Recently, a number of efforts to silence dissent to Anthropocentric Global Warming polices have been undertaken by members of Congress and the Department of Justice.  There are proposals to sue any person or corporation that says the global warming is not occurring because “97 per cent of scientists agree” that global warming is a major problem and will result in sea rise and more severe storms.  It should be noted that all scientists (except 2, namely Copernicus and Galileo) also agreed that the earth was the center of the universe in the 1500s.  The theory that Man is controlling the weather through carbon dioxide is being propped up with data reanalyses, unverified models and politicians.  Many of the politicians are starting to sound like the Freedom of speech only belongs to those that agree with them.  And the politicians say that they know best.

I have often felt that the large amount of money that has been spent on climate models in the past decade have failed to result in any useful model that can improve the forecast for the next season or the next year.  Then you have a better change of estimating the effects in 75 years when all the model developers have long since died.

During the Democratic  debate last night, both candidates said we need laws to prevent climate change.  They seem to think that the government can write laws that will alter keep the climate. the same as today.   They assume that carbon (in reality, carbon dioxide) is altering the temperature of the planet.  They propose laws to restrict carbon from being burned in power plants.  However none of the current climate models are accurate enough to predict how much the earth cooled as a result of the laws.  It will just be a guess.

When I was studying ozone concentrations in  Connecticut, I proposed a law that the government eliminate all temperatures above 90 degrees in Connecticut.   Then all the high ozone days would be eliminated in the state.  At least, if this could have been enforced, the results would be obvious.

As the world moves to the UN climate change conference in Paris at the end of the month, you can expect one or two articles to appear each day to demonstrate how the use of carbon by our evil ways is adversely affecting the environment in many ways.

A current story on CNN reports on a story published by the National Bureau of Economic Research is the climate change is killing our sex drive. They showed using data from 1931 to 2010 that days over 80 Deg F results in a 0.4% reduction in births 9 months later. They project that the increasing number of hot days from 30 now to 90 in a warmer climate could mean about 100,000 fewer births in the U.S. Among the things proposed is that the high temperature impair sperm function. They did not include any statistics on the effects of air conditioning, or report on how the birth rates are affected in Africa, where the temperature is warmer.

Another story is that LaGuardia Airport in New York needs to be rebuilt to accommodate up to 6 feet of sea level by 2100.   New York State officials are creating sea level rise regulations to help coastal communities prepare for the increase, which is to be a major impact from climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions are unchecked, most of the US population could be affected by the rising water. Seeing this is 75 years off, shouldn’t we be seeing an increasing sea level of about an inch per year rather than less than an inch per decade for the past century? Or will the increase occur after 2090 when we can’t rebuild quick enough when the flood starts.

On Nov 9, the headline said ‘Report: Climate Change could push 100M into extreme poverty by 2030.” The report says agriculture will be disrupted and will cause malaria and other diseases to spread. It further states the impacts will be borne by the poor that are not prepared to deal with climate shocks such as rising seas or severe droughts. Thus the solution is to send billions of dollars from the wealthy countries to the poorer countries.

I would expect an article or two each day this month about what “could” happen at some time in the future with very few specifics. Check the article to see whether anything is said to indicate the background of the article and whether there is any real science involved. Most are just some proposed hypothesis for a future in the mind of the reader.

For persons that accept these stores as accurate predictions of the future, I have a couple of bridges for sale.

The NGS has jumped the shark in preparing the Cool It issue in support of a new treaty at the Paris Conference in December. They prepared the issue based on a rise in temperature that exceeds 10F in 2100, even higher than the upper limits projected by the IPCC in its latest report. There is no science in the issue but they project a utopian solution to the problems.

They state the West Antarctic Glacier is near collapse and will raise the oceans by more than 4 feet in the next several centuries. They don’t indicate if CO2 ceases whether it will continue.

They show dramatic increases in weather events in the past 20 years. They say floods have increased by a factor of 3 and that local and regional storms have increased 5 time since 1980 in 2014. Looking at IPCC data, they seem to be from another planet.

There is a proposal for solar and wind by 2050 in US with 78 million roof top systems, 49,000 solar plants, 156,000 off shore wind turbines, and 328,000 land base turbines. This would need land equal to North Carolina. The cost is estimated at $47,000 for each American.   Fossil fuels would not be used after 2035 and gasoline cars would no longer be made. And the electric cost will be reduced by 5%.

They further propose a house that has 89 ft2 and recommend its wide use in urban areas. They propose transportation be walking or by bicycle and to use trains for long distances.

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Change by Tim Ball is a book that reviews the history of the takeover of the climate science by scientists either driven by funding or politics starting in the 1980s. He asserts that the climatological science has been set back 30 years and that scientists in the future will lose credibility. The book is a history of the people and groups who used unwarranted fear of human-caused climate change to undermine science.  Vast sums of money are spent on scientists who agreed to climb aboard the global warming gravy train. This book is easy to read and may be conducive to possibly changing the minds of policymakers that have an open mind.   It is a more general book than Climate Change..The Facts.

I recently read the book Climate Change..The Facts  (available from Amazon) that was edited by Alan Moran from essays written by numerous scientists that argue against the AGW. There is little continuity among the various essays, which are generally written on a single topic. Many of the essays are entirely factual and the general reader would find it difficult to understand without a background in meteorology.

The book seems to be designed to state what is wrong from an historical view and to present the facts for future readers rather than to try to convince the reader that something can be done to stop the government from plowing forward with their agendas. A summary of each of the essays can be found in the Amazon listing by looking inside at the introduction and each essay is 5 to 10 pages. There are more than 50 pages of references to scientific journals which makes it a good reference book.