The goal of the AGW cult is not to reduce CO2 emissions but to extract money more effectively than ever before. The big government people do not like working alternative energy. Unreliables like wind and solar are expensive enough to rise the prices of carbon based energy which is good news for those who want to earn tax money.
Cheap abundant energy is their worst nightmare. They want dependent people who rely on the government. People are difficult to control if the cost of living goes down. Biofuels were shoot down. Nuclear is destroyed with propaganda and regulations.
Looks like another politically motivated green study. It is a pity that high impact journals get invoved in these.
Digging down from the news article to the actual research is difficult because it is even hard to find out what did they actually study. Titles are alarming, of course, but is there any substance.
First of all, what is the correlation between air pollution and diseases and deaths. What about causality? Did they measure the composition of air or something else?
High density cities are just not feasible. The fallacy of public transportation does not solve the transportation problems that are created by separating work places, services and housing from each other.
Look at Toronto for example. The city is dead at weekends, evenings and nights. The only reason for people to go to a city is that they have to work there. Malls create services near the customers. The next step is to distribute the work so that unnecessary transportation can be eliminated.
The believers of climate change are losing the game. Their propaganda is not effective any more when the sceptics have a full hand of facts against their scientific arguments. So they are focusing on ad hominems and other similar ways of keeping their agenda alive.
Confirmation bias can explain quite much of the climate change story. IPCC selected papers that supported its existence and political agenda. Some scientists became celebrities and money was flowing to them. Others followed the famous and money. The story grew bigger and bigger. Mainstream media added steam because it is always supporting the establishment.
We have 30 years of satellite data that tells that no catastrophe is probable. Everything can be explained by natural variation. The Rio conference told that decision makers are shifting to other issues while still keeping the camouflage. More and more scientific papers that support the climate skeptics are published and they are getting attention in main stream media.
The scientists that are on the climate change wagon are abandoning ship or fighting with all means. All argumentation fallacies are used because media does not not understand the scientific method.
Bad horizontal traffic is what makes cities awful. When you implement a solution to it, you avoid excessive high cost of land. It is too easy to calculate just the construction costs and forget that the inhabitants pay the extravagant prices to live in cities.
Vihreys on aikamme uskonto. Se perustuu vahvaan mielipiteiden manipulointiin niin kuin muutkin lahkot. Uskonkappaleet muuttuvat ”tosiksi” kun niitä toistetaan vakuuttavasti riittävän usein.
Ihmiskunnalla on eniten puutetta kyvystä toteuttaa hyviä ideoita. Luonnonvarat ja pääomat riittävät kyllä paljon suuremmallekin populaatiolle.
Vihreän lahkon ajattelun pohjalla kateus menestyjiä kohtaan. Koska itse ei pysty menestymään, aletaan väheksyä osaajien päämääriä ja toimivia keinoja niiden saavuttamiseksi. Teollisuus, elinkeinot ja hyvinvointi koetaan vihollisiksi ja tarpeettomiksi. Ympäristön suojelua käytetään keppihevosena oman ihmisvihan perustelemiseksi.
Knowing the opposite side and separating advocacy from science are two different things. I started my studies of global warming during a very cold summer years ago by reading IPCC’s report of the scientific basis. As a consequence I am very skeptic of the whole CAGW. Realists and alarmist base their views on the same measurements. There are no parallel weather stations and satellites for each political party. Advocates, activists, lobbyists or whatever you call them make their conclusions based on the cause not based on scientific facts that scientists should do.
As a scientist I am a natural skeptic. There must be at least one test to asses a theory. So, if CO2 warms the climate, how can I show and measure it. That is were radiation budgets, OLR and others come from. There is a hole in CO2’s part of the spectrum. But, does that indicate warming? Shouldn’t we have more OLR if it is warming up. Or less because CO2 traps heat. Continuing from that we come to energy budgets that are so complicated that even IPCC admits that science and modelers in particular have no understanding.Model can’t be used as a proof of anything because its is easy to parametrize a model to match any set of observations. Comparing models to observations have only value for improving our models and understanding. Most value of the scientific reports come from published datasets which mainstream climate scientist try to hide because data does not support their ”cause”.