"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
Showing posts with label anthropogenic effects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anthropogenic effects. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Price of the Stupidity of Anthropogenic Global Warming Nuts

Ontario Premier Says Cap-and-Trade Plan to Increase Gas Prices by 4.3 Cents a Litre

For my American readers 4.3 centiliters = about 16 cents per US gallon

'The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher than the cost of going forward,' premier says

The question is, how much higher? Kathleen Wynne's statement is straight bulls--t! She certainly has no idea what the cost of doing nothing is. If she did know, she would realize that she is wasting billions of dollars for absolutely no return. And it's not her money she's throwing away, it's the people of Ontario's money she's burning.

See below for quick and dirty Climate Change Summary

The Canadian Press 
Details of Ontario government's cap-and-trade plan are coming in Thursday's budget. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Gas prices in Ontario will rise about 4.3 cents a litre and residential natural gas bills will go up about $5 a month under the Liberal government's cap-and-trade plan.

"The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher than the cost of going forward and reducing greenhouse gas emissions," she said.

However, revenue from the cap-and-trade auction set for next year will be used to "protect" consumers from an electricity rate hike and could even lead to rates going down, Wynne said.

It is scheduled to take effect in January and the government expects to raise about $1.3 billion in its first full year of operation, money that will be devoted to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Finance Minister Charles Sousa denied Wednesday that cap-and-trade revenue would be used to lower the $7.5-billion deficit, which the Liberals have promised to eliminate by 2017-18.

"It is not about reducing the deficit, it's about reinvesting to ensure that we meet the targets through the Western Climate Initiative," he said.

Sure. I believe that. I have a tropical island in Labrador for sale, too.

However, the revenues still have to show up on the government's balance sheet.

Climate Change
- Global warming is a real phenomena - the planet is warming.
- It has almost nothing to do with mankind.
  - Man is responsible for only 3-4% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere
  - 96-97% is naturally formed and released from plants, the oceans, and from the ground
  - Canada emits about 565 megatons of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year
  - Global anthropogenic emissions = 36.9 billion tons. Canada's contribution = 2%
  - Canada's contribution to global total CO2 emissions = 0.07%
  - A reduction of 33% of Canada's CO2 emissions amounts to 0.023% of total global emissions
  - A reduction of 0.023% of the total CO2 emissions will not produce any measurable reduction in     the global temperature
 Conclusion - there is no benefit whatsoever in Ontario, or Canada spending billions of dollars on      this great quasi-scientific hoax

More facts:
 - The global temperature has risen on 0.5 degrees C since 1880. 
 - Climatological patterns indicate little or no global temperature rise until after about 2030
 - They also indicate about 0.5-0.75 degree temperature rise in the 21st century
 - In 1990 the IPCC predicted a 1.0 deg rise in temperature by 2025; to date it has risen 0.2 deg
 - For the IPCC prediction to come true the temperature would have to rise 0.8 deg in the next 9        years, more than the rise in the last 135 years
 - Currently, but for El Nino, the temperature has shown very little inclination to rise in past
   decade or more.
 - one good sized volcano could eliminate the effects of several years of global emissions reductions
 - Professor Murry Salby has shown that temperature increases follow CO2 increases, historically      by about 800 years
 - Most scientific research supports anthropogenic global warming because those with an open
   mind on the subject are frozen out of research funds

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and industry increased by 0.6% in 2014, with a total of 9.8±0.5 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) (35.9 GtCO2) emitted to the atmosphere, 60% above 1990 emissions (the Kyoto Protocol reference year). Emissions are projected to decline by -0.6% in 2015 (range -1.6% to +0.5%).


Thursday, January 21, 2016

Are Satellite Temperature Data Reliable?

Is there a scientific bias against that which does not support global warming?

Yesterday, I posted an article on global warming claiming 2015 to be 'by far' the warmest year on record. Computer models from NASA, NOAA, Japan Met Agency, and USC Berkeley all agreed that such was the case.


The article posed that the El Nino event currently happening may cause the temperature to rise by about 1/3rd of a degree; although, as I pointed out, this year's El Nino is very close to being on a par with the 1997-98 El Nino - the strongest ever. That El Nino resulted in a temperature spike of 2/3rds of a degree. 

The point is by using an average El Nino temperature spike rather than the more relevant 1997-98 event, the article appears to try to minimize the El Nino effect and, therefore, exaggerate the effects of anthropogenic CO2 production on global warming. As I also pointed out yesterday, this too is disingenuous since it has never been proven and, indeed, the best proof, or science, seems to indicate little or no anthropogenic effect on global warming.

Temperature data from satellite observations indicated that 2015 was, in fact, only the 3rd warmest year on record since those data have been tracked - 1979. This finding was handled by scientists informing us that satellite data are not reliable, that there is a larger margin of error. The video below indicates that the data actually verifies quite well with upper air observations. 

So the question is, are satellite data less reliable than the heavily messaged, unverified temperatures from the surface? Or, are scientists simply dismissing that which does not fit with their preconceived conclusions?

What do you think?