NavigationSearchRecent Commentsindian farmers reject reform terms... in trashcorp ..... 4 hours 55 min ago "bing it!".... in your thoughts will be sanitized at a US pelosi re-education camp... 5 hours 8 min ago no protesting — be nice, sweet and read amanda gorman poetry... in press the record button. it's getting ugly... 5 hours 30 min ago un-diplomatic brexit... in napoleon, allied with the kaiserette, is still fighting the brits... 5 hours 39 min ago a couple of advices to president biden... in saint augustine would be proud... or would he? 5 hours 46 min ago the pope and the catholic president... in I hope he's read it... especially the bit about peace and turning the other cheek... 6 hours 28 min ago the thin red/blue line?... in the army of liberal citizen dictators... 7 hours 35 min ago the rot from the inside: brexit... in napoleon, allied with the kaiserette, is still fighting the brits... 7 hours 38 min ago of statues and subjects... in the beginning of a new reality: teaching others the lessons we never learnt... 8 hours 54 min ago impeach joe biden?... in "eat my shorts" — joe biden wrote the "patriot act"... 9 hours 7 min ago Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
the weather according to the nukular fissionator...William Happer is a physicist at Princeton University – one of those US academic institutions with brand recognition for academic excellence that travels the globe. Happer is well known for his contrarian views (that’s the polite term) on human-caused climate change. So when it emerged last week that the professor might seriously be in the running to be President Donald Trump’s science adviser, that Princeton tag no doubt added an air of authority to his opinions. In short, Happer thinks more CO2 will only be good for the planet – putting him at odds with science academies around the world. “There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.” Happer has also compared the “demonisation” of carbon dioxide to the “demonisation of poor Jews under Hitler” – because a Nazi referencewill always get you noticed. But here’s the thing — the first of many to note about Happer. First, he is not, by any stretch, an expert on climate change science. Happer’s record of getting scientific papers published in leading journals on climate change science is at, or very close to, zero. Simply, he knows a lot about some stuff, but he is not a climate scientist. While he has a distinguished career as an atomic physicist, previously serving the administration of George HW Bush as a science director, the 77-year-old’s views on climate science are outnumbered by all the credible evidence, all the credible science agencies and are also being laughed at by the Earth’s thermometers and its melting ice sheets and glaciers. read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/feb/21/trumps-pot...
|
pollution and pollution of the mind...
ATLANTA — Air pollution is one human-made factor that is trapping sunlight and causing climate change, but the relationship also goes the other way: Climate change stands to increase levels of air pollution, experts say.
Although climate change is multifaceted, and won't bring warmer temperatures to all parts of the globe, the average global temperatures will rise.
Research shows that "a warming climate will lead to more severe air pollution," and that this holds true even if the only factor that changes is temperature, said Patrick Kinney, a professor of urban health and sustainability at the Boston University School of Public Health. Kinney's research group has looked into how temperature and air pollution are related. [5 Ways Climate Change Will Affect Your Health]
read more:
http://www.livescience.com/57913-climate-change-will-increase-air-pollut...
People like Happer are polluting the mind of people, on issues they know nothing about.
William Happer is the emeritus Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. Happer is a Director of the CO2 Coalition, a group formed in 2015 out of the former George C. Marshall Institute where Happer was also previously Chairman of the Board. [2], [3]
Happer is involved with a range of other climate change denial groups. He is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Will Happer is also member of a group titled Climate Exit (Clexit), founded in the summer of 2016. [4], [5]
According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.” [6]
According to Will Happer's profile at the Cato Institute where he is adjunct scholar, his specialty at Princeton University was modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, radiation propagation in the atmosphere, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991-1993, Happer was the Director of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy. [7]
Fossil Fuel FundingWilliam Happer has accepted funding from the fossil fuel industry in the past. In a Minnesota state hearing on the impacts of carbon dioxide, Peabody Energy paid him $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition. [8]
In 2015 undercover investigation by Greenpeace, Happer told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources could be similarly concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition. [8]
read more:
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
happer would not know which end of his body is breathing...
“We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all.” [69]
“We should be telling the scientific truth that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth. [… ]There are very good reasons to think that.” [69]
“Let me point out that if you have a well-designed coal plant, what comes out of the stack of the plant is almost the same thing that comes out of a person's breath.” [69]
Quotes from Happer
----------------------------------
NO-ONE and I mean NO-ONE ever said that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. We all know that we can die if we breathe too much of the stuff but THERE IS SO LITTLE OF THE STUFF in the atmosphere that it has no impact on us at this level — and plants love it. BUT, in regard to the atmosphere, EVEN SMALL VARIATIONS OF CO2 has been shown as the main component in increase and decrease of heat in the atmosphere. INCREASE CO2 and the amosphere warms up. Decrease CO2 and the atmosphere cools. The point here is that humans have added at least an EXTRA 100 PPM of CO2 to the natural 300 PPM maximum (of the last million years or so). This extra 100 PPM is driving increase of temperature as the present global warming.
Even Arrhenius — the Swedish scientist who did the earliest calculations on this problem 120 years ago — thought that an increase of CO2 could be beneficial. At the time he did not account for a lot of other problems associated with increase of CO2: acidification of the sea, increase of droughts, floods and fires, stronger and more frequent devastating weather events, including downbursts, and the melting of glaciers, the displacement of the polar vortex, and the general warming which can destroy crops as much as help crops to grow.
A well designed small coal power plant exhausts about 3.5 million tons of CO2 PER ANNUM, a human exhaust by breathing is about 360 kilogram of CO2 per year.
Happer is talking shit. GRAN SHIT. TOTAL BULLSHIT!
happer is taking imbecilic short cuts...
“Our breath is not that different from a power plant.” [13]
“There is no “overwhelming consensus.” In spite of decades of propaganda, and even threats to their jobs, about half of meteorologists remain unconcerned about global warming.
read more;
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
------------------------------------
It has been somehow calculated that with 7 billion human on the planet, the amount of CO2 released by breathing is about 5 per cent of the total CO2 released in the atmosphere by industries and energy supplies. Our breath is quite different from a power plant. We exhale a lot of air mixed with CO2 and water vapour. Power plants exhausts are nearly all CO2 and water vapour. As well we have to consider that about two third of the human population is NOT INDUSTRIALISED OR IS UNDER-INDUSTRIALISED. Should the entire world population be industrialised, CO2 production would go through the roof.
Coal is not formed from "ancient CO2". Coal has been formed by the decay of vegetal matter. We can accept that vegetal matter used to process CO2 in the atmosphere, but Happer simplification is misleading, erroneous and deliberately confusing. Oil is not formed from ancient CO2. It is formed from the decay of animals, mostly microcospic but others as well. In order for the decay of plants and animals to form coal and oil, some lengthy processes have taken place — processes that separated carbon as "pure carbon" and methane for coal, and created gaseous to heavy liquid "hydrocarbon" compounds, for oil.
WE ARE NOT IN A CO2 FAMINE. This is pure bullshit. The natural levels of CO2 for the past 500,000 years has oscillated between 180 and 300 PPM (parts per million). At 180 PPM, the earth experienced ice ages. At 300 PPM, the earth warmed up to about present levels.
Since the industrial revolution, humans have added an extra 100 PPM in the atmosphere and plenty more in the oceans which are turning acidic. Temperature IS INCREASING while it should be cooling.
Should we return much of the CO2 available from coal and other fossil fuels in the atmosphere, we won't cook the planet but we will increase the temperature nonetheless to levels at which there won't be any ice caps. Sea level could reach up to 75 metres above present as HAPPENED IN THE PAST. Places such as Sydney would experience temperature of up to 60 degees Celsius and most of the plants would cook, despite the rise in CO2, one of their food sources. Releasing more CO2 by "burning" plants will compound the problem. Due to the oceanic and continental weather paterns, the instability in climate would be horrendous, especially with the present position of the continents on the planet. Plants presently cannot absorb the added CO2. THIS IS WHY THERE IS AN EXTRA 100 PPM of CO2 in the atmophere. This is why the oceans are turning acidic.
That half of meteorologists are unconcerned is not new. Meteorologists are not climate experts. They cannot be counted as "climate scientists". Weather and climate are two different sciences. And at least half of the meteorologists — possibly those who have also studied climate change in details — are worried.
at home with the foggers...
The 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual rally of conservative officials and political activists, was set to be a big one — the first time a first-year sitting president would have attended since Ronald Reagan. While President Trump canceled late in 2016, enthusiasm for the president still filled its halls, and so did a number of his White House, Cabinet, and transition team members — including at least one previously unannounced member of the EPA transition team.
Joining the CPAC lineup was the usual cast of climate science deniers who branded climate change as “fake news,” scientists and environmental advocates as “some of the worst people in the world,” and polluted rivers catching fire in the pre-EPA era as “the price of industrialization.”
Panel on “Fake Climate News”Early in the conference, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) sponsored a panel called “Fake Climate News Camouflaging an Anti-Capitalist Agenda — and What President Trump Plans To Do About it.”
Led by Craig Richardson, E&E has roots in a group which the Guardian described as having “a core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations.”
Little surprise then that this panel was based on the idea that the media, NASA, and climate scientists are pushing climate change as part of an elaborate network of lies.
Richardson seemed most excited to introduce panelist and Breitbart London writer James Delingpole — who has labeled climate change “the biggest scam in the history of the world” — saying, “We haven't had this much anticipation for a Brit since 1964 when the Beatles arrived.“
Joining him on the panel was Steve Milloy, a fellow at E&E and founder of the anti-climate change site JunkScience.com, and self-described “whistleblower” Tony Heller, who runs the blog Realclimatescience.com.
The moderator was John Fund, national affairs columnist at the National Review and senior editor at The American Spectator. Fund, always good for a story about being attacked by the left, started by sharing an experience at the Aspen Ideas Festival when he was yelled at for calling out the organizers for using bottled water from Fiji.
Fund also used the opportunity to explain to Delingpole, the author of Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, where the fruity term for socialists-in-environmental-clothing came from.
read more:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/03/02/deniers-rally-conservatives-dismiss-climate-science-fake-news-breitbart-cpac
Delingpole, Bolt and their like aren’t interested in science...
Millar and his colleagues concluded that the world needed a steady year-on-year decline to zero emissions in under 40 years, starting now. It still won’t be easy, they say, but getting warming under control is an achievable challenge.
Co-author Michael Grubb of University College London said the study had led him to revise his former view that staying below 1.5C was incompatible with democracy. He now thinks that with swift, decisive action the Paris goals are within reach.
Enter James Delingpole, a UK opinion writer who describes climate science as a false, self-serving attempt to destroy fossil fuels and wreck the economy. As is his wont, he launched yet another attack on the “climate alarmist establishment” in Breitbart Newsand London’s Sun newspaper.
“What [the Millar paper] effectively does is scotch probably the most damaging scientific myth of our age – the notion that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the planet to warm at… dangerous and unprecedented speeds,” he said.
In the Melbourne Herald-Sun a day after Delingpole’s Breitbart piece, Andrew Boltchimed in with his own critique of what he called a “landmark paper”. (They may despise “warmist scientists”, but when it suits them both Delingpole and Bolt cite their work as gospel, which is a win of sorts.)
The Millar paper, Bolt said, “now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century.” He then took the opportunity to bash old climate predictions by Tim Flannery and Bob Brown, as if that had any relevance.
In their haste to condemn, Bolt and Delingpole claimed modelling for the “landmark paper” showed past research outcomes had exaggerated current and future warming. Butthe modelling didn’t (and couldn’t) do that because it was set up just to illustrate a research point about carbon budgeting.
Millar wrote a written response to Delingpole’s attack, published by the Guardian, pointing out that the study’s warming projections for coming decades were identical to conclusions of the 2013 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The response indicates that Delingpole never contacted Millar or any of his colleagues involved with the research paper. He may never even have spoken to a scientist about it.
If he had explored further he might have learned what the authors were really saying, about how they reached their conclusions and how they continue to debate their work with others around the world. He might have been able to see more clearly how a lay person can get things wrong.
But that would have blurred his line of attack and spoiled his story, which is his bread and butter. What he has to say doesn’t bear any sort of objective scrutiny, but he continues to get airplay because he has a nifty turn of phrase and plenty of devoted followers.
The bottom line is that Delingpole, Bolt and their like aren’t interested in science. Their focus is the game of politics. They’re political animals through and through.
read more:
http://southwind.com.au/2017/10/03/james-delingpole-has-some-fun-with-th...
"getting warming under [1.5 degree Celsisus] control is an achievable challenge?"... tell them they're dreaming... Our real hope would be to stop the warming at 4 degrees Celsius above present temp... by stopping the emissions today...
Read from top...
the frauds are the other ones: the denialist dinosaurs...
As DeSmog reported in 2017, the foundation of the billionaire Mercer family has given millions to the museum, with latest figures putting their generosity at $3.8 million since 2013.
Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, heads the Mercer Family Foundation that has also been giving millions to climate science denial groups, including the notorious Heartland Institute.
But now the museum finds itself in the unenviable position of being defended, perhaps not surprisingly, by the Mercer-funded hyper-partisan outlet Breitbart and climate science denial characters from other Mercer-funded groups.
Deniers on the DefenseIn a typically verbose screed on Breitbart, climate science denier James Delingpole called the scientists who had signed a letter protesting Mercer’s presence “basically frauds” and “imbeciles.”
Now climate science deniers have begun to circulate their own “open letter” calling for the AMNH to keep Mercer on the board and “not to cave in to this pressure.”
Read more:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/climate-science-deniers-new-york-a...
The zeitgeist will soon bite their arse...
See:
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33287
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/34805
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/29415
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/31205
and many more articles on this site including:
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/19279
Read from top.
trump's arse is crapped by a climate science bullsitter...
A White House panel charged with determining whether climate change poses a national security threat will be headed by a climate science denier who has said he believes carbon dioxide is actually beneficial for the environment.
The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security would be headed by National Security Council senior director William Happer, the Washington Post reported. The panel, which would be established by executive order, will reportedly be charged with trying to refute intelligence agencies’ repeated findings that climate change poses a national security threat.
Happer is a physics professor and a former Energy Department staffer under George H.W. Bush but has no training as a climate scientist. He has sat on the boards of several groups that advocate climate change skepticism, and has insisted that carbon dioxide is beneficial and not a pollutant.
“We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant,” he said at a 2016 energy and policy summit funded by the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It’s not a pollutant at all. . . . We should be telling the scientific truth, that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth.”
In a 2014 interview with CNBC, Happer said the “demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler,” adding that “carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.”
Read more:
https://www.salon.com/2019/02/22/science-denier-who-once-compared-co2-to...
Read from top. Apologies about the rude title of this comment, but nothing else can do better.
two "nukular" stories...
The notion of resorting to nuclear weapons to crack down on hurricanes has been suggested before, with a US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fact sheet about tropic cyclones emphasising the unlikelihood of it working, and the potential dangers involved.
Social media has reacted with vigour to a report from the news portal Axios on Monday that US President Donald Trump has on several occasions discussed with national security officials the possibility of using nuclear bombs to prevent devastating hurricanes from reaching the US.
Trump reportedly said at a White House briefing, as paraphrased by the publication's source:
"Why don't we nuke them? They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?".
Twitter reactions were more than forthcoming, with some users taking the idea quite seriously, and responding with either disbelief or grave concern:...
Read more:
https://sputniknews.com/us/201908261076638968-trump-reportedly-floating-idea-of-nuking-hurricanes-generates-social-media-storm/
---------------------------------------
How the mainstream media reported an August 8 accident at a top-secret missile test facility in northern Russia should serve as a cautionary tale regarding the dangers of rushed judgments via institutional bias.
In the days following the initial report of the accident, the media exploded with speculation over both the nature of the device being tested at the Nenoksa State Central Marine Test Site and the Russian government’s muted response. Typical of the hysteria was the analysis of Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and editor of the blog “Arms Control Wonk.”
Lewis and his collaborators penned a breathless article for Foreign Policy that asked, “What Really Happened?” According to Lewis, the answer was clear: “The reference to radiation was striking—tests of missile engines don’t involve radiation. Well, with one exception: Last year, Russia announced it had tested a cruise missile powered by a nuclear reactor. It calls this missile the 9M730 Burevestnik. NATO calls it the SSC-X-9 Skyfall.”
Lewis’s assessment was joined by President Trump’s,