H/T The GWPF
Still going round in circles it seems: long on assertions but short on credible evidence of the claimed alarming human effects.

“Better climate knowledge about natural versus anthropogenic forcing seems to be a decade away”, quotes Master Resource.

That was the major takeaway from a major 1999 climate conference in Houston, Texas , as noted by Martin Cassidy of the Houston Geological Society, who authored a conference summary, “Global Climate Change: Panel Agrees: ‘In 10 Years We Will Know’.”

In fact, one of the conference participants, Gerald North, climatologist at Texas A&M, repeated this a decade after this conference. In his words:

‘In another decade of research we will have squared away a lot of our uncertainties about forced climate change. As this approaches we can be thinking about what to do if the warming does indeed appear to be caused by humans and to what extent things are changing as result.’ (North to Seldon B. Graham, Jr. January 6, 2010)

Now for Cassidy’s 1,000-word writeup. As you read this, ask yourself: what is really that different today, 20 years later, science-wise?

On Friday, September 25, 1999, a distinguished panel of eight scientists, all active in research on global climate change, met at the Houston Club under the sponsorship of The Houston Forum to present a reasoned scientific discussion about global climate change. The half-day panel discussion was a welcome relief from the strident cries of special pleaders on either side of the question of global warming.

Ed Powell, Houston Forum leader, turned the meeting over to Dr. David R. Legates to moderate. He stated that the objective of the meeting was to present what is known and the limits of accuracy of the data that we have. During the morning session, four general topics were discussed:

Continued here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2VXF9yS

March 13, 2019 at 04:42AM

And a band of ignorant brats shall lead them: Some things have hardly changed since 1212.

In the summer of 1212, thousands of divinely inspired young people from across Catholic France and Germany took off to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims. None made it to the Holy Land. Many died along the way or were sold into slavery. As military campaigns go, the Children’s Crusade was a disaster. Yet environmental activists and politicians are adopting the same “a child shall lead them” strategy to push their climate change agenda and its latest incarnation, the Green New Deal.

Youth-oriented climate groups have proliferated in the past few years, helped by logistical support from the United Nations. With earnest names such as iMatter Youth Movement, Zero Hour and Youth vs. Apocalypse, these outfits publicly lecture world leaders and march for the cause. This Friday has been designated “a global day of action” on which thousands of students world-wide are expected to strike—otherwise known as cutting class.

A few of these youth groups are highly litigious, bringing lawsuits on the novel theory of “intergenerational equity.” Most cases have been dismissed, although some continue to work their way through the courts, including Juliana v. U.S., filed in 2015 by Our Children’s Trust.

Meanwhile, the Green New Deal has been introduced, appropriately enough, by the youngest member of Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It reads more like a progressive letter to Santa Claus than a serious piece of legislation.

Members of Congress not yet on board—Democrats and Republicans alike—are targets of adolescent Alinskys. Sen. Dianne Feinstein was recently ambushed in her San Francisco office by middle- and high-school students from the Sunrise Movement. To her credit, Mrs. Feinstein tried to explain to the youngsters that the Green New Deal would cost too much and would never pass into law. The exchange called to mind a grandparent laying down the law when the parents can’t or won’t do their job.

The Feinstein fiasco should give pause to the adult climate-change activists hiding behind—and exploiting—all of these doubtless sincere young people whose heads have been filled for years with frightening tales of climate disaster. Children are innocent, but innocence goes with inexperience, naiveté and unwisdom. From following the Pied Piper into a medieval forest to sailing off with Pinocchio to Pleasure Island to shoplifting candy from Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, children tend to make bad choices, which is why we don’t let them run things—or vote, consume alcohol, drive cars or enter into contracts.

Anthropogenic global warming is a highly politicized, scientifically complex issue that still requires debate despite the purported consensus. Given the strategic importance of the nation’s energy sector, any mitigation efforts would have wide-reaching economic and geopolitical ramifications.

Full post

The post On Climate, The Kids Are All Wrong appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

https://ift.tt/2UAsMbw

March 13, 2019 at 04:34AM

Princeton University, Engineering School Widespread use of autonomous vehicles (AVs) could either massively increase or drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions depending, in large part, on public policy, according to new research from Princeton University. “We need fuel economy standards to ensure the cars are clean, and policies to encourage ridesharing to reduce vehicle miles traveled,”…

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2HjaRTH

March 13, 2019 at 04:06AM

via climate science

https://ift.tt/2Hu8EnS

March 13, 2019 at 02:30AM