Climate cancer

Basic propaganda technique, repetition, loses its strength if sheeple gets bored. You need to invents something new.

”Climate change” is a powerful meme, because you omit indefensible words in CAGW. You assume catastrophe; You assume CO2 as a cause; You assume warming, when you talk.

People start to realize that 0,5 C change is not significant. It is just noise in observations. Not worth of trillions of dollars of pain.

Cancer is something very small but dangerous, because it is living and grows. Connecting word ”cancer” to something is an example of a image marketing technique: transfer. Fears of chemicals and radiation have been very successful. No one have died, but industries have been destroyed. Expect attack on coal and diesel.

Propagandists need something emotional and something that can’t be easily proven wrong. You know, just in case, if ..

Driesden’s good talking points

Look at Driesden’s good talking points:
https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2019/01/26/saved-by-pseudorenewable-energy-n2540265

1. Climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

2. Can wind, solar and biofuel energy actually replace fossil fuels?

3. Left’s escalating efforts to silence us – are proof that they are getting desperate.

No peak oil

Currently I use only natural oil in my diesel car. Future brings synthetic hydrocarbons. I can switch to natural gas by a few thousand euro changes to my car. End of natural gas in Russia will not happen in my lifetime. Nuclear power is the best for industrial and home usage. Coal reserves do not end either and you can make oil from coal.

Light electric city cars could be families’ second and third cars. Standard replaceable batteries are a mandate for all successful electric cars. Price of an electric car with just 20 kWh of batteries and spaces for 100 kWh add-on batteries is lower than price of current cars. Then you rent batteries when needed. When your car gets old, you replace your original 20 kWh battery.

Ilmastopolitiikkaa Suomessa

Äänestäjät eivät ole niin tyhmiä. Kuten Vennamo sanoi ”kyllä kansa tietää”. Ilmastokeisarilla ei ole vaatteita. Talviöiden lauhtuminen jollain asteen kymmenyksellä tai jopa 1,5 C:llä ei haittaa, pikemminkin ilahduttaa. Ehdotettujen veronkorotusten ym. laskennallinen vaikutus maapallon keskilämpötilaan on muutamia sadasosa-asteita. Pidän mieluummin rahat.

Taustalla on tietenkin jakopolitiikan eli hyvinvointivaltion konkurssi. Emme pysty elättämään tulonsiirroilla Suomen, Euroopan puhumattakaan koko maailman köyhiä. Emme etenkään jos kiellämme kaikki oikeasti toimivat ratkaisut hyvinvoinnin luomisesta halvemmalla. Ydinvoima on näistä tärkein ja ensi vaalikaudella puhummekin Loviisan ydinvoimaloiden uusimisestä ja uusien voimaloidemme käyttöönotosta.

Kun liityimme EU:hun ajatuksena oli, että Brysseli olisi Helsingin herroja parempi. Ei pitänyt paikkansa. Eurokraatit ovat vieläkin ahneempia kuin paikalliset edusmiehemme.

Ilmastokysely harhauttaa

Keltaiset liivit päälle Suomessakin ja vaaleissa ääni ilmastopoliitiikkaa vastustaville ehdokkaille. Kansa ei anna hyväksyntäänsä massiviselle tulonsiirrolle köyhiltä rikkaille. Tällaiset kyselyt houkkuttelevat tukemaan mitä hyvänsä suosituksi koettua juttua, mutta vastarinta tulee kun huomaa joutuvansa huijatuksi ja maksamaan viulut. Vihreiden paikka on oppositiossa. Kyselystä puuttuu ydinvoima, joka on käytännössä ainoa toimiva vaihtoehto hiilivetyjen käytölle.

Ehdotetuilla toimenpiteillä ei ole mitattavissa olevaa vaikutusta ilmastoon. Maapallon keskilämpötila 16 C saa olla hieman lämpimämpikin etenkin jos se tarkoittaa leudompia talviöitä pohjoisessa. Lauhtuva Suomi, Venäjä ja Kanada on hyvä asia ihmiskunnalle. Samoin Saharan vihertyminen.

Sample size in Climate Science

First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial.

This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world.

This is like measuring temperatures from 6 AM to 7 AM and making a projection that it will get warmer. Your ”paleo” study shows that it was really cold at night before. Correlation shows that cars and their emissions must be the cause. Emissions accelerate from 6 AM to 7 AM and it gets warmer.

Your projections work up to 6 PM and your extrapolation based gospel says that we will fry within a week.

Oil billioire’s view on environmentalism

What would you do if you were an oil billionaire or king of Saudi-Arabia and you want to earn more. Costs are rising and competition keeps oil price low?

Building an oil cartel is not working because all others want to earn more too.

Destroy competition by green lobby. Governments will then ban nuclear and coal. They also pocket by adding taxes and bankers love carbon trade. Oppose fracking and oil pipelines of your competitors.

Sanctions will keep Russia and Iran out. Sustain wars in Syria and Libya. Destroy Venezuela by bad government.

Make oil rare. Talk about peak oil. Stop cheap uses of oil like heating, transportation and plastics. Support expensive solutions (wind and solar) as second highest price competitors.

More on scientific method

Popular myth of science is that you can have a proof of something. You can in mathematics and logic, but not in natural science. In climate science you can spot logical inconsistencies especially in MSM, where climate change results in warming and cooling at the same time.

Studies in natural science start with data. You slice and dice it and form a conjecture. That’s right. Correlation is not a proof, but it helps you to find a useful hypothesis. For example: CO2 emissions results in substantial global warming.

Then you establish tests that challenge your hypothesis.
– CO2 emissions increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
– increased CO2 in atmosphere results in increase of surface temperatures
– increased surface temperatures result in more water vapor in the atmosphere
– increased water vapor in the atmosphere results in more increase in surface temperatures
– increased sea water temperatures result in sea level rise
– and so on

Previous examples should, of course, be more specific, more detailed. Each of them might be a research question in a peer-reviewed paper.

If any of these tests fail, the hypothesis must be changed. It might be true in some circumstances, but not in all of them. This is difficult because observations might also be wrong. In climate science bad data is a problem that may result in a conclusion that we don’t know.

Computer models are a special case of a hypothesis. Putting all your equations together could reveal inconsistencies in your thinking. If model’s behavior does not match the observations you may learn how to change the hypothesis.

Global Cooling on WUWT