the most intelligent understanding is the NYT is misrepresenting facts.... as very few scientists state that man made co2 is causing warming and there are no peer reviewed papers making that claim. if you wish to prove me wrong.. just present a link to a peer reviewed paper showing man made co2 is causing warming. We have linked to thousands of scientists questioning the so called consensus...
Even with massive gov't subsidies, the huge renewable energy project in Spain, Abengoa, is still going bankrupt on a mountain of over 29 billion dollars of debt they can't pay: -- - Giant ‘Green Energy’ Boondoggle Flops in Spain (Tenebrarum) [..] since Spain’s government and banking system are de facto insolvent and their temporary rescue has been tied to conditions, Spain can no longer subsidize many of the pet projects of social engineers and the vast hordes of cronies they have hitherto kept in bread by enlisting the involuntary help of taxpayers. In a way, it is a case of socialism running out of people to loot. Solar energy has surely come a long way in recent years, as technological progress has undoubtedly improved its economics. Evidently though, the improvement isn’t sufficient yet to make it actually viable. One would think that it makes sense to deploy it in places that are sunny most of the time (such as, well, Spain), but even there, it evidently depends on subsidies. People often forget that it actually costs energy to produce solar panels. Whether they will in turn produce enough energy during their lifetime to make this investment viable remains questionable. It remains questionable precisely because so many companies in the sector depend both directly and indirectly on a vast variety of government subsidies (including the introduction of inane trade barriers to the detriment of consumers). With the subsidization scam in Spain reaching its limit, it turns out that not even sunny climes can keep solar boondoggles afloat. In the current case, a cool $29 billion (€27.3 bn.) in liabilities have just been exposed to intense vaporization danger, as “green energy” company Abengoa has finally filed for bankruptcy. It is the by far biggest bankruptcy in Spain’s history. 24,000 employees will have to look for a new job. The sovereign wealth fund of oil junkie Norway holds 2.7% of the company’s shares, an investment it will now have to write off. More than 200 banks are creditors of Abengoa, with total exposure of €20.2 billion. Abengoa’s business activities are described as “renewable electricity generation, converting biomass into biofuel and desalination of seawater” – practically a what’s what list of businesses that cannot possibly survive without subsidies. Abengoa incidentally provides an excellent illustration of Austrian Business Cycle Theory, as more than 20 giant ongoing construction projects the company has initiated will remain incomplete. These empty shells are testament to the fact that there is a big difference between money and real capital. Banks and investors had no problem providing the company with money (much of it created from thin air), lending it huge sums. But the economy’s pool of real funding has proved unable to support the company’s investments. [..] US taxpayers are on the hook as well in this “Spanish Solyndra”. According to the US media: “When the Free Beacon interviewed a pair of former Abengoa managers last year, one predicted that the company would go under. “This company eventually will go bankrupt. The question is at what expense to the United States people and government,” said Mike Alhalabi, formerly the senior lead mechanical engineer at Abener, a subsidiary of Abengoa. The cost to U.S. taxpayers could be enormous. Abengoa has received nearly $3 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy, as well as more than $100 million in federal grants. Read more … ==== but our world commie global warming hoax leaders are still about to legislate that world economies go down the same path as the massive boondoggle in Spain: -- - COP-21 Climate Deal In Paris Spells End Of The Fossil Era (AEP) A far-reaching deal on climate change in Paris over coming days promises to unleash a $30 trillion blitz of investment on new technology and renewable energy by 2040, creating vast riches for those in the vanguard and potentially lifting the global economy out of its slow-growth trap. Economists at Barclays estimate that greenhouse gas pledges made by the US, the EU, China, India, and others for the COP-21 climate summit amount to an epic change in the allocation of capital and resources, with financial winners and losers to match. They said the fossil fuel industry of coal, gas, andoil could forfeit $34 trillion in revenues over the next quarter century – a quarter of their income – if the Paris accord is followed by a series of tougher reviews every five years to force down the trajectory of CO2 emissions, as proposed by the United Nations and French officials hosting the talks. By then crude consumption would fall to 72m barrels a day – half OPEC projections – and demand would be in precipitous decline. Most fossil companies would face run-off unless they could reinvent themselves as 21st Century post-carbon leaders, as Shell, Total, and Statoil are already doing. The agreed UN goal is to cap the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by 2100, deemed the safe limit if we are to pass on a world that is more or less recognisable. Climate negotiators say there will have to be drastic “decarbonisation” to bring this in sight, with negative net emissions by 2070 or soon after. This means that CO2 will have to be plucked from the air and buried, or absorbed by reforestation. Such a scenario would imply the near extinction of the coal industry unless there is a big push for carbon capture and storage. It also implies a near total switch to electric cars, rendering the internal combustion engine obsolete. The Bank of England and the G20’s Financial Stability Board aim to bring about a “soft landing” that protects investors and gives the fossil industry time to adapt by forcing it to confront the issue head on. Barclays said , $21.5 trillion of investment in energy efficiency will be needed by 2040 under the current pledges, which cover 155 countries and 94pc of the global economy. It expects a further $8.5 trillion of spending on solar, wind, hydro, energy storage, and nuclear power. Those best-placed to profit in Europe are: Denmark’s wind group Vestas; Schneider and ABB for motors and transmission; Legrand for low voltage equipment; Alstom and Siemens for rail efficiency; Philips, and Osram for LEDs and lighting. But this is a minimalist scenario. While the Paris commitments suggest a watershed moment, they do not go far enough to meet the targets set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). The planet has already used up two-thirds of the allowable “carbon budget” of 2,900 gigatonnes (GT), and will have used up three quarters of the remaining 1,000 GT by 2030. Barclays advised clients to prepare for a more radical outcome, entailing almost $45 trillion of spending on different forms of decarbonisation . “The fact that COP-21 in itself is clearly not going to put the world on a 2 degree track does not mean that fossil-fuel companies can simply carry on with business-as-usual. We think they should be stress-testing their business models against a significant tightening of global climate policy over the next two decades,” it said. [..] Mr Jacobs said a deal in Paris is highly likely. “You can never rule out a break-down. These meetings always go to the wire. But we have gone past the turning point in the US and China, and both countries have come to the realisation that it is possible to decarbonise without hurting economic growth,” he said. It will not be a legally-binding treaty, but it is expected to have the same effect as each country transposes the targets into its own law. In the US it will be enforced through the legal mechanism of the Clean Air Act, anchored on earlier accords, without need for Senate ratification. The sums of money are colossal. Macro-economists say this is just what is needed to soak up the global savings glut and rescue the world from its 1930s liquidity trap. There might even be a boom. Read more … ========= Of course all this is going to do is give gov't huge powers of redistribution from taxpayers into the pockets of people like Al Gore. These people are not going to stop until they have every last one of our dollars and we are completely subserivient to them.
The massive fraud of temp adjustment is continuing to unravel. Is there a pol anywhere who'll state the obvious, that it's a fraud, and then try to do something about it? =============== Seasonally Adjusted Global Warming by Contributor • November 30, 2015 By Christopher Booker at The Telegraph When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming..... http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/seasonally-adjusted-global-warming/ it's a good, short article showing more examples of the fraud of turning cooling into warming.
Gee, I guess the world's ice did not get the message. But hey, if Christopher Booker at the TELEGRAPH says so. I'm sure he is highly qualified.
I guess the land and sea ice in Antarctica did not follow your agenda. But, hey, a retarded parrot is highly qualified to post his mindless ramblings.
The two mathematical mainstays in analyzing the climate trend signal. Bloomberg Carbon Clock The "wavelet”: This is an equation that "learns" the long-term trend line of CO2 and adds on the seasonal peaks and troughs—the squiggles that pass above or below the trend line every half-year or so. It calculates the long-term trend from monthly data over the previous three years, which it uses to derive an initial rough daily forecast for one month into the future. The Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) algorithm: This is a statistical tool that improves on the wavelet. It calculates the probable future trend of the data by running possible forecasts over and over until they start to converge. When they do, it quits, and outputs its best estimate for every day of the month. The final step is to use linear interpolation–basically an advanced mathematical method for connecting the dots—to turn the daily values into the second-by-second readings seen on the Clock. The clock displays eight decimal digits, determined by the model. You have to scroll down through the presentation using the arrow at the bottom of the page. I find it interesting and well done. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/carbon-clock/
Why Alberta's Carbon Tax Matters "Canada's biggest oil-producing province has announced an aggressive carbon tax. As world leaders gather in Paris this week to discuss how to combat climate change, they might want to ask: If a carbon tax can make it there, can it make it anywhere? The Cost of Carbon Technically, Alberta has had a carbon tax since 2007, though one so low that its effect on emissions has been close to zero. The new tax starts at $20 a ton in 2017, increasing to $30 by 2018 and then rising with inflation. It will cover as much as 90 percent of the province's emissions, with the money going toward lower-carbon technology and infrastructure as well as household rebates. The tax is to be revenue-neutral. The province also said that, by 2030, it will stop emitting carbon from coal-fired power plants, which currently provide more than half of Alberta's electricity. It pledged to get 30 percent of its power from renewable sources. And it will impose a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions from the oil sands. Alberta is not the first Canadian province to address climate change. But it's by far the most significant: Its energy sector makes up aquarter of its economy (more than any U.S. state save Wyoming and Alaska). The province's new approach is a product not of woolly-minded idealism, but hard economic reality. The controversy aroundKeystone XL demonstrated that the failure to address climate change can upset relations with trading partners. And the opportunities to benefit from new energy technologies are at least as great as the cost of disrupting traditional ways of doing business. Finally, change only gets harder the longer it's delayed..." http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-30/why-alberta-s-carbon-tax-matters
I think your chart needs perspective... co2 is the purple line. I think you also need to understand co2 trails temperatures. I have presented you those charts many times. Let me know if you need to see them again. The wavelet and SSA do not provide any better projections than any thing else. No one is deny co2 has been increasing over time. It follows ocean temps and ocean temps have been rising since the last ice age. Here is a chart for you to ponder. Do you believe our atomospheric co2 levels follow our co2 emissions? Or does it look like the annual carbon increase may be following something else.
WASHINGTON—Evoking cataclysmic scenes of extreme weather and widespread drought and famine, the nation’s climate change deniers held a press conference Wednesday to describe exactly what the Earth must look like before they will begin to believe in human-induced global warming. The group of skeptics, who said that the consensus among 97 percent of the scientific community and the documented environmental transformations already underway are simply not proof enough, laid out the precise sequence and magnitude of horrific events—including natural disasters, proliferation of infectious diseases, and resource wars—they would have to witness firsthand before they are swayed. “For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities—and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.” http://www.wsj.com/itp
Yeah, and many of those people are the same people that will point to the bible as proof of God!!! They need absolute and irrefutable proof of HFGW, at least a ten standard deviation event rejection of the null hypotheses. And yet, a book written 2000 years ago, about stories passed down by other people, among them about a guy with a beard living in the clouds worried about what you do with your genitals, told over thousands of years and all heresay, all by sixth grade educated farmers no less you wouldn't trust to educate your own kids, is plenty of proof for them. You can't make this stuff up.