Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’ | Climate Depot
Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns ‘global COOLING is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or moreTwitter / AnamRathor: Full day training with Al Gore, ...
Full day training with Al Gore, getting stuck in the riots, police using tear gas. Its been an eventful day #Istanbul #Turkey #CRinISTMother Jones Warns Global Warming Will Boost National Flood Insurance Premiums - Misses Point - Hit & Run : Reason.com
[Ronald Bailey] In its rush to declare a crisis that only benevolent government bureaucrats can solve, MJ characteristically overlooks the fact that there should be no National Flood Insurance Program in the first place. If private insurers think it's too risky for someone to build a house on a plot of land due to the high probability of inundation, then why should taxpayers subsidize their folly?Green Weenie of the Week: Hors D’oeuvres Edition | Power Line
Second, assuming that the U.S. government does not manage to stop modest economic growth for the next 90 years that would mean that today's per capita GDP of $43,000 growing at 2 percent annually would rise to $255,000 by 2100. It is not unreasonable to think that Americans who would be six times richer in 2100 might be able to afford to pay double for their flood insurance.
And thirdly, let's consider those 4-foot sea level rise projections. Indeed wise climate modelers have managed to tweak their computers into outputting just such data. And who am I to gainsay them? Nevetheless, I can't help noting that a study just last week taking glacier melting and thermal expansion into account in Nature Geoscience found that between 2006 and 2011 sea level rose by 2.4 millimeters per year. Extrapolating that increase for the next 90 years suggests an overall increase of about 212 millimeters by 2100, or just over 8 inches. Interestingly, a 2006 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences came to much the same conclusion.
Start with all the breaking wind of the windmill enthusiasts: a study from the University of North Carolina published recently in Environmental Research Letters finds that “the power capacity of large-scale wind farms may have been significantly overestimated.” The green energy wind talkers have long claimed that wind farms can produce a net of 2 to 4 watts per square meter of land, but this study estimates that the true figure is closer to 1 watt per square meter. This is pathetic; it means to equal the power output of a small coal or gas-fired plant (say, 500 megawatts), you’d require a land area of nearly 300 square miles. And if the wind stops blowing—or blows too hard—it wouldn’t matter how much land you cover with these wind-breakers.
That last little squeak you hear is Germany throwing in the towel on the EU’s climate policy agenda.