By Paul Homewood From GWPF: Using simple statistics it looked at and dismissed over 200 peer-reviewed papers that analysed the pause and concluded it was a real phenomenon. How did they, and the IPCC, get it all so wrong? Source: Clive Best Nobody who keeps an eye on climate research will be at […]
via How Can So Many Scientists Be So Wrong About The Pause? — NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the […]
via NOTE TO POLICY MAKERS : 41 Reasons Why Wind ‘Power’ Can Not Replace Fossil Fuels — Climatism
Wind power is utterly pointless on every level, having been abandoned centuries ago for pretty obvious reasons, starting with the weather.
The oft heard retort from those fighting the prospect of wind turbines being speared into their backyards, is “why don’t they put them offshore?” These are the characters who are simply too gutless to openly criticise renewables, lest they be attacked as “tin-foil hat wearing climate deniers”, “flat-earthers” and NIMBYS.
The last of those charges is well-deserved. The rest, though, is just the kind of mean-spirited denigration we’ve come to expect from members of the wind cult. There is no real logical argument to support wind power, so they’re reduced to ad hominem attacks on those who stand as obstacles to our purportedly ‘inevitable transition’ to an all wind and sun powered future. [Note to Ed: why don’t they simply ask them how that’s panned out in South Australia?]
View original post 864 more words
By Paul Homewood
Hey-ho!
An outright ban on plastics could lead to greater environmental damage, according to a group of academics.
Campaigners have called for reductions or bans in some areas, with recent programmes such as the BBC’s Blue Planet highlighting the impact of plastics on the world’s oceans.
A group of 40 academics from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh said they support the need to prevent potentially harmful environmental effects of plastics but arguments surrounding a reduction or ban are “often shortsighted and not based on facts”.
The group, which draws expertise from engineering, science, economics and social science, said there needs to be a “circular economy” for plastic usage.
They said replacing plastics with other available packaging, such as glass or metal, could lead to a doubling of global energy consumption and a tripling of greenhouse gas emissions.
Professor David Bucknall, chairman in materials chemistry from the university’s…
View original post 261 more words
Axios reports that President Trump’s views on climate have been shaped over the years by a “small but influential set or organizations and people,” including JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy, CEI’s Myron Ebell, Murray Energy’s Bob Murray, the Heartland Institute and Sen. Jim Inhofe. Axios, of course, means this as a slam. Not only is Axios…
via WINNING: Milloy one of a ‘small but influential set’ Trump has been listening to — JunkScience.com
By Paul Homewood
A hard hitting documentary from the German public broadcaster, Deutsche Welle, about the human and environmental cost of mining lithium and cobalt:
If you can’t watch the whole of it, I would suggest watching the first 6 minutes, and from 15 minutes to 22 minutes.
Science is distorted by progressive philosophy 