excerpt of one.  BOLD means a link for the source.




Green Energy is Inefficient
Climate change and renewable energy is one of the chief causes of the Science March, championed by Bill Nye and others. The march was deliberately scheduled to take place on Earth Day, when people are supposed to demonstrate their support for the environment by turning all their lights on...
Yet many of the fossil fuel alternatives championed by the eco-warriors are woefully inefficient. Wind farms in particular are a poster child for wastefulness, operating at 90 percent capacity or above for just 17 hours a year .  Solar energy is another shocker – according to electrical engineering professor Petr Beckmann,  it would take 1,000 hours of pure sunshine for a 15-square inch solar panel to generate the same amount of energy as a single lump of coal. 
In the U.K., vast sums of money have been poured into green energy schemes, only to disappear  after the companies that took advantage of government spending either went into administration or failed to deliver. 
Another problem for environmentalists:  wind turbines have killed more birds of prey  like eagles, raptors, and kestrals than deliberate shootings and poisoning.



LINK to article:  5 Scientific Facts the "Science March" Has Yet to Acknowledge




44.07.05.18
*******