By Joel Kotkin
The West is turning away from COP28’s green agenda
The middle and working classes are tiring of draconian climate policies
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Monday, November 27, 2023
Read: Will Reducing Parking Save the Planet?
By Randal O'Toole
Will Reducing Parking Save the Planet?
Will Reducing Parking Save the Planet?
"As stated previously, I can’t take climate change seriously as long as people keep putting forward their wacko ideas that they had long before climate was an issue as “the solution.” The latest example is a claim that ending minimum parking requirements is “one solution to fight climate change.” I think the proponents of this idea are just totally confused."
Thursday, November 16, 2023
Michael Mann Scam Update 11-16-2023
Climate hoax meltdown:
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) November 16, 2023
WaPo attacks 2022 Nobel physics prize winner John Clauser for saying there is no climate crisis.
Real funny:
WaPo @maxinejoselow quotes fake Nobelist and hokey stick inventor @MichaelEMann (multiple false claims of being a Nobel winner) as calling… pic.twitter.com/8srIJbVT7t
Monday, November 6, 2023
Read: Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on bad science
By Nicholas Lewis
Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on bad science
Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on bad science
I do not consider that Hansen’s climate sensitivity estimation properly assesses and fairly reflects all the available relevant evidence. Unfortunately, unlike Sherwood et al.(2020), IPCC AR6 and Lewis (2023), Hansen et. al. (2023) estimates ECS using only paleoclimate proxy-derived evidence, which generally varies considerably according to the proxies involved and to the methods used to interpret them. This opens the door for biased (cherry picked) assessments. For instance, Hansen et. al. do not even mention any studies (e.g. Annan and Hargreaves (2013) and (2022)) that find a much lower LGM – preindustrial warming than their chosen value.
Although I respect Hansen’s ability and considerable scientific contributions, in my view papers he leads are increasingly strongly biased towards overheated projections and dire conclusions.[19] The “political recommendations” with great impact on the society in Hansen et al. (2023) cannot be justified because their foundation is very shaky, as shown here for climate sensitivity and, in relation to warming-in-the-pipeline and ocean heating, in Michael Mann’s critique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)