I don't think companies like Exxon Mobil, BP, Total, Statoil, Gazprom, Naftogaz, Lundin Oil and many other companies are fond of the idea using Solar and Wind as an energy source .
Then we have more companies in the Middle East countries and Nigeria and Venezuela

Reasoned Climate Science 'Debate' 'Discussions'?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/24/report-scott-pruitt-may-ask-former-obama-official-to-lead-a-climate-red-team

Say 'IT' CAN'T BE SO.

I'd Rather DIE than Be Reasonable.

From Blue to Black Yappin'

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

'Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord
Short synopsis, Italy says it releases less than 10 tonnes of HFC-23 per year, monitoring station on mountain in Switzerland detects 60-80 tonnes per year.

HFC-23 is 14,800 times more warming than CO2.

HFC-23 is 14,800 times more warming than CO2.

EeewwW dAt's SCARRY.

And MEANINGLESS

DENIED Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

LOL:)
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term "climate change" in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
Avoid → use instead
Climate change → weather extremes
Climate change adaptation → resilience to weather extremes/intense weather events: drought, heavy rain, spring ponding
Reduce greenhouse gases → build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency
Sequester carbon → build soil organic matter
Problem solved:)

LOL:)
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term "climate change" in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
Avoid → use instead
Climate change → weather extremes
Climate change adaptation → resilience to weather extremes/intense weather events: drought, heavy rain, spring ponding
Reduce greenhouse gases → build soil organic matter, increase nutrient use efficiency
Sequester carbon → build soil organic matter
Problem solved:)

Anyone remember when they were told not to use "Global Warming" anymore. But use "Climate Change" during previous Administrations?
Just both sides wishing to impose themselves on the other.

In case someone still doesn't know the difference:)
Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
I'm sure if USDA asked some farmers they would get the right answer!
I know for sure how to tell the difference between "Väder och Klimat":)

Oh.
Or perhaps USDA should go to Nebraska or California and meet some cows while there's some still around.
Cattle graze on hay in a landscape that would normally be covered in green grass on the Van Vleck Ranch in Rancho Murieta, Calif., on Feb. 12, 2014.

Ok,

This isn't really 'denial', nor is it a 'solution', but it is closer to a 'denial', so I will post it here.

A couple of scientists from Australia have a very interesting paper.

John Abbot (a,b,c) and Jennifer Marohasy (b, c)

a
James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
b
Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
c
Climate Modelling Laboratory, Noosa, Queensland, Australia



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426

The application of machine learning for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change

Abstract
Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

I managed to get ahold of a link to the PDF of the full paper from one of the authors, and it is quite interesting reading. Here is the conclusion paragraph.

5. Conclusions

The uptake of machine learning, and specifically ANNs, in climate science has generally been slow compared to many other fields. This may in part be due to the heavy investment in physical models, particularly GCMs, over the past two decades and their importance to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. However, the complexity of the climate systems and limited understanding of all the physical processes leads to large uncertainties in the results generated –including the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). The present investigation attempts to reconcile ECS calculations from GCMs versus experimental methods. Using proxy records from a limited number of geographic locations, decomposing these through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into ANN models has enabled us to generate projections of temperatures for the period from 1880 to 2000 based on natural climate cycles. These temperature projections indicate warming due to natural climate cycles would be in the range 0.6 to 1 °C, depending on geographical location. The difference between our model output and actual recorded values was at most 0.2 °C. Knowing the corresponding rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over this same period has enabled us to estimate an ECS of 0.6 °C, which is approximately equivalent to values from experimental spectroscopic studies and the lowest estimates from energy balance models.

Very interesting...

Especially since the IPCC states that there has been about 1 °C of warming during this period (1880 to 2000)...

0.6 to 1.0 °C of the warming during 1880 to 2000 due to natural climate variations (60% to 100%).... hmm...

And yes, I know there are many who are going to attack the authors of the study and their funding organizations.

And note, this paper does NOT attempt to refute GhG-ACC. Just tries to figure out how much of climate change is natural, vs. how much is anthropogenic.

Are the authors correct? I don't know. Maybe... Maybe not...

But this paper does highlight a dire need for some more unbiased research.

If the AlGoreite Warmists are correct, and (almost) all of the climate change since the start of the industrial age is anthropogenic, we face an emergency of dire proportions.

If the authors of this study are correct, and much (or almost all) of the climate change during this period is due to natural variations, then is it that big of a problem?

What we have in this research area are two polar opposite points of view (the Warmists, and those they call deniers), each funded by organizations with deep pockets.

What we NEED is some (actually a LOT of it) independent research in this area without any preconceived biases: "How much of the climate change during the industrial age is natural and how much is anthropogenic?"

I saw the following quote in a newspaper article about the paper, and I think it is appropriate:

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

― Leo Tolstoy

Now then, *my* opinion on the subject.

1. We have had a LOT of Climate Change due to natural variations since there has been a climate.
2. GhG-ACC (Greenhouse Gas induced Anthropogenic Climate Change) seems to be rather sensible given the behavior of GhGs in the lab.
3. The behavior of the atmosphere (and hence the climate) is highly chaotic and is poorly understood.
4. We really do need to stop using the so-called fossil fuels as fuel. They have a host of other uses.
5. We need to do a LOT more unbiased research so that we can formulate sensible, logical public policy, instead of just ignoring a potential problem (the deniers) or going off half cocked if there might not really be much of a problem (Warmists).
6. In virtually all of the problems facing us down over the years, the solutions have very rarely been at the extremes, but instead somewhere in the middle. I see no real reason why ACC should be any different.

7. If the First Church of Warmism is correct, we are ALL BONED. If the Holy Church of the Almighty Petro-dollar is wrong, we are ALL BONED. We NEED to get a LOT better of an unbiased idea about things, SOON.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Figuring out how much of climate change is natural, vs. how much is anthropogenic?
Could be natural but how could it be such a dramatic change in about the last 200 years?

The graph resembles very much the population growth and CO2 the emissions during the same period.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

1) It there global warming, yes.
2) Is fossil fuel use undesirable, yes
3) Is hydro power good, maybe but ask a salmon that has to jump the dam
4) Is solar good, takes more fossil fuel to make it than it gives back
5) Is nuclear good. Absolutely. Can humans run it, doubtful.
6) Are there too many humans on the planet, yes.
7) Can humans cause global warming, yes
8) Is global warming caused by man by CO2, unknown
9) Can humans figure out fusion power, not likely before they self exterminate from over population.

SHINGAUWA! News Been Hittin' dA Lava Toobs HOT and HEAVY dat dere's Been A LOT OF LYIN' and All-Around Tomfoolery 'bout dAt HuWoMAN Made Climate 'CHANGE' Data. Ya Know, LYIN' and 'Fuddgin' 'Data' by dA Warmist Scammers.

Now, DR. HO HUM No Likeee when dA 'News' from dA LAVA Toobs is FAKE NEWS 'bout dA Climate.

DR HO HUM Misses dA Beat Beat of dA DRUM DRUM when 'FAKE' 'NEWS' is in dA Toobs.

We BeezzZ REAL Here, On dA Island of Yap

I [M] P E A C H A B L E and R E S I S T A B L E REAL Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

... dAt HuWoMAN Made Climate 'CHANGE' Data. Ya Know, LYIN' and 'Fuddgin' 'Data' by dA Warmist Scammers...

I'll ask again for some peer-reviewed consensus data from actual climatologists that backs this rather accusatory statement up, but something tells me I won't get anything back but more data-free Authentic Frontier Gibberish.

---

To speed up the vicious cycle of unfreezing the Arctic ice to speed up yet further the unfreezing of the Arctic ice:


First tanker crosses northern sea route without ice breaker

A commercial LNG tanker has sailed across the colder, northern route from Europe to Asia without the protection of an ice-breaker for the first time. The specially-built ship completed the crossing in just six-and-a-half days setting a new record, according to tanker's Russian owners...

Rising Arctic temperatures are boosting commercial shipping across this route...

The Russian owners, Sovcomflot, will use this ice-breaking tanker to export gas from the Yamal peninsula to Asian markets later this year. It will be the first of a planned fleet of 15 that will transport gas from these ice bound fields all year round...

... "We're concerned that this is a commercial opportunity that has only opened up because of global warming, and we're especially concerned that having taken advantage of the thinning of the ice, shipping operations are now expanding in that part of the world," said John Maggs from Seas at Risk. "It is not like sailing in open water, even if you have an ice classed ship, the risks are dramatically increased."

As well as the risk of accident or spillage, there are worries that some of the ships that will sail along this route will be powering their engines with heavier, dirtier marine fuels. The black carbon that they produce could be very damaging to snow and ice in the region, increasing the melting. ... "...slightly shorter journey times? A 30% gain is not much of gain to me."


Note that sooty dirty ice from the dirty tar-like cheapest bunker fuel used in large ships increases the heat absorbed from the sun.

Also note that clean ice reflects most of the sunlight whereas dark ocean ABSORBS most of the sunlight and heat.

What could possibly go wrong?...


Only on our one corruptly populated only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Why Martin, you forgot that the wakes will stir up the water putting more warm surface water into contact with ice.

ALL ICE MELTS in Artic. Water Temp stays at 28 Degrees.

So What's dA Big Deal?

Let dA BIG MELT Begin.

DR HO HUM Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Let dA BIG MELT Begin.

Hey, I'll take "there's warming, but I don't care" over "There's no warming and all the scientists are liars" any day.... at least it's honest! (Edit: and doesn't put anyone down either.)

---

MR.K said:

Hey, I'll take "there's warming, but I don't care" over "There's no warming and all the scientists are liars" any day.... at least it's honest! (Edit: and doesn't put anyone down either.)

And I Say:

Make Science GREAT Again. STOP dA FAKE Science of Political Bias; Agendas; Hoaxs; Scams; Schemes of Money Granting. All To Perpetuate An Indocrination of FAKE Science fostering FAKE Policies Thieving from TaxPayers.

And I Said:

ALL ICE MELTS in Artic. Water Temp stays at 28 Degrees.

There is A LOT OF GREAT THINGS 'bout dAt Statement. And I DON'T NEED TO CITE ANYTHING to PROVE IT.

dA BIG 'PUT DOWN' is BILLIONS of TAXPAYER DOLLARs Going to dA LIE OF FAKE SCIENCE of.....

My Yap is dA MOST HONEST Yap in dA WORLD and is FREE of CHARGE

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Ah well... I didn't expect much. By the way, scientists working for the oil companies already worked out the whole global warming issue in the 1970s, and it didn't cost a dime of taxpayer money. Shell even made a documentary in 1991.

No worries... self-correcting problem: once Florida is underwater the loss of its electoral votes will stop putting deniers in the White House. 😀

---

Hi Byron,
Think this picture would cause Trump to reconsider more

Hi Nick,
Good one,
LOL :-)