IF GhG-ACC is correct, and the major driving force behind the climate changes we see today, then Algore, the UN IPCC, and all the other politicians are just not doing enough. I have said it here before. If we stop using all Fossil Fuel... ALL of it... right now this instant... it wouldn't be enough to even really slow down very much the climate change we are observing in the short to medium-long term. Maybe in a couple of hundred thousand years the climate might get back to normal... And this is the case even if we stopped right now this instant EVERYTHING else we are doing that is driving climate change. There are just WAY too many humans on this planet.. somewhere around 2000 times too many...

Heard on the Radio:

A Town in America has refused to install Solar Panels as a retired Lady Scientist said they would suck up all the Sun's energy causing the Crops to fail.


Fake news or for real?!

Heard on the Radio:
A Town in America has refused to install Solar Panels as a retired Lady Scientist said they would suck up all the Sun's energy causing the Crops to fail.
Fake news or for real?!
Only in the USA?...
All on our only one planet,
Martin

The quietly announced proposal would require ratepayers to fully underwrite a new mandate that coal and nuclear plants hold a minimum of 90 days' worth of fuel on-site under the false premise of providing security from power outages.

But critics say the subsidy is just a massive government-mandated transfer of wealth from consumers to coal and nuclear companies.

"This is like changing the energy system from capitalism to communism—and the U.S. government wants to do it within the next two weeks," said Michael Krancer, a principal at energy policy company Silent Majority Strategies.

The Department of Energy says the fuel stockpiles are necessary to prevent power outages “in times of supply stress, such as recent natural disasters.” But only 0.00007 percent of all major power disruptions over the past five years were due to fuel supply problems, John Larsen, a power sector researcher for the Rhodium Group, told Newsweek.

Here is a "free market" solution to prop up the dying coal industry:

The Trump administration wants to force electricity customers to pay for a $10.6 billion annual bailout of the failing coal and nuclear industries through surcharges on their monthly energy bills.

Is Trump that desperate for votes and favour?

The term “underwater” — used frequently to refer to homeowners who owed more on their mortgage than their property was worth — has a more frightening meaning in a study by Zillow.
Zillow’s new analysis of the potential impact of climate change on homes across the country projects that 1.9 million residences could be literally underwater by 2100 if the oceans rise six feet.
That six-foot rise is approximately halfway between the federal government’s estimated “very likely” rise of 4.3 feet by 2100 and an eight-foot or greater rise, the possibility of which the government says “cannot be excluded.” Zillow opted for this midpoint rather than address the different predictions for various areas.
If those projections come true, this would impact 1.8 percent of the country’s housing stock, valued at $916 billion.

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

Fully 101 of the 116 models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses to chart what lies ahead assume that carbon will be taken out of the air in order for the world to have a good chance of meeting the 2°C target. The total amount of CO2 to be soaked up by 2100 could be a staggering 810bn tonnes, as much as the world’s economy produces in 20 years at today’s rate (see article). Putting in place carbon-removal schemes of this magnitude would be an epic endeavour even if tried-and-tested techniques existed.

They do not. A few power stations and industrial facilities capture CO2 that would otherwise end up in the air and store it away underground, a practice known as carbon capture and storage. But this long-touted approach to cutting emissions still operates on only a very small scale, dealing with just a few tens of millions of tonnes of CO2 a year. And such schemes merely lower emissions; they do not reverse them.

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

Exxon Valdez 150,000 barrels
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-trans-alaska-pipeline-lessons-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

As long as there are mouths that demand food, the oil is coming out of the ground. If you don't want the oil coming out of the ground then you have to reduce world population.

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

Exxon Valdez 150,000 barrels
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-trans-alaska-pipeline-lessons-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

As long as there are mouths that demand food, the oil is coming out of the ground. If you don't want the oil coming out of the ground then you have to reduce world population.

Finally, at last Gary you have made a statement that I totally agree with. +1

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

Exxon Valdez 150,000 barrels
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-trans-alaska-pipeline-lessons-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

As long as there are mouths that demand food, the oil is coming out of the ground. If you don't want the oil coming out of the ground then you have to reduce world population.

Finally, at last Gary you have made a statement that I totally agree with. +1

Yes. Let's start to reduce the people in countries that crave the most of OUR planet resources!

Last week, scientists were pulling together the latest data for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s monthly report on the climate when they noticed something strange: One of their key climate monitoring stations had fallen off the map. All of the data for Barrow, Alaska — the northernmost city in the United States — was missing.

No, Barrow hadn’t literally been vanquished by the pounding waves of the Arctic Sea (although it does sit precipitously close). The missing station was just the result of rapid, man-made climate change, with a runaway effect on the Arctic.

The temperature in Barrow had been warming so fast this year, the data was automatically flagged as unreal and removed from the climate database. It was done by algorithms that were put in place to ensure that only the best data gets included in NOAA’s reports. They’re handy to keep the data sets clean, but this kind of quality-control algorithm is good only in “average” situations, with no outliers. The situation in Barrow, however, is anything but average.

What initially looked like an impish dig at President Trump by French President Emmanuel Macron over climate policy has turned into a concrete plan.

First, when the Trump administration proposed slashing federal science budgets and then, on June 1, when Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, Macron took to social media to offer (in perfect English) to greet with open arms — and research dollars — American scientists worried about the political climate as well as global warming.

Macron urged worried climate scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to see France as a “second homeland” and to come work there because “we all share the same responsibility: make our planet great again.”

Two years after the Paris climate accord was adopted, the French government is unveiling a list of 18 “laureates” — 13 of them working in the United States — who have won a “Make Our Planet Great Again” competition for $70 million of research grants awarded for as long as five years. They include professors and researchers at Cornell University, Columbia University, Stanford University and other institutions.

Some scientists devote their lives painstakingly assembling fragments of evidence to piece together a picture of the past. They deserve tremendous credit. Unfortunately today we appear to have inept or sleazy scientists who take collected data and destroy it – thus permanently blinding our view of the past. These people deserve to be loathed.