RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/10/08/climate-change-is-here-its-going-to-get-cooler-says-nasa/

Climate researcher Michael Mann said last week that if President Donald Trump is reelected, it’s “game over for the climate.” It’s the same alarmism we’ve been hearing for decades, all of it empty. But the alarmists won’t stop telling us we’re about to set the sky on fire. Even if NASA has said record cold might be on the way.

The sun, it seems, has been powering down.

“We see a cooling trend,” Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center said two years ago, a remark largely ignored but still relevant. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

Like the humans it keeps alive, our star goes through phases, usually about 11 years, over the course of its life. Right now we’re in what NASA calls solar cycle 25, emerging last December from a solar minimum that fell between solar cycles 24 and 25.

“It is important to remember solar activity never stops; it changes form as the pendulum swings,” says Lika Guhathakurta, solar scientist at NASA’s Heliophysics Division.

But climate alarmism continues to grow exponentially. It’s more shrill today than it’s ever been.

For the record, global temperatures dropped from 2016 through late 2019. We don’t know about any unprecedented cooling in the last two years. But maybe the climatistas need to consider that solar activity affects our climate. The Little Ice Age, in which Europe and North America experienced brutally cold winters and mild summers, coincided with the Maunder (solar) Minimum of 1645 to 1720. They don’t want to deny science, do they?

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-10-5-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-

It has been more than a year since I last added a post to this series. The previous post in the series, Part XXVI, appeared on August 20, 2019. For all of the prior twenty-six posts, go to this composite link.

There are two reasons for a new post at this time. The first is that there is some new work out from a guy named Tony Heller. The new work can be found at Heller’s website here, with a date of October 1. Heller also indicates that he intends to continue to add to and supplement this work. Heller is an independent researcher who particularly focuses on the subject of this series: alterations to past officially-reported government climate data to create an impression of warming that did not exist in the data as originally reported. Heller is quite skilled at going through reams of government climate data, and turning those data into useful graphs to demonstrate his points. However, in the past I have sometimes been frustrated with Heller’s work for not including sufficient links to enable a reader to verify that his assertions about data alteration are correct. Thankfully, in the current piece, Heller has corrected that issue, and provides the links so that you can see for yourself that the government has changed the data it previously reported in order to artificially enhance the apparent warming trend.

The second reason for a new post at this time is that President Trump has — finally! — hired two climate skeptics into positions of authority over the bureaucracy that compiles, and later alters, the climate data. On September 12, Trump named David Legates to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Observation and Prediction. And on September 21, Trump named Ryan Maue as Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is the main bureaucracy where the principal climate data are compiled, and is a part of the Department of Commerce. (Another agency, NASA, is also involved in these efforts.). Both Legates and Maue have been known as people who refuse to accept much of official climate orthodoxy. It is completely bizarre that these appointments would only occur less than two months before the election that could turn Trump out of office, but there you go.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/09/the_real_cost_of_wind_and_solar.html

The entire renewable electricity industry is actually a government boondoggle

The main problem with either wind or solar is that they generate electricity erratically, depending on the wind or sunshine. In contrast, a fossil-fuel plant can generate electricity predictably upon request. Blackouts are very expensive for society, so grid operators and designers go to a lot of trouble to make sure that blackouts are rare. The electrical grid should have spare capacity sufficient to meet the largest demand peaks even when some plants are out of commission.  Plants in spinning reserve status stand by ready to take over if a plant trips (breaks down). Injecting erratic electricity into the grid means that other plants have to seesaw output to balance the ups and downs of wind or solar.

Adding wind or solar to a grid does not mean that existing fossil fuel plants can be retired. Often, neither wind nor solar is working and at those times a full complement of fossil fuel plants, or sometimes nuclear or hydro plants, must be available. Both wind and solar have pronounced seasonality. During low output times, as for summer wind, the fossil-fuel plants are carrying more of the load. Of course, solar stops working as the sun sets.

Wind behaves erratically hour to hour. Even though the Texas 18,000-megawatt system has thousands of turbines spread over a wide area, the net output is erratic changing by thousands of megawatts in a single hour. These shifts must be balanced by fossil-fuel plants slewing their output up and down to compensate and keep load matched to generation.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/trump_is_right_science_doesnt_know_the_problem_is_that_supposed_journalists_dont_care.html

Here are some facts that most of the media, scientists, entertainers, and other Democrats choose to ignore as they indoctrinate the public, especially the children about ‘science’: 

Environmentalists and politicians have mismanaged forests for decades in California and elsewhere. They won’t clear cut, clear out brush and leaves, allow logging or build in firebreaks. It leaves the area much more vulnerable to heat, lightning, wind, accidental or intentional fires to combust wildly. The fires are clearly not caused by oil use.

The Earth has had many lengthy warming and cooling periods throughout its history, long before humans and oil use could have had any effect.

Floods, storms, and droughts have been extensive throughout the Earth’s history. How else would it be covered by so many deserts and so many deep seas?

The English Channel was formed around 400,000 years ago because of massive floods.

The Sahara Desert used to be lush and green before it became a desert around 9,000 years ago. It has essentially been in a 9,000-year drought.

California has had decades long severe droughts before man or petroleum use could have had any effect. That is why it is covered by so much desert.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=416f8107a0

Back at the beginning of the Trump administration in January 2017, it was all the rage for media on the left to accuse Trump and his people of being “anti-science.” I compiled a collection of such accusations in a post on January 27 of that year, using the title “Who Again Is ‘Anti-Science’?” Among those I cited as making the accusation was the venerable magazine Scientific American, which had published a piece on January 18, 2017 with the title “Trump’s 5 Most Anti-Science Moves.”

If you look at that 2017 Scientific American piece, or the other articles that I cited in my post, you will see that those commenters are conceiving of “science” not as a special methodology, but rather as something more like: “science is what people who call themselves scientists do.” The basic complaint of the commenters was that Trump was “anti-science” because he was listening to or appointing people who disagreed with — or worse, sought to de-fund — functionaries in the government who called themselves scientists.

I have a different definition of the term “science.” Here’s my definition: “Science is a process for understanding reality through using experiment or data to attempt to falsify falsifiable hypotheses.” Those are my words, but I have tried there to capture the gist of the classic conception of the scientific method articulated by philosopher Karl Popper. For a somewhat longer articulation of the same thing, here is an excerpt discussing Popper’s principles from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival . . . In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions. . . . [Popper] holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests.  By contrast, theories that are permanently immunized from falsification by the introduction of untestable ad hoc hypotheses can no longer be classified as scientific.