All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Meandering]

Of course they care about me.

I have proof!

Don't pay them and they start sending you letters and calling you, and apologizing for being inconvenient.

If they did not care about me, they would just ignore me.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Is it naive to believe that my government cares about me?

I don't think it's naive, I think it's rather meaningless.

First, your "government" (no matter where you live) is made up of many many people, the vast majority of whom have no idea you exist (unless you are a politician, very rich, otherwise famous, or a major donor).

Second, do not mistake a computer generated form letter from the government as the government caring about you. The majority of the time, it was a mistake that you were sent this communication. The other times, unless you owe thousands of dollars, they will ignore you. If they don't, you will spend thousands of dollars trying to exonerate yourself.

However, the time is now that the government has a secret agency watching your every move for compliance because they care about you. It is called:

 

[Meandering]

Hey!

In small town America we all know each other. Didn't you watch Andy Griffin as a kid?

Besides,

If they did not care about me, they would not care about my emails or cell phone calls or blocking encrypted software so they could read what I write. They would not take forever doing background checks to clear my passport so I could leave here. They would not be developing and/or deploying spying devises on it's citizens. Oh yeah, they know and they care. They just don't want us to know they know and care.

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Residents Sue Seattle, Saying New Trash Rules Violate Privacy

SEATTLE — Environmental goals about garbage in this and other like-minded cities increasingly come down to three words: Throw less away. So Seattle residents are given different bins to put out on the curb — one for yard and food waste, another for recycling — and are encouraged to use ever-tinier cans for the stuff that really is trash.

The rules were given teeth this year, when Seattle became one of the first cities in the nation to penalize residents for sorting poorly. If, on inspection, more than 10 percent of a garbage can’s contents should have properly been in another kind of bin, the trash collector can pin a bright red tag on the offender’s receptacle. Financial penalties have been authorized but not yet levied. A primary goal of the policy is to keep people from throwing food and recyclable materials into trash cans.

This week, a group of Seattle residents — while stressing that they agreed with the city’s goals — said the inspections violated their privacy, as protected by the Washington State Constitution. What people toss away, the group argued in a lawsuit filed on Thursday, is still theirs to protect, however much, especially in these warm days of summer and rot, they might want to get rid of it all as soon as possible.

“This case is not about composting — this is about tossing our privacy rights in the garbage,” said Sally Oljar, 60, a graphic designer and one of the plaintiffs. “An admirable goal does not justify a bad policy,” she added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/u...e-saying-new-trash-rules-violate-privacy.html

You have violated the people's laws and regulation!

You will be sent to the people's reeducation center for programming.

 

[Carnivore]

So we are the fourth largest overseas shipper of Coal. We also ship natural gas overseas.

We cut trees down, ship them the logs to China, they saw them up and make furniture that is shipped back to us to buy. Gee there went a good furniture industry in NC a long time ago.

We are becoming a third world country that plunders its natural resources for others to use and make stuff that we will soon cant afford.

Insanity!

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Analysis and comparison of the US Clean Power Plan


US Clean Power Plan (USCPP), assuming we can follow it until 2100, will produce a total reduction in temperature rise estimated to be 0.013°C according to the IPCC computer model.

The problem is, nobody has a good handle on just how small that reduction in temperature actually is, because we have nothing to compare it to. Even fever thermometers only measure to a tenth of a degree. Casting about to rephrase this number in units that might be more understandable than hundredths of a degree, we can look at the old rule of thumb about how much the air cools off as we climb a mountain. Everyone knows that as you go up a mountain, the air gets cooler. The rate at which non-condensing air cools with increasing altitude is called the “dry adiabatic lapse rate”. The rule of thumb states that for every hundred metres higher that you climb, the temperature drops by 1°C.

Now, a human being is typically around 1.7 metres tall, plus or minus. This means that other things being equal, the air at your head is about 0.017°C cooler than the air at your feet. And recall from above that the “impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.

Which means that after spending billions of dollars and destroying valuable power plants and reducing our energy options and making us more dependent on Middle East oil, all we will do is make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads … we should all be overcome with gratitude for such a stupendous accomplishment.

The sum total of the entire restructuring of the US energy production will be to make the air around our feet as cool as the air around our heads.

Clearly the political class joined with the climate scientist class are to be congratulated for this mighty effort to save the planet at our expense.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Promise everything but deliver nothing of consequence: How To Save The Planet


The IPPC estimates that the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33 Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000 Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments (see figure below). That is not optimism; it is wishful thinking.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

California 6th grade science books: Climate change a matter of opinion not scientific fact

Textbooks from different major publishers give climate deniers equal weight as vast majority of climate scientists who cite scientific evidence of human-caused global warming


Date: November 10, 2015
Source: Southern Methodist University
Summary:
A new study that analyzed four California science textbooks from major publishers found they position climate change as a debate over differing opinions. Contrary to the clear majority of climate scientists who cite scientific data and evidence of human-caused climate change, the textbooks present the topic as uncertain, that humans may or may not cause it, and that its unclear if we need immediate mitigating action, the researchers found.


If American teens are unsure about climate change or its cause, some school textbooks aren't helping, says teaching expert Diego Román, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, co-author of a new study on the subject.

Studies estimate that only 3 percent of scientists who are experts in climate analysis disagree about the causes of climate change. But the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth's atmosphere, ice and seas -- in 2013 stated "human influence on the climate system is clear."

Yet only 54 percent of American teens believe climate change is happening, 43 percent don't believe it's caused by humans, and 57 percent aren't concerned about it.

The new study measured how four sixth-grade science textbooks adopted for use in California frame the subject of global warming. Sixth grade is the first time California state standards indicate students will encounter climate change in their formal science curriculum.

The researchers examined different textbooks, each published in either 2007 or 2008 by a different major publisher. They found and analyzed 279 clauses containing 2,770 words discussing climate change.

"We found that climate change is presented as a controversial debate stemming from differing opinions," said Román, an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School. "Climate skeptics and climate deniers are given equal time and treated with equal weight as scientists and scientific facts -- even though scientists who refute global warming total a miniscule number."

The message communicated in the four textbooks was that climate change is possibly happening, that humans may or may not be causing it, and its unclear if we need to take immediate mitigating action, the researchers found.

That representation matches the public discourse around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled science with high levels of scientific uncertainty. The researchers said only 33 percent of the U.S. public believes climate change is a serious threat.

The textbooks misrepresented, however, actual scientific discourse, which asserts climate change is an environmental problem bearing immense risk, where the human impact is clear, and where immediate action is warranted, the authors said.

"The primary purpose of science education is to represent the science accurately, but this analysis of textbooks shows this not to be the case for climate science," they said.

Co-author on the article is K.C. Busch, a Ph.D. candidate in science education in Stanford University's Graduate School of Education.

The authors reported the findings in October at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), held in Helsinki, Finland.

The findings were also published in the Environmental Education Researchjournal in the article, "Textbooks of doubt: Using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110120441.htm

Seems like the same battle over evolution as fact versus theory and the religions that teach a supreme being created all things.

Except in this case, global warming caused by man has taken the role of a religion. Very funny!

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Paradise Burned: How Climate Change Is Scorching California
California is now losing nearly 90,000 acres a year to wildfires.

Despite the Times’ inference that global warming plays a limited role in wildfires, the science is in and the picture it paints is ominous:

• California is now losing nearly 90,000 acres a year (equivalent to the size of Las Vegas) to wildfires that have been increasing in size since 1984, according to Geophysical Research Letters.
• A report published in Ecological Applications concludes that 64 percent of the fire area burned by wildfires on public lands in the Western United States can be directly related to climate variables such as temperature, precipitation and drought.
• According to a Union of Concerned Scientists report, the annual number of large wildfires on federally managed lands in the 11 contiguous Western states has increased by more than 75 percent – from about 140 large fires during the period from 1980 to 1989, to 250 large fires between 2000 and 2009.

Max Moritz, a University of California, Berkeley environmental scientist who has studied wildfires for decades, tells Capital & Main, “Climate change is taking its toll. There is a likely link between climate change and the sizes and spread rates of this year’s wildfires.”

There are still doubters, however. Dismissing what he called “climate alarmism,” David South, a retired emeritus professor of forestry at Auburn University, told a U.S. Senate Subcommittee last year that the conclusion that global warming has caused more wildfires is simply wrong. He added in an email to Capital & Main that “the average area of wildfires burned during the 1930s was much higher than the average for the first decade of the 21st century . . .This does not support the hypothesis that carbon emissions have increased the area of wildfires annually.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-wildfires-climate-change_56424ce2e4b0981a2ee91844

It is a matter of political opinion and religious belief in global warming science where all things natural are linked to man's emissions of CO2.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Of course if you believe in nothing.........................................