Friday, August 16, 2013


MSNBC’s philosophy major Chris Hayes says we need to leave $20 trillion in fossil fuels in the ground |
So far with fossil fuels, we have developed a $65 trillion global economy. Such wealth has provided more people a higher standard of living than imaginable in the pre-fossil fuel era. Leaving wealth in the ground based on junk science-fueled alarmism would be devastating to our standard of living.
Rahmstorf Claims “New Generation” Of Climate Models Are Robust Because “They Can Predict The Past Very Well”!
Here Rahmstorf claims that if a model is able to reproduce the past, then it can reproduce the future. Just forget that any model can be made to reproduce the past and then project any future you so desire. Rahmstorf is sounding more and more like a swindler selling phony fortune-telling services with each passing interview.
Video: Fox News covers PLF challenge to feds’ polar bear listing - Climate Change Dispatch • Climate Change Dispatch
The polar bear is thriving. Its current population — around 25,000 — is five times as large as 50 years ago. Never before has a healthy species been added to the ESA list. Federal officials based their action not on the current status, but on questionable models about possible future habitat reduction due to global warming. The listing creates an ominous precedent.

If a healthy species can be added to the ESA list based on conjecture about possible scenarios decades in the future, there is no limit to how the ESA could be used to expand federal regulation and control over species, property, and the economy, without scientific justification.
Climate model simulations of the AMO | Climate Etc.
In view of the climate model underestimation of natural internal variability on multi-decadal time scales and failure to simulate the recent 15+ years ‘pause’, the issue of fitness for purpose of climate models for detection and attribution on these time scales should be seriously questioned. And these deficiencies should be included in the ‘expert judgment’ on the confidence levels associated with the IPCC’s statements on attribution.

No comments: