http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-global-warming-alarmism-is-about-to-hit/ With the United Nations Climate Change Conference starting on Mondayin Bonn, Germany, we need to brace ourselves for an avalanche of global warming alarmism. We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels. What will make this session especially intense is that this year’s meeting is being presided over by Fiji, a government that has taken the climate change fears to extremes. Conference president Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama calls for “an absolute dedication to meet the 1.5-degree target,” the most stringent goal suggested by the Paris Agreement. In support of Bainimarama’s position, the COP23/Fiji Website repeatedly cites the frightening forecasts of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating, for example, “The IPCC recently reported that temperatures will significantly increase in the Sahel and Southern African regions, rainfall will significantly decrease, and tropical storms will become more frequent and intense, with a projected 20 per cent increase in cyclone activity.” To make such dire forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built on data and formulae to represent atmospheric conditions. Besides the fact that we lack a comprehensive ‘theory of climate,’ and so do not have valid formulae to properly represent how the atmosphere functions, we also lack the data to properly understand what weather was like over most of the planet even in the recent past. And, without a good understanding of past weather conditions, we have no way to know the history of its average condition—the climate. Meaningful forecasts of future climate change are therefore impossible. An important data set used by the computer models cited by the IPCC is the ‘HadCRUT4’ global average temperature history for the past 167 years produced by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Centre, both based in the United Kingdom. Until the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data was collected using mercury thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United States, Japan, the UK, and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers. The data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an accuracy of +/-0.5 degrees Celsius, often times no better than +/-1 degree. Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful. Modern weather station surface temperature data is now collected using precision thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less ground surface temperature data was used for plots such as HadCRUT4. This was done initially because governments believed that satellite monitoring could take over from most of the ground surface data collection. But the satellites did not show the warming forecast by computer models. So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes. Today, there is virtually no data for approximately 85% of the Earth’s surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than there were in 1960. So, the HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about 1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems with the early data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above the surface, the conclusion is unavoidable: it is not possible to know how the Earth’s climate has varied over the past century and a half. The data is therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis of the IPCC’s conclusions. In fact, there is insufficient data of any kind—temperature, land and sea ice, glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, etc.—to be able to determine how today’s climate differs from the past. So, the IPCC’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world. This will not stop Bainimarama and other conference leaders from citing the IPCC in support of their warnings of future climate catastrophe. No one should take them seriously. Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. SPONSORED
You can't be good at trading. This makes as much sense as saying volume or volatility can't be used to gain insight to price movement. There are correlated variables that when aggregated can produce accurate statistical modelling. Furthermore, imprecise (which, btw, mercury thermometers are precise to within .1 degree Celsius) measurements do not lead to inaccurate modeling, because they're aggregated. Would you deny a doctor when he tells you that you have a fever because his thermometer showing 103º is only precise to within a half degree or so? "I feel like shit, doc, and I came to you in hopes of feeling better, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the fever because more precise measuring equipment is available." Does that sound stupid to you? It's focusing on a conclusion on precision that doesn't exist, conflating precision and accuracy, confining doubt to a tiny dataset that informs a model but only partially, and pretending aggregation doesn't exist...any one of which is fatal to the logic. This is textbook flat-earther: ignoring most data, parroting easily debunked falsehoods confined to partial model data, and preying for ignorance to overlook the manifest flaws in reasoning. So, question. If scientists are wrong on it, what's the problem in implementing their recommendations? Are you offended that they've denied you the opportunity to breathe in toxic gases? Seriously, what do you intend to gain by furthering doubt on climate science? What's the endgame?
just the subsidies the government give to one company is money that is better spent elsewhere. https://www.investors.com/politics/...an-gm-why-are-taxpayers-still-subsidizing-it/ EDITORIALS If Tesla Is Worth More Than GM, Why Are Taxpayers Still Subsidizing It? 4/11/2017 Motor City: The big news in the auto world was that Tesla(TSLA) topped the market value of General Motors (GM). That means the car company that gets massive taxpayer subsidies is now worth more than the car company taxpayers bailed out a few years ago. Welcome to the world of crony capitalism. On Monday, Tesla's stock closed at $312.39, which meant the startup electric car company, which sold a grand total of fewer than 80,000 cars last year, was worth more than GM, which sold 80,000 Chevy Silverados every eight weeks. (Tesla's market cap edged below GM's on Tuesday.) Is this a case of irrational exuberance gripping investors? Or the electric car version of the 1990s internet bubble? Is the future of Tesla really that bright? We tend not to second guess the wisdom of the markets to get things right, at least over the long term. But it's worth noting that whatever Tesla's growth potential, at the moment the company is heavily reliant on taxpayer support. For every Tesla car sold (up to No. 200,000), federal taxpayers kick in $7,500 to lower the costs. State taxpayers in a multitude of states pony up still more. In Colorado, they contribute another $5,000 to the electric car kitty, in California, it's $2,500. When the Los Angeles Times crunched the numbers two years ago, it found that Tesla buyers had received more than $284 million in federal tax incentives and more than $38 million in California rebates. And that was before Tesla's banner 2016 year. The taxpayer help only starts there. Tesla also collects hundreds of millions from competing automakers by selling environmental credits in California and more than half a dozen other states to car companies that can't meet the states' "zero emissions" sales mandates. Plus, Nevada ponied up $1.3 billion in incentives to convince Tesla to build its huge battery factory near Reno. And this doesn't include the fact that electric car owners don't pay into the Highway Trust Fund — which is funded by the per-gallon tax on gasoline and pays for road construction and upkeep. Whether Tesla can survive without all this taxpayer largesse isn't altogether clear. When Edmunds looked at the electric car market as a whole, it concluded that without federal and state tax credits, "this market is likely to crash." As evidence, Edmunds points to Georgia, where EV sales plummeted by more than 80% immediately after the state canceled its $5,000 tax credit in 2015. Tesla sales were far less impacted, but then again, Tesla was only selling luxury cars at the time, and buyers could still get the $7,500 federal credit. Whatever the impact these subsidies have on Tesla, there is no good reason for taxpayers to continue subsidizing electric cars made by it, or any other car company. First, there's the fact that these taxpayer subsidies are nothing more than welfare for the rich. A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 90% of electric car subsidies go to the top 20% of households. Second, the supposed environmental benefits of electric cars have been vastly — and we mean vastly — oversold. While they might emit "zero emissions" while on the road, electric cars are barely any cleaner than good-old internal combustion engine cars when you look at the complete environmental impact picture. Getting the materials to make lithium ion batteries, for example, is an extremely dirty business, and the electricity to recharge the batteries most likely comes from power plant fueled by coal or some other fossil fuel. Even if a midsize EV manages to last 20 years and 150,000 miles, total CO2 emissions would be just 19% less than a comparable gas-powered car, according to an analysis by Arthur D. Little. That is a lot of welfare-for-the-rich for very little environmental benefit. This isn't to say that traditional automakers don't get government assistance. Bailing out GM cost taxpayers $11.3 billion, according to the Treasury Department. But adding more crony capitalism to the books isn't the answer. Getting rid of all forms of corporate welfare is. If that means Tesla's valuation comes back down to Earth, so be it. RELATED:
To quote Will Rogers, "it's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for". Let's remember that military is the only meaningful spending of government that cuts to would directly impact tax liability for the average person. Point being, I don't believe that's a legitimate motive of yours. Try again?
You'd do better to focus on increasing your tax liability rather than false flag attempts to decrease it insignificantly.
If each of the big oil companies are worth more than GM, why are we still subsidizing them with billions in subsidies (depletion allowances, MLPs, royalty free drilling on offshore federal land, "domestic manufacturing deductions" oil carveout...) If General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon are worth more than GM, why are we subsidizing them for billions of dollars to spend more on our military budget than the next 8 countries in the world combined (several of whom are close allies)? Hell, why are we subsidizing GM itself with the manufacturing and R&D tax breaks? I could go on and on but your 'logic" is hypocrisy epitomized at best. Me, I think clean air and water is the "better spent elsewhere", you apparently like pollution?
US Govt's own scientists report on climate change that it is a 95 to 100% probability. Will Trump take any notice ? Not a chance.
Why sully a perfectly good theory or world view with something so burdensome as facts? The white house should be a safe space where uncomfortable logic is kept at a safe distance.
White House-approved report concludes humans are behind climate change https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/03/whi...ncludes-humans-are-behind-climate-change.html
lol, OLD NEWS being reported like it was fresh meat Fake News, check the date by UPI 8 Aug 2017 Aug. 8 (UPI) — A new federal report, which is awaiting White House approval, concludes that human activity is “primarily responsible” for a drastic rise in the average temperature in the United States in the last four decades.