What is the Nenana Ice Classic?
The Ice Classic is Alaska's greatest guessing game!
In Nenana during1917 a group of engineers surveying for the Alaska Railroad bet $800 putting in their guesses when the river would break up. This fun little guessing game has turned into an incredible tradition that has now continued for over 100 years!
Buy and turn in your $3.00 ticket between February 1st and April 5th to be involved in this long running Alaskan tradition.
The ECHR ruled that the Swiss government had violated these women's rights to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to comply with climate duties or to address "critical gaps" in climate policies. Throughout the proceedings, Swiss authorities acknowledged missing climate targets, including by not properly supervising greenhouse gas emissions in sectors like building and transport, and not regulating emissions in other sectors such as agricultural and financial. //
The court's judgment is binding, cannot be appealed, and could "influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK," the BBC reported. Experts told CNN that the case could also influence other international courts, potentially opening the floodgates to more climate litigation globally. //
In a partly dissenting opinion, ECHR judge Tim Eicke warned that there could be a downside to the ECHR ruling creating "a new right" to “effective protection by the State authorities from serious adverse effects on their life, health, well-being, and quality of life arising from the harmful effects and risks caused by climate change.” Climate litigation attempting to force states to act could end up bogging down government, Eicke said, proving "an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction for the national and international authorities, both executive and legislative, in that it detracts attention from the ongoing legislative and negotiating efforts being undertaken as we speak to address the—generally accepted—need for urgent action."
Ryan Maue
@RyanMaue
·
Follow
Wow. Guyana's president tells the climatists to shove it.
Anas Alhajji
@anasalhajji
A must watch!
This is my hero!
He is Mohamed Irfaan Ali, President of Guyana.
#Oil #Guyana
Embedded video https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1773813984015127005
4:46 PM · Mar 29, 2024 //
BBC host Stephen Sackur essentially asked him during an interview isn't it a bad thing for you guys to extract $150 billion of oil and gas off your coast because of the carbon emissions that would ultimately be released into the atmosphere?
Ali's response is just pure gold. He stops Sackur cold and then just rips him a new one. //
First, Ali tells him they have a huge forest in Guyana that basically makes them carbon neutral because of how large it is, "a forest we have kept alive."
Sackur says, "Does that give you the right to release all of this carbon...."
Ali interrupts him, "Does that give you right to lecture us on climate change?"
"I will lecture YOU on climate change!" he said, pointing his finger at Sackur. Then he ripped him to pieces, using their own terms on him.
"Because we have kept this forest alive, that stores 90.5 gigatons of carbon. That you enjoy. That the world enjoys. That you don't pay us for...That you don't see a value in...Guess what? We have the lowest deforestation rate in the world." He said even with the greatest amount they could extract, they would still be "net zero." //
There was a little bit more that didn't make the above clip, where Ali explained the importance of paying for the development of the country.
Sackur complained that Greenpeace said the world needs to keep the majority of the world’s remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
But Ali was not having it.
“You just said that we are 6-feet below sea level. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? Who is going to pay for the drainage and irrigation? Who is going to pay for the development and advancement of our country?” The President questioned. //
anon-pabn
a minute ago
That is perfect. We need to shame these climate alarmist, hypocrites. Set aside the current arguments, they are telling little Guyana not to drill after the rest of the world has drilled and prospered because of it. What balz! Drill, Baby, Drill. And congrats on your forest....better than any other countries efforts
The goal of the proposed “Nature Restoration Plan” is….Climate Neutrality by 2050. //
The last time I checked on the European farmers’ protests, it had appeared the continent-wide demonstrations made an impact, as the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium, nixed some of its unrealistic green plans for a global utopia. Gone, for example, are rules to force the reduction of nitrogen (essential for fertilizers) and methane (generated by cattle) and plans to persuade European citizens to eat less meat.
The demonstrations have continued, and now a major European Union climate change plan for the 27-nation bloc has been postponed…indefinitely. //
What would “climate neutrality” even look like? Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history has examples of significant changes to the global climate, the vast majority occurring before the first hominid walked on the planet. //
The original environmental agency’s mission of reducing needless pollution is a reasonably achievable goal.
“Climate neutrality” is a faith-based quest that misuses science, creates cult-like behaviors, and generates destructive policies.
We all want a future where humans can thrive in a clean environment. But as the eye-opening documentary “Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth” reveals, while we hear dire warnings that we must rapidly eliminate fossil fuels to avoid a climate catastrophe, we are manufacturing a humanitarian crisis of our own.
https://youtu.be/zmfRG8-RHEI //
Wealthy countries built their economic resilience on coal, oil, and gas. Denying the same benefit to poor countries for the sake of hypothetical climate risk is immoral.
As Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser bluntly puts it, “It’s all a crock of crap.”
The documentary shows that the goal of energy policy should be to provide clean, reliable, and resilient power to raise standards of living, both in America and overseas.
That means maintaining an energy mix that can handle nature’s curveballs. It means maximizing our options, not banning entire categories of energy the world still needs. But as environmentalists seek to ban fossil fuels, they are raising the price of electricity for some and depriving others in emerging economies of that valuable resource.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/colonization-antarctica-ice
Correlation does not equal causation, and King is leaning on correlation and, worse, inference. Ice cores can, yes, provide some interesting data on CO2 ratios and, very broadly, trends in temperature. But that's quite a lateral arabesque to go from "CO2 ratios changing," which has happened continually since the Earth formed, and "CO2 ratios changing due to human activity," which to my modest scientific background can't be concluded from the data presented here.
Science is supposed to be data-driven. If one's data doesn't support the hypothesis, one changes the hypothesis and then it's back to the drawing board. This article - not a peer-reviewed journal article, but a consumer piece for popular consumption - makes a lot of logical leaps that the data and the original study just don't appear to support.
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures. The English translation of the paper is available HERE, and is well worth looking at for anyone interested in the facts behind global temperature trends. https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf //
Climate Discussion Nexus offers an introduction to why this paper is so important:
Well, this is awkward. Statistics Norway, aka Statistisk sentralbyrå or “the national statistical institute of Norway and the main producer of official statistics”, has just published a paper “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”
The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”
But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it. //
Oracle | October 20, 2023 at 9:35 am
Freeman Dyson spent one year studying global warming and came to the same conclusion- in the mid 90’s (though his big controversial interview was about 2005?). //
Zachriel | October 20, 2023 at 1:12 pm
Statistics Norway just published a bomb-shell of a paper that offers a real analysis of global temperatures.
The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed. Nor does it offer a “real analysis.” The analysis doesn’t even attempt to account for greenhouse gases or combine those effects with other drivers of climate. The paper also cites approvingly several claims that have already been shown to be in error, while discounting or ignoring the findings of scientists far outside their own field of study.
Essentially, what the paper does is look at the curve and say that it could be natural because natural changes can cause large fluctuations. While true, that doesn’t mean that the current warming isn’t due to greenhouse gases. ...
Interestingly, no eco-activists are blockading the roads into Reinhardswald (site of Sleeping Beauty Castle), or tying themselves to trees to protect the “old growth forests” //
The energy suicide of Germany is rapidly becoming legendary.
Legal Insurrection readers will recall that the nation shuttered its last nuclear power plant in 2023. The German government decided to double down on net-zero dreams and renewable energy promises.
Germany is already big on wind: with nearly 30,000 onshore wind turbines, the country trails only the US and China.
But it’s not enough to meet the country’s climate goals. Today, only 0.8% of Germany’s land area is approved for onshore wind energy. By 2032, the government wants to have 2% of land area allocated for onshore wind power. This means installing between 1,000 and 1,500 new turbines a year, or four to five a day by 2030, as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently said.
Germany needs wind energy to meet its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2045, a target it’s currently in danger of missing, according to multiple studies. The country also missed its emissions reduction targets the last two years in a row, according to think tank Agora Energiewende. //
A large area of Reinhardswald, an ancient German forest featured in the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm, is being partially cut down in favour of 241-metre tall wind turbines.
Following a months-long construction freeze, administrative courts have allowed heavy machinery to raze parts of the forest, including some trees that are more than 200 years old.
Around 120,000 trees in the 200km² mountainous woodland in the Weser Uplands in the district of Kassel, Hesse, are said to have been condemned to the axe. //
Germany passed legislation in 2019 to shut down all its coal plants by 2038, and last year the country shuttered the last three plants in its once-formidable nuclear fleet (in 1990 nuclear provided a quarter of Germany’s electricity).
As a result, the country has been forced to import electricity and natural gas at substantially higher prices. Germany has recently been delaying planned closures of coal plants and is now also planning new gas plants as well, but the damage has been done. Germany now has some of the highest prices for electricity in the world.
As a result, the entire German economy is in the doldrums. Growth forecasts for this year were recently slashed to just 0.2%, and as inflation is forecast to come in at about 2%, that implies actual economic contraction. Other indicators are also dire, with orders at German engineering firms and overall foreign investment dropping dramatically. //
The study found that the older a tree is, the better it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere. In fact, the research suggests that almost 70 per cent of all the carbon stored in trees is accumulated in the last half of their lives. //
smooth | March 12, 2024 at 8:51 am
But the climate extremists always say plant more trees to remove CO2 from the air? //
smooth | March 12, 2024 at 9:40 am
France has 56 nuclear power sites. All EU countries combined have over 160 active nuke power sites. Germany going to boycott them all?
The Gentle Grizzly in reply to smooth. | March 12, 2024 at 9:57 am
Yes. Because the master race knows better. Why do things simply with existing technology when one can do it the German way: needless complexity for the sake of it, and then call it “precision engineering”. //
Apparently, normalcy has been restored to NYC to the point that Mayor Eric Adams has approved controversial rules regulating the amount of delicious, smokey aroma generated from the area’s pizzerias.
Democrat Mayor Eric Adams has approved a new green plan that requires facilities using wood- and coal-fired stoves to cut their smoke by 75 percent.
More than 130 businesses will be impacted by the law, including many famed pizza joints. Businesses can apply for an exemption from the mandate – which goes into effect on April 27 – but they must prove they can not financially meet the requirements.
Still, business must then cut their emissions by 25 percent. //
The costs of the ventilation control systems are enormous, and they are likely to force many pizzerias to close. //
To cook pizza in the traditional way, ovens need to reach 1,200 degrees. Only coal-fired ovens can reach such high temperatures. //
From April 2020 to July 2022, Gotham’s population fell by nearly a half million people, or 5.3% — wiping out almost three-quarters of the gains over the previous decade, DiNapoli reports, citing Census figures.
That was more than double the state’s 2.6% drop, and it came while the nation overall was expanding by 0.6%.
Matt Whitlock @mattdizwhitlock
·
This city of Honolulu is suing oil and gas companies for bad weather, accusing them of causing climate change.
The Hawaii Supreme Court - who said the 2nd Amendment “violates the spirit of Aloha” green-lit the absurd case.
It’s up to the Supreme Court to fix this.
Alliance For Consumers @for_consumers
Replying to @for_consumers
Pay attention to this new cert petition coming out of the Hawaii Supreme Court...
It's a golden ticket that just got placed before the Supreme Court, at least for those of us who want to see the Left’s public nuisance campaign grind to a halt:
https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-947/301676/20240228105935605_Sunoco_pet.pdf
Background: Honolulu is suing energy companies for their alleged role in driving climate change. There are two dozen other cases making these types of claims in other states.
What makes this case interesting is that it’s the first big-ticket climate change case where a state supreme court conclusively weighed in on the merits of how these cases should work…
The Hawaii Supreme Court said that these claims can go to trial in state court irrespective of federal law.
The Hawaii Supreme Court decision is a dangerous precedent – it allows a single judge or jury in state court to weigh liability for global greenhouse gas emissions and assign billions in fines, effectively steering energy policy for the rest of the country. And it did so based on its own reading of federal law.
Make no mistake, lawsuits like this one are designed to reshape entire sectors of the economy.
Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, said as much in a decision dismissing Oakland’s climate-nuisance suit….
8:34 AM · Mar 6, 2024
Here’s something the Biden administration and CA Gov. Gavin Newsom haven’t talked about: electric cars actually emit more soot and particulate matter than their gas-powered counterparts—because of their tires. //
the WSJ writers argue that tire wear from the far-heavier EVs is more contaminating:
Where do most particulate emissions attributed to cars come from? California speaks as if their primary source is the tailpipe. That was true in the past. But today most vehicle-related particulate matter comes from tire wear. Cars are heavy, and as their tires rub against the road, they degrade and release tiny, often toxic particles. According to measurements by an emission-analytics firm, in gasoline cars equipped with a particle filter, airborne tire-wear emissions are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.
Through the European Green Deal, European bureaucrats are ignoring citizen opposition in deindustrializing Western Europe and reducing its agricultural production.
They’re using climate laws to attempt to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The agricultural policy provisions of these laws—the euphemistically named Farm to Fork Strategy—have European farmers uniting in protest like never before.
These laws are driving up food prices and reducing agricultural jobs while having practically no effect on the planet’s temperature. Using calculations from government models, even if the European Union had no emissions at all, it would only make a difference of 0.13 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
Why is nuclear power Green today when it wasn’t yesterday? Because it was never about the science.
Nuclear power has been the NetZeroiest energy on Earth since the sun formed from collapsing interstellar gas. Nuclear plants don’t produce any CO2 at all, but that wasn’t good enough because it was never about CO2 either. It was always about power and money and profits for friends.
And the best friend of a bureaucrat is a captive-dependent-industry, one that survives on handouts. Those in need of Big Government largess always lobby for Big Government, donate to Big Government causes and cheer on everything Big Government wants them to cheer on, even if it’s a naked man in high heels.
Yesterday gas was a fossil fuel, but today it’s a sustainable one:
In a radical move, the French government has quietly dropped their renewables targets from their draft energy bill, risking being seen as unfashionable losers in billionaire ski clubs. The nation that, forty years ago, built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years has decided they just need to build another 6 to 14 new nuclear plants to reach “Net Zero” by 2050. This puts them in danger of being one of the only nations on Earth that might reach their target.
This, of course, is terrible for the renewables industry as it risks exposing the wanton frivolity and utterly superfluous nature of the wind and solar subsidy farms. If France can do this without the bird chopping, the slave labor and the lithium bombs, so can nearly everywhere else.
It’s a big change from 2014 when France aimed to reduce nuclear power to just 50% by 2025.
If coal is a planet wrecking problem, if it really mattered, about 30 countries are beating themselves up in acts of grandiose public flagellation, while one country is wrecking the planet and nobody cares. The truth is that no one is behaving like they think CO2 is causing a crisis. All over the West everyone wears the hippie-care coat while buying the cheapest fridges, phones and fashion they can get from the global coal furnace. And China nods the nod then keeps on adding coal power plants.
In Carnarvon yesterday the Bureau tells us that the temperature was “a record” 49.9 degree day (almost 122 Fahrenheit). But in 1896 the Brickhouse Station just 15 kilometers north of Carnarvon hit 121 Fahrenheit in the shade, and there were reports of birds dying and other measurements “in the shade” that were as high as 125F. Somehow man-made emissions have been heating the planet for 128 years but the current freakishly hot days are about the same as the ones when no one in Australia owned a car and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were still under 300 ppm.
Lest we forget, there are hundreds of thermometer records from the pre-1908 era that are apparently worth nothing to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Climate change threatens all life on Earth, so you’d think climate scientists would be excited about the longest historical records they can find, but for some inexplicable reason they show little interest in the historical records from 1896 when a heatwave struck and 437 people died across Australia.
Temperatures hit 50C in the shade in many places in January 1896. In locations hundreds of kilometers apart, people were reporting similar temperatures. Perhaps they were all wrong?
These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazenly unscientific the Hockey Stick is. //
In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick.
The sharp upward swing of the graph was due to one single tree in Yamal. Epic cherry-picking!
Skeptical scientists have literally hundreds of samples. Unskeptical scientists have one tree in Yamal, and a few flawed bristlecones…
It was a audaciously unscientific.
Climate models don’t know why it was as warm years ago. [the models can't reproduce historical data given historical inputs]
The models are wrong.
The all important question that rises above and before ALL other questions is the one of evidence.
Is there any evidence that carbon dioxide causes major warming?
In science, “evidence” has a very specific meaning and for a very good reason. In a court of law or a game of football, the label “evidence” can be plastered all over the place. If 500 footballers signed a petition to change a rule, that would be “evidence” the rule needed changing. But if 5 billion people signed a petition to make it rain in Mumbai on Thursday, that’s a waste of paper.
Science is only about the natural world. That’s why human opinions are irrelevant.
It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory. The climate models are predicting a global disaster, but the empirical evidence disagrees. The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming has been tested from many independent angles.
The heat is missing from oceans; it’s missing from the upper troposphere. The clouds are not behaving as predicted. The models can’t predict the short term, the regional, or the long term. They don’t predict the past. How could they predict the future?
The models didn’t correctly predict changes in outgoing radiation, or the humidity and temperature trends of the upper troposphere. The single most important fact, dominating everything else, is that the ocean heat content has barely increased since 2003 (and quite possibly decreased) counter to the simulations. In a best case scenario, any increase reported is not enough. Models can’t predict local and regional patterns or seasonal effects, yet modelers add up all the erroneous micro-estimates and claim to produce an accurate macro global forecast. Most of the warming happened in a step change in 1977, yet CO2 has been rising annually.
Observations from every angle point to a similar conclusion
Studies involving 28 million weather balloons, thousands of satellite recordings, 3,000 ocean buoys, temperature recordings from 50 sites in the US and a 1,000 years of temperature proxies suggest that the Global Climate Models overestimate positive feedback and are based on poor assumptions. Observations suggest lower values for climate sensitivity whether we study long-term humidity, upper tropospheric temperature trends, outgoing long wave radiation, cloud cover changes, or the changes in the heat content of the vast oceans.
On the left, how it is presented, on the right with equal axes
