Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy - FOS Steve Goreham

Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy – FOS Steve Goreham



well good evening great to join you this evening it's quite an honor for me to come speak to the Friends of science the geologists the great scientists who are here and the guests and it's a special treat to visit beautiful Canada we have arrived at a moment of decision our home Earth is in danger what is it risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself of course but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings scientists are more certain than ever that burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests are the two biggest driving forces of climate change ladies and gentlemen we live in a world of superstition just 10 days ago more than 10,000 people marched in Washington DC Toronto cities around the world all demanding that humans control the climate and many of those people believe that if they change their light bulbs they can save polar bears or if they build a wind turbine towers they could stop the oceans from rising or if we all drive electric cars we can make the weather and storms less severe I call that climate ism the belief that humans are causing dangerous global warming and the theory of manmade warming is accepted today by more than 190 heads of state by all of our leading universities the United Nations the news media the major scientific organizations of the world and the world is spending over 250 billion dollars a year to try and stop the planet from warming the theory of manmade warming is based on four principles the first is the greenhouse effect sunlight enters our atmosphere it's absorbed by the surface of the earth like any warm body the earth gives off lower-energy infrared radiation a very small amount of that makes it out into space but almost all is absorbed by greenhouse gases in our atmosphere those gases then are irradiate that energy and that does tend to warm the surface of the earth the second basis is rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels modern measurements of carbon dioxide were first made in the 1950s and at that time scientists measured about 315 parts per million today that's risen to over 400 parts per million and the proponents of the theory of manmade warming say this is due to our industries putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere adding to the greenhouse effect and causing the temperature to rise the third basis is rising global surface temperatures temperatures have risen about a degree in the last hundred and thirty years 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the fourth basis for the theory is computer model projections climate models are run on supercomputers like this one in England and those models predict a much faster rise in temperatures a rise of about 3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 or 5 point 4 degrees Fahrenheit and you've all heard about the coming disasters of course melting ice caps rising ocean levels flooding our coastal cities stronger hurricanes and storms droughts and floods and many other effects but ladies and gentlemen of Canada there is no empirical evidence that increase in greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations has said the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to be the largest of any century during the past thousand years but that put that into perspective for a moment there's a bit of a complicated graph that shows Chicago temperatures for the last hundred and forty years or so for each day of the year from January first over here to December 31st over here that blue curve at the bottom is our record cold temperature for each date of the year the red curve at the top is our record hot temperature for each date of the year and the gray bar in the middle is our average Max and min our temperatures in Chicago vary about from minus 5 Fahrenheit to 95 Fahrenheit every year about a swing of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or almost 50 degrees Celsius so I'm going to superimpose on this the amount that global surface temperatures have risen in the last hundred and thirty years there it is it's captured within the thickness of that black line that's what climate scientists tell us is a coming calamity and must be caused by our industry we've all heard that the Arctic ice is melting the glaciers in Glacier National Park are melting the important thing to remember is that melting is evidence of warming but it does not tell you what is causing the warming I'm sure you've all heard the phrase climate change is real hopefully none of you are using that phrase that is a true statement but it's a meaningless statement of course climate change is real climate has been changing for all of Earth's history two well-known periods of climate change are the Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age the Medieval Warm Period was a period from about 900 to 1300 AD when the Vikings settled Southwest Greenland they founded a colony of Havas sea 600 years before the Jamestown Colony they farmed they raised livestock and that colony grew to about 5,000 inhabitants and the historical work the book of Ace Icelanders said that in those days trees were 6 meters or 20 feet tall and neva see but this is a picture of the old stone church that site today and there's nothing but there but scrub grasses it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today about 1300 we entered a cooler period of the Little Ice Age not a true Ice Age but a period when temperatures were one to two degrees cooler than the Medieval Warm Period or today's temperatures and that colony died out very tough time in Europe shorter growing seasons famine but every year they would have a festival called the frost fest on the frozen Thames River right at London you can see that image over here they'd bring their horses in wagons right out on the ice and build sheds and displays right out on the ice well you can't do that today the Thames River hasn't frozen solid for over a century the Medieval Warm Period the Little Ice Age were two periods of natural warming and cooling nothing to do with sport utility vehicles or power plants if we look a little more quantitatively at temperatures over the last 10,000 years leases this is data from ice cores by the way start here at zero present day go back to four six eight ten thousand years to the end of the last ice age you see the temperatures rise and they fall and they rise and they fall you can see the Medieval Warm Period there and the Little Ice Age and for the last four hundred years we've had a gentle warming as we've been coming out of the Little Ice Age now our own my own US government puts out statements like the decade from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record sounds very scary but what you need to know is that the record refers to the thermometer record which is only 130 years long I'm going to put that up on the chart here see that little green dot over there that's the record wow that is really scary isn't it that that is very misleading that ignores all the periods over the past 10,000 years when it was warmer than it is today this image was contributed by your very old Tim ball there's a picture of white spruce stump up in the northwest territory of Canada it's a very old in the north of the Arctic Circle very old stump it was radiocarbon dated to be almost 5000 years old but the interesting thing from a climate point of view is that this stump was located a hundred kilometers north of today's treeline 100 kilometers north of any other white spruce tree today evidence that it was warmer 5,000 years ago than it is today about a thousand miles from here you guys use kilometers let's see what is that I don't know to the northwest we have the Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau and very interesting a group called this is climate change org put up posters in Reagan International Airport in 2008 showing the picture on the left with a real big Mendenhall Glacier into in 1894 and then today very much smaller glacier and the implication of course was that human industry was causing these glaciers to shrink but just four years ago scientists from Southeast Alaska University went down into ice caves under the glacier and they found some interesting evidence they found tree stumps under the grip under the glaciers this you can see one right here it's about a foot in diameter still had the roots in the ground they radiocarbon dated this stump and it was about a thousand years old it grew up during the Medieval Warm Period so the implication is where we have a glacier today a thousand years ago we had a forest it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has said climate changes occurring in humans play a contributing role yeah I agree with that statement but that's another meaningless statement climate change is always occurring and my little 12 pound dog is a contributor the real question is what is the size of the human contribution relative to natural factors Beeker because Earth's climate is complex this is just a simplified diagram it's shaped by powerful forces from the solar system the atmosphere the oceans and the land all weather on Earth is driven by sunlight sunlight falls directly on the equator and the tropics where much energy is absorbed and sunlight falls indirectly on the polar regions where little energy is absorbed all weather storm fronts hurricanes jet streams ocean currents is forced to redistribute energy from the tropics to the poles the oceans have a powerful effect on Earth's climate the oceans have 250 times the mass of the atmosphere and can hold more than a thousand times the heat and then we have aerosols volcanic dust dust from deserts pollen going up into the atmosphere that shaped the climate yet today's climate scientists are obsessed with the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere a very very small part of the overall picture indeed carbon dioxide is a trace gas one way to think about it is to picture a basketball arena with 10,000 fans only four of every 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere are carbon dioxide and the amount that humans could have added in all of our history is only a fraction of one of those 10,000 molecules I know that many of you in the audience know the answers next question but what is nature's most abundant greenhouse gas water vapor what a smart crowd it's not carbon dioxide it's not nothing nature's most dominant greenhouse gases water vapor scientists estimate that some are between 75 and 90 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds remember the greenhouse effect is what's blamed for dangerous man-made warming so if we were conservative we say 3/4 the greenhouse effect due to water vapor and clouds then the last quarter is mostly caused by carbon dioxide methane and other gases but then we need to ask well how much of this last quarter is due a human industry because the oceans hold 50 times as much carbon dioxide naturally dissolved as the atmosphere and the oceans are always releasing carbon dioxide and absorbing it when plants grow they absorb carbon dioxide and when they die carbon dioxide is released and then we have volcanoes both above the surface of the ocean and about 10 times as many under the surface of the ocean putting gases including carbon dioxide into the environment all the time every day nature puts 20 times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all of Earth's industries so if we roll that all together that means that humans are responsible for about one or two parts per hundred of Earth's greenhouse effect who's heard that in the press nobody we all hear about how our industries are puttin greenhouse gas in the atmosphere enhancing or causing the greenhouse effect yes but our industries are responsible for about one to two percent of Earth's greenhouse effect if we completely eliminate all emissions we probably cannot measure the difference in global temperatures and it's clear now that the climate models are wrong global temperatures have been just about flat over the past 20 years of those two bottom curves the green and the blue one that's measured temperature data from weather balloons and satellites fairly flat the red line is an average of a hundred and two climate models which have been predicting a much faster rise in temperatures so it's clear now that we're not seeing dangerous global warming and the climate models are wrong so one question that should be in your mind well how could all the world's climate models be wrong every climate scientist knows that carbon dioxide by itself can't cause dangerous global warming the reason is that the radiation spectrum of carbon dioxide is nonlinear the first carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs most of that infrared radiation but we're way out here now 400 parts per million yet some carbon dioxide doesn't do anything to temperatures if we double atmospheric carbon dioxide either through natural factors or through human industries we'd only raise global surface temperatures by about a degree Celsius that's all nothing catastrophic but all of the climate models make an assumption they all assume a positive feedback from water vapor and the logic goes like this our industries put a little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere they cause a little warming a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor which as you now know and I think you did before is a greenhouse gas that produces further warming that's a positive feedback but papers are showing that that is not occurring and that the effect of clouds probably reduces the warming effect of car and dioxide this is all a little preposterous anyway I call this the flea wagging the dog theory Earth's water cycle is huge huge amount of energy includes all weather all of the oceans all of the ice caps and the idea that the much smaller carbon dioxide cycle is now controlling the water cycle is is not very likely so what caused the late 20th century warming well if you look at recent history you see the carbon dioxide and temperatures don't track very well that red line is rising carbon dioxide but global temperatures cooled from about 1940 to 1975 and then they rose from 75 to about 2005 or so and since then they've been flat or cooling matter of fact back in the 1960s some of you may remember we had the Ice Age Cometh scare front cover of Time and Newsweek and many professors were teaching that we had to prepare for the coming Ice Age well the answer lies in at the little body about 600 miles to the west of here called the Pacific Ocean covers one third of the Earth's surface and it turns out that the Pacific Ocean has its own temperature cycle it was named in the 1990s to be the Pacific decadal oscillation by Stephen hare and he did that to explain the changes in salmon runs on the west coast but it turns out the temperatures in the Pacific vary in a natural cycle of about 50 or 60 years you can see a warming here to 1940 cooling the 1975 warming to 2005 and a recent cooling so now we're able to explain from natural factors of how we've had the 20th century warming and it's the combination of two factors the first we're having a long term general gentle temperature rise as we've emerged from the Little Ice Age that's the regular dark line here and then on top of that we have the variations in temperature cycles of the ocean Pacific and the Atlantic doctor CD Chaka soku of University of Alaska's said it's quite obvious that the temperature changed during the last hundred years or so includes significant natural changes it's very puzzling that the IPCC reports state that is mostly due to the greenhouse effect but what about sea level rise former Vice President Al Gore dr. James Hansen of NASA have warned of a 20-foot ocean rise by the year 2100 if that were to happen it would flood our major coastal cities all over the world quite a disaster well to discuss that we need to talk about Earth's three ice caps North Pole ice the South Pole ice in Greenland and it is true that Arctic sea ice has been shrinking for the last 30 years according to satellite data or last 40 years or so and some climate scientists say all of this is the canary in the coalmine this proves that humans are causing dangerous warming three things you need to know about Arctic ice though first it naturally comes and goes we have historical accounts of low ice in the past second Arctic ice is floating on the Arctic Ocean if it completely melts it won't raise ocean levels at all you could do an experiment with the glass of water and ice melting ice doesn't raise ocean levels but third this is only one to two percent of Earth's ice so we need and this gets all the press so we need to talk about the other 90% it turns out not two weeks after we had a minimum in North Pole ice 2008 we had a maximum in South Pole ice two weeks later Antarctic sea ice has been growing for the last 40 years same satellite data and the climate models can't explain why this is happening and if you take the Antarctic sea ice and the land Antarctic ice this is 90 percent of Earth's ice cap interesting picture here of the amundsen-scott South Pole Station the United States has maintained a continuous scientific presence of the South Pole since the 1950s this is the third station at the South Pole I'm sure some of you might know what happened to the other Tuesday anyone no they were buried by snow and the reason is for the last several decades Antarctic has been getting about eight inches of snow accumulating every year never gets above freezing never melts at the South Pole so it's 8 inches and it's 8 inches and 8 inches gets to be a little problem you could see the second station right here this black dome with the snow all up around the sides and notice also this new station is seven modular buildings and it sits on stilts and the reason for that is every year they jack up the stilts jack up the buildings over the accumulating snow to prolong the life of the station folks this is the South Pole ice ninety percent of Earth's ice and it's getting thicker if you watch PBS or maybe Canadian broadcasting you might see a discussion about Greenland with a picture of a crevasse with the water pouring down and the hint that this is an abnormal event but many scientists realize this has been going on for millennia Greenland sits in a spot in a globe where there's melting in the summer and these rivers form and freezing in the winter I need to tell you the story about the p-38 glacier girl you can look it up online but don't do it right now in 1942 eight planes took off from the United States to participate in the European theater flying by the way of Newfoundland Greenland Iceland Scotland England but when they took off from Greenland they ran into a storm and they were forced to turn around and crash land on the ice cap of Greenland and they abandoned the planes all the pilots and crews were picked up by the Coast Guard but then some 40 years later people said well hey we left those planes there let's go back and recover them but it took several expeditions and finally they went back could sophisticated subsurface radar to find the planes and this is a picture of the glacier girl in ice or ice cave and it was found buried under 268 feet of ice great story they tunneled all the way down hollowed out this cave took apart the glacier girl brought it up a reconstructed it's flown in air shows but the interesting thing is from 1942 to 1992 268 feet of ice accumulated on this shrinking ice cap of Greenland well Greenland is uh is actually melting a little bit at the edges and getting thicker in the center but overall the ice is basically rock solid very little change so for sea levels what does all this mean if you go to the site of the of NASA you can see that ocean levels have been rising for the last twenty thousand years they've risen about 120 meters or 390 feet no climate scientists can tell you when natural sea level rise stopped and man-made sea level rise began but tide gauges tell us the oceans have been rising about seven or eight inches per century over the last hundred fifty years so the good the good news is it's very unlikely we're going to see a 20-foot ocean rise the bad news is that water ski Manhattan postcards are not going to be in big demand but aren't natural disasters evidence of manmade climate change as co2 levels rise temperatures rise the result as the world gets warmer the climate changes and extreme weather events become more common persuasive but the data does not support dr. Seuss Suzuki's assertions this is a look at satellite deed over the last 40 years this is global it shows the number of tropical storms and the number of stronger hurricanes no upward trends and this is also a measure of storm strength because if tropical storms were getting stronger we would see more hurricanes hurricanes will be rising but it isn't happening the United States gets about 90 percent of the world's tornadoes and Canada gets most of the rest if you look at tornado intensity though the number of ef3 are stronger hurricane or a tornado excuse me you see that we had a lot of strong tornadoes in the 1950s 60s and 70s and very few sense number of tornadoes and the strength of tornadoes is not getting not increasing back in 2012 we have the Great Plains drought in the United States and probably in Canada 80 percent of US agricultural land in drought dr. James / Peck of the University of Arizona said this is what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about this is what global warming looks like on a regional or personal level but the US government has very good data on the percentage of the u.s. that is either wet very wet or very dry and I show you that in two graphs here the top graph is the percent of the continental US it's been very wet for the last hundred years the bottom graph is a percent of the u.s. that's been very dry you can see no trend of increasing drought or flood and take a look at 2012 2013 oh yeah isn't that evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change we all want clean air and water don't we for more than 30 years I had the joys of kayaking some of the great water whitewater rivers of North America including your Ottawa River and our air and water is very much cleaner than it has been for decades but now we're conflating real pollutants in carbon dioxide and the news media the US Environmental Protection Agency are now declaring a carbon dioxide is a pollutant and also major political leaders the government proposes that the price on carbon pollution should start at a minimum of $10 per ton in 2018 rising by 10 dollars each year to $50 per ton in 2022 ladies and gentlemen that is bizarre carbon dioxide is not pollution it's an odorless harmless invisible gas it does not cause smoke it does not cause smog what you see rising from the cooling tower that power plant that's not carbon dioxide can't see carbon dioxide that's condensing water vapor we inhale only a trace of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but as we burn sugar in our body we create it so with every breath every time we exhale we exhale a concentration that is a hundred times what we breathed in now I have another question for you what do cannabis growers know that Prime Minister Trudeau doesn't apparently know I think I heard the right answer out there co2 makes the plants grow any marijuana grower worth his or her salt pumps carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to make their crop grow bigger you can see that canister on the left there that's carbon dioxide and that device up at the top there that's a co2 generator co2 is green carbon dioxide is plant food it's essential for life on Earth hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that carbon dioxide makes plants go grow bigger and faster here's a graph of the world's top seven food crops they grow between 20 and 60 percent bigger with higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide plants get bigger fruits they get bigger vegetables they get thicker tree trunks they get bigger root systems they're more resistant to drought if there's one compound we could put into the atmosphere that would be great for the environment carbon dioxide is that compound yet today we have every University and every business trying to reduce their carbon dioxide footprint very very foolish 97% of scientists including by the way some who originally disputed the data have not put that to rest they've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to well I'm picking on everybody today and there's that statement again a planet is warming and human activity is contributing through a little woods well I got to talk about this 97% it's very unfortunate that our form of present in the United States's has used this there are many many studies on this all of them are flawed here's one example back in 2009 Duran and Zimmerman did an online survey with the American Geophysical Union they sent out surveys to 10,000 members ovg ologists of the United States they received back 3,100 responses they asked two questions the first was when compared with pre 1800 levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen falling and remained relatively constant well you all know the answer to that we've been coming out a little ice age they've been warming second you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures a very fuzzy question they didn't say is that the main factor is that a dangerous factor just as it is it significant then they throw out 3,000 responses because they said these aren't climate scientists and of the 77 that responded 75 of them said it's been warming and it's significant so this is the opinion of 75 folks I hold in my hand a copy of the global warming petition which was done in 2007 by the oregon institute of science and medicine was a little bit of climate scientists science in the front but then are the names of 31,000 American scientists 9,000 PhDs and I'm going to read you what they said there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and corruption of the Earth's climate moreover there's substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth so don't believe that 97% nonsense so the bottom line of all this is that climate change is natural not man-made I don't have a chance to go into a lot of the details but it's due to natural cycles of Earth that are probably driven by the Sun manmade green man-made greenhouse gases play only an insignificant role well let's go on to renewable energy as a mr. Liman said all of the developed nations of the world are seeking an 80% emissions cut by the year 2050 the goal for the United States was an 83 percent reduction from 2005 levels in 2005 if you divide up all the emissions each US citizen was responsible for one and a half tons of carbon dioxide and that's from our heating and our cooking and our transportation and our agriculture and our industry everything that we do it turns out to meet this goal of an 83 percent cut we'd have to forego all of our modern appliances and go back to a level of 1870 0.2 tons of carbon dioxide per person to give you a comparison the nation of Nigeria today emits about point 2 tons of carbon dioxide for each of its citizens but 40% of people in Nigeria don't have access to electricity and there's only three cars per hundred people in Nigeria but some say that renewable energy is the answer we can Salvador 11 years ago said repowering America with a hundred percent of its electricity from clean energy sources within ten years and then we had this headline for The Wall Street Journal in nineteen seventy eight solar power seen meeting twenty percent of needs by 2000 but as was mentioned previously still eighty percent of our power seventy percent in case of Canada comes from hydrocarbons this is a look at the Canadian energy function for 2014 30% from oil and natural gas liquids 34% from natural gas 8% from coal 11% from hydro 10% from nuclear other renewables were only about 6.2 percent despite decades of incentives and if you break down the renewables almost all of that was burning wood and biofuels hey that's the you know biomass is the technical term right and take a look at this I call this the Energy Mountain this black graph shows global energy consumption which is tripled since 1965 so what I've plotted on here is amount of wind and solar and I had to artificially enhance the solar line so would even show up wouldn't even show up every year the world adds another United Kingdom worth of energy consumption and wind and solar can't even provide for the increase let alone replace our traditional fuels but we're sure trying got a lot of things going on around the world and Germany we have solar mania in the 1990s Germany put in a feed-in tariff which I think you have in Quebec or Ontario and they said they would pay each German citizen that put solar cells on their roof eight times the current market price and guarantee it for 20 years but a great deal and so they had an explosion and rooftop solar systems over a million but Germany is not not actually the Sun Belt actually when I go when I when I speak to other groups I always say yeah central Germany is about equal with Calgary Canada so they got very little output about 10 percent of the rated output in 2014 was a good year those solar systems provide one percent of Germany's electricity and six percent of their electricity at a fantastic cost already 400 million billion dollars excuse me in subsidies paid and obligated and the Environment Minister in Germany says the subsidies alone are going to total a trillion euros by the year 2040 juergen Grossman CEO of energy utility RWE to produce solar power in Germany as a sensible is to grow pineapples in Alaska or in Canada maybe in Denmark they have climate madness in a form of wind turbine towers Denmark has erected 5000 wind turbine towers one for every thousand citizens the highest density in the world and I've plotted all those wind fields over here on the graph on the left all those black dots today if you're backpacker you can walk from one end to Denmark to the other and never lose sight of a 300 to 500 foot tall wind turbine tower now you think wind turbines put out a lot of electricity but you'd be wrong they could all be replaced by a single conventional power plant with a footprint about as big as one of those black dots and a little bit of a complicated graph here what I've done on the vertical axis is the wind and solar capacity of each nation in Europe and watts per person and along the horizontal is a residential electricity price and you see a pretty good curve there going up to to the top the more wind and solar you put in the higher your electricity prices in Spain they're now playing paying three times the Canada price and in Germany in Denmark four times the price of electricity in Canada does solar provide a net energy gain interesting question study done last year by firown' Ian Hopkirk for solar systems in Germany and Switzerland found that after you build the solar cells put them in panels construct them on the site maintain them and then you figure out how much energy this analysis caught it's called energy received over energy invested I should say the energy invested turns out to be bigger than the energy received you only get 82% of the energy out that you put in and I've translated this to North America that 35 degree north latitude line is the break-even point anything north of there doesn't get as much energy out as you put in so in Canada if you're putting in solar cells you're paying for a lot of energy to be expended in China or somewhere and you never get it out over the 25-year life of the system and anyone no biomass Energy's big secret doesn't reduce co2 emissions everyone knows that if you burn wood you put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ruled in 1996 that burning wood or biomass or biofuels was carbon neutral and the way they made that assumption was they said well plants grow and absorb carbon dioxide you cut them down and you burn them and they release carbon dioxide it's an even wash carbon neutral and so emissions from carbon dioxide when you hear these numbers they don't even count them in Canada in the United States and Europe they're all those all those numbers are wrong they don't count emissions from biofuels but scientists recently have said well this logic is flawed because if you have land plants will naturally grow and absorb carbon dioxide even if you're not doing anything with biofuels and if you're not counting that your end of double counting so is a big error biofuels do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions but nevertheless we have crazy stuff going on consider the direct power station in England the biggest power plant in Europe four gigawatts of power formerly it consumed all coal a hundred and forty coal trains a week to power the station but because the United Kingdom and the European Union don't count biomass emissions they converted half the plant well they converted half the plant to wood and because they don't have enough wood in Europe or in the United Kingdom they're shipping at 3000 miles from North Carolina and this costs a billion dollars to convert this half of a plant they're getting a subsidy of a billion pounds a year and they've doubled the electricity price for British consumers but in Argentina they found the ultimate solution for emissions from livestock look at that poor Bessie well I do have some good news today and the good news is that there is an upheaval coming in energy and climate regulation and there are a number of leading indicators which show that it is so the first is the renewable energy Industrial Index the Rennicks index of the world's top 30 companies set up in 2002 it peaked in 2008 when Al Gore in the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize for the work in climate change but since then it's down about 80 percent and today it sits below what it was 20-some years ago carbon trading markets are failing the World Bank used to put out a glowing report up to 2011 on how well those carbon markets were doing but the last four years they haven't issued that report because the value crashed and it's now a third of what it was in 2011 global investment in renewables has basically stopped or slowed it grew 30 percent a year up to 2011 now it's basically flat for the last five years or so and Europe's investment in renewables is down 50 percent since 2011 employment in renewables is down in Europe it's just too expensive they can't afford the subsidies anymore and Europe is slashing subsidies and mandates in England Germany Belgium Spain Italy Netherlands Greece Czech Republic all across the continent and of the province of South Australia has recently had to a wide-area blackouts in the last six months I used to be that that the mark of an underdeveloped nation was electricity blackouts now that's a mark of a nation that puts in renewables and coal plants are in internationally 2400 coal-fired power plants are in planning or under construction almost 1200 in China almost 500 in India plants in Vietnam Indonesia Philippines turkey South Africa even Japan is building 45 new coal-fired power plants so what you do in Calgary or even in Canada has no bearing nothing to do with the state of global emissions and this is Mick Mulvaney of the office of director and budget you got to listen closely here press conference a month or so ago thinking the question as to climate change I think the president was fairly straightforward if we're not spending money on that anymore very very refreshing yeah there's a big 180 degree shift president Trump has has taken climate change off of his website the EPA website he's a studdy he's proposed a 31% cut for the EPA climate cuts in the State Department NASA NOAA renewable energy cuts in the Department of Energy really a big change he has postponed his decision on whether to withdraw from the Paris Accord until the end of May I'm hoping he does there's an opportunity to throw a huge rock in the happy climate pool of all these world leaders and if he does so we're going to have other leaders rethink their commitment and this is an emperor has no clothes situation folks we need someone to stand up and say this is nonsense and maybe a bunch of others will say yeah I agree [Applause] and climate scientists are telling us it's likely we're going to be in for a period of cooling the two big ocean currents of the Pacific and the Atlantic are moving into a cool phase and many climate scientists think that solar activity on the Sun some spots and sunspots and other activity affects global temperatures the Sun is very inactive now which portends cooler temperatures so we'll just have to see but in any case the earth and the temperatures are going to do what they're going to do naturally and the climate models are going to get farther and farther from the real situation so in summary the evidence shows that climate change is dominated by natural factors water vapor is Earth's dominant greenhouse gas humans are responsible for only one or two parts in 100 of Earth's greenhouse effect there is no law that or no tax that your leaders in Ottawa can put into place that will stop the oceans from rising there's no regulation that any province can put into place that will make the storms less severe because climate change is dominated by natural factors thousands of laws across hundreds of Nations are unlikely to provide a measurable difference in global temperatures just a couple things you can do here one is educate yourself a great image here from a couple years ago the woman on the left is the head of the Department of meteorology and climate science at San Jose State University the guy on the right is one of our scholars if you look closely you can see she's holding a match under my book and they put this up on their website it was up about three hours I think about 20 articles are written on the web about this but the universities don't want to hear the crazy idea that climate climate change could be driven by natural rather than man-made factors second educate your company I have a great afternoon long program called energy and sustainability and Minority Report for your board of directors your policy committees or whoever there's a lot more to tell and with that I'll LA wind it up and look forward to your questions and challenges [Applause] you

Posts created 40024

30 thoughts on “Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy – FOS Steve Goreham

  1. This man in jacket is a liar. He starts off by stating that Chicago's average temperature has not changed much from 1872 to 2008 and hence leading the audience to think that there is no real global warming.

    Climate is not about the average temperature of one place but the entire planet. Just this fact alone is enough to tell me that he is not even qualified to teach science in any level of education.

  2. The entire renewable game runs on cheats. It was never intended for any one type of system to be large scale such as solar farms for example. Back in the 60s and 70s when we back yard engineers were developing renewables for homes, it was always intended to be homeowner produced and hybrid systems that took advantage of site specific resources. The idea was to make homeowners (homesteaders) free of public utility bills and self sustaining.
    Renewables a.k.a. alternative energy producers, were never proposed to eliminate other methods such as the common millennial long fireplace. All types of energy production and alternative building initiatives were on the table. So what happened? The mega energy corporations lobbied (bribed) congress and DOE to steal all the research grants so that they could develop methods that would keep those bills and profits going. The entire subject has become corrupted beginning in the 80s to present.

  3. Don't believe this crap, it's all lies being spewed by dishonest people. Friends of Science is working largely for the Fossil Fuel Industry and they don't care about us. If you believe this then you truly are a sheep.

  4. If biomas is carbon neutral why arent coal and fossil fuels? They were life sources that collected and stored carbon and we are now releasing the carbon back into the world whoch is literally starving for CO2.

  5. Its all the other crap we put into the air that we need to eliminate and reduce. The aeresols, the particulates, the lead, the mercury, the sufur compounds, etc are the pollutants of our atmosphere that we need to clean up.

  6. FRIENDS OF SCIENCE? FUCKING PSEUDOSCIENCE LIARS. FUNDED BY OIL AND COAL YOU ARE SPREADING LIES THAT ARE EATING AWAY AT OUR ABILITY TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM.

  7. Overpopulation of human species is a much severe problem than global warming and pollution. Our dominating and curious nature is causing threat to 8.1 Million species on the planet.

  8. Beware of oil industry propaganda. This video is loaded with misleading data that climate scientists vociferously refute. Steve Goreham uses cherry-picked data, verbal sleight of hand and lies of omission to confuse the unwary. Go to SkepticalScience and get all of your questions and suspicions answered by actual climate scientists, not oil industry shills.

  9. When talking about the rise of the sea level, I wonder of the next information gets calculated in the model :
    The more biomass (especially trees) the landmass loses together with the effect of straightening rivers etc., so that the water stays less long on the land, the higher the sea level will be.
    Therefore, if you do the opposite : plant very much trees, slow down some rivers and create lakes or swamps where you can do this with a good logical plan, the lower the sea level will be.
    I'm telling you that the biomass is a big sponge. Besides, we need a lot of nature which has plenty of biodiversity, so start calculating please.

  10. Investigations by Drexel University and the Union of Concerned Scientists reveal that the oil industry has funded (with over $500 million documented) nearly 100 climate change denial sites across media platforms. These sites are bankrolled to present a slanted view of climate science, often misrepresenting data through lies of omission and verbal sleight of hand. This video, presented by the Heartland Institute and Friends of Science, is one of them.

    Heartland is the same PR organization hired by the tobacco industry to sow seeds of doubt about the link between smoking and lung cancer. Their "science" advisor, Jay Lehr, was convicted and sentenced to prison for defrauding the EPA. Climate scientists refute virtually every "fact" in the video. For actual, peer-reviewed data, visit SkepticalScience.

  11. For all the clue less the poles have shifted. A natural earth orbit cycle. The Sky Changed Earths Axis Has Shifted – Inuit Elders Issue Warning To NASA  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJgncvo2-7M

  12. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/?s=contrail+lie

    Refuting the "its just condensation trails" official lie is easily done
    if specific fundamental facts are understood and remembered. The short
    article and 7 minute video tutorial below provide essential information
    for debunking the "condensation trail" false narrative.

    https://youtu.be/mRjmzy9XcaY

    We are told by all "official sources" that the sun blocking weather
    disrupting jet dispersed trails we see in our skies are only
    "condensation trails". The "condensation trail" official narrative is
    perhaps the greatest lie the power structure has ever perpetrated to
    pacify the masses into ignoring the immense threat posed by climate
    engineering operations occurring over our heads on a daily
    basis. Without knowing any of the related science facts on this issue,
    anyone with a sense of reason should be able to determine the fact that our skies are being sprayed.
    Trails that are turned on and off,
    grid patterns one day and nothing the next (in spite of often identical
    atmospheric conditions).

    Witnessing one jet leaving a trail from horizon to horizon adjacent to
    another jet at a similar altitude that
    leaves virtually nothing. Trails of completely dissimilar compositions
    and colors. There are misaligned plumes behind some jets (usually lower
    flying military tankers) that do not match the alignment of the engines
    themselves. This causes some of the sprayed dispursion trails to shoot
    out slightly to one side of the aircraft (not parallel due to misaligned
    nozzles). There is also of course the fact that all climate science
    circles and governments around the globe are clamoring for climate
    engineering to be deployed (though none in these communities will yet
    admit to the truth, geoengineering was fully deployed decades ago).

    Our society has been well trained to accept the official narrative on
    countless issues which is how those in power hide their crimes in plain
    site. The fact that official explanations for what we see in our
    skies are completely contrary to deductive reasoning and the laws of
    physics has, so far, seemed not to matter to the majority of the
    population.

    https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-contrail-lie/

  13. This guy needs to go back to school and get his understanding of climate science sorted. He is making so many mistakes and misrepresentations of the data

  14. AL GORE NEVER SAID FLORIDA AND NEW YORK WOULD BE UNDERWATER NOW. In Inconvenient Truth, he pointed to West Antarctica and said if it fell into the sea tomorrow, sea level would rise 20 feet. And it would. It was an illustrative comment, not a prediction. He said the same thing about Greenland ice.

    And let's bust some more Gore myths. In Inconvenient Truth, he said about Arctic ice, verbatim: "There are now two major studies showing that within the next 50-70 years in summertime it will be completely gone." In SUMMERTIME. In later speeches he gave two projections, one in which ice in summer would be gone now, and one in which it wouldn't be gone until 2030—IN SUMMER.

    So if you're going to quote Gore, check your facts. The oil industry has spent millions on destroying his reputation through propaganda, lies of omission and verbal sleight of hand. See his documentaries for yourself before making a judgement call. You'll be amazed by just how accurate he was.

  15. "PATTERNS OF FAILURE
    A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail. This pattern typically has four stages.
    STAGE I. THE "CRISIS": Some situation exists, whose aspects the anointed propose to eliminate. Such a situation routinely characterized as a "crisis," even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse. Sometimes the situation described as a "crisis" has in fact already been getting better for years.
    STAGE 2. THE "SOLUTION": Policies to end the "crisis" are advocated by the anointed, who say that these policies will lead to beneficial result A. Critics say that these policies will lead to detrimental result Z. The anointed dismiss these latter claims as absurd and "simplistic," if not dishonest.
    STAGE 3. THE RESULTS: The policies are instituted and lead to detrimental result Z.
    STAGE 4. THE RESPONSE: Those who attribute detrimental result Z to the policies instituted are dismissed as "simplistic" for ignoring the "complexities" involved, as "many factors" went into determining the outcome. The burden of proof is put on the critics to demonstrate to a certainty that these policies alone were the only possible cause of the worsening that occurred. No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement. Indeed, it is often asserted that things would have been even worse, were it not for the wonderful programs that mitigated the inevitable damage from other factors." Thomas Sowell

  16. "What is intellectually interesting about visions are their assumptions and their reasoning, but what is socially crucial is the extent to which they are resistant to evidence. All social theories being imperfect, the harm done by their imperfections depends not only on how far they differ from reality, but also on how readily they adjust to evidence, to come back into line with the facts. One theory may be more plausible, or even more sound, than another, but if it is also more dogmatic, then that can make it far more dangerous than a theory that is not initially as close to the truth but which is more capable of adjusting to feedback from the real world. The prevailing vision of our time – the vision of the anointed – has shown an extraordinary ability to defy evidence.
    Characteristic patterns have developed among the anointed for dealing with the repeated failures of policies based on their visiorn. Other patterns have developed for seizing upon slatistics in such a way as to buttress the assumptions of the vision, even when the same set of statisties contains numbers that contradict the vision. Finally. there is the phenomenon of honored prophets among the anointed who continue to be honored as their predictions fail by vast margins, time and again." Thomas Sowell

  17. Here's a listing of a number of the 1,300 peer-reviewed papers by scientific experts in the field of climate change to refute the false narratives and fake science perpetrated by the alarmists.

    Review and
    impacts of climate change uncertainties

    (Futures, Volume 25, Number 8, pp. 850-863, October 1993)

    – M. E. Fernau, W. J. Makofske, D. W. South

    Atmospheric
    CO2 residence time and the carbon cycle

    (Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1297-1310, December 1993)

    – Chauncey Starr

    Temperature dependence of silicate weathering in nature: How strong a
    negative feedback on long-term accumulation of atmospheric CO2 and global
    greenhouse warming? (PDF)

    (Geology, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp. 1059, December 1993)

    – Michael Anthony Velbel

    On the scientific basis for global warming scenarios (PDF)

    (Environmental Pollution, Volume 83, Issues 1–2, pp. 125–134, 1994)

    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Climate Dynamics and Global Change

    (Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 26, pp. 353-378, January 1994)

    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Science does not support consensus' on climate change

    (The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994)

    – Henry R. Linden

    A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate

    (New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, April 1994)

    – C. R. de Freitas

    Interpreting the Global Temperature Record

    The roles of
    carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere

    (Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Volume
    51, Issue 3, pp. 415-417, March 1995)

    – Jack Barrett

    Earth
    rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate

    (GeoJournal, Volume 37, Number 4, pp. 419-430, December 1995)

    – Nils-Axel Morner

    Global Temperature Deviations as a Random Walk

    (Journal of Climate, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 656–658, March 1996)

    – Olavi Karnel

    Why Carbon
    Dioxide Emissions Should Not Be Limited (PDF)

    (Thermal Engineering, Volume 44, Number 2, pp. 85-89, 1997)

    – V. V. Klimenko

    Can
    increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)

    (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp.
    8335-8342, August 1997)

    – Richard S. Lindzen

    The
    continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of
    correlation-based approaches

    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, September
    1997)

    – David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    On the
    climatic implications of volcanic cooling (PDF)

    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 103, Issue D6, pp. 5929-5942, March
    1998)

    – Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis

    Analysis of
    trends in the variability of daily and monthly historical temperature
    measurements (PDF)

    (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 27-33, April 1998)

    – Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling Jr., Russell S. Vose, Paul C.
    Knappenberger

    Climate
    Variations and the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect

    (Ambio, Volume 27, Number 4, pp. 270-274, June 1998)

    – Wibjorn Karlen

    Analysis of
    long-term European temperature records: 1751-1995 (PDF)

    (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 3, pp. 193-200, December 1998)

    – R. C. Balling Jr, R. S. Vose, Gerd-Rainer Weber

    Climate Chaotic Instability: Statistical Determination and Theoretical
    Background

    (Environmetrics, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp. 517-532, December 1998)

    – Raymond Sneyers

    Human
    Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable (PDF)

    (Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp.
    183-183, April 1999)

    – S. Fred Singer

    Rate and Magnitude of Past Global Climate Changes

    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75, June 1999)

    – John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjorn Karlen

    Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability

    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, page 152, September 1999)

    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)

    – V. V. Adamenko, K. Y. Kondratyev, C. A. Varotsos

    An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of
    global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)

    – Richard S. Courtney

    Evidence Delimiting Past Global Climate Changes

    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp. 151, September 1999)

    – John P. Bluemle, Joseph M. Sabel, Wibjorn Karlen

    Environmental
    Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF)

    (Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149–164, October 1999)

    – Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson

    The cause of global warming (PDF)

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 2000)

    – Vincent Gray

    Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the
    Phanerozoic eon

    (Nature, Volume 408, Number 6813, pp. 698-701, December 2000)

    – Jan Veizer, Yves Godderis, Louis M. François

    Sources of
    global warming in upper ocean temperature during El Nino

    (Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, Volume 106, Issue C3, pp. 4349-4367,
    March 2001)

    – Warren B. White et al.

    Does CO2 really drive global warming? (PDF)

    (Chemical Innovation, Volume 31, Number 5, pp. 44-46, May 2001)

    – Robert H. Essenhigh

    Modeling
    climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and
    uncertainties (PDF)

    (Climate Research, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 259–275, November 2001)

    – Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev,
    Eric S. Posmentier

    * Modeling
    climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and
    uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002) (PDF)

    (Climate Research, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 187–188, September 2002)

    – Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev,
    Eric S. Posmentier

    * Modeling
    climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and
    uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (2003) (PDF)

    (Climate Research, Volume 24, Number 1, pp. 93–94, June 2003)

    – Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev,
    Eric S. Posmentier

    Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? (PDF)

    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 8, April 2002)

    – Richard S. Lindzen

    Problems in evaluating regional and local trends in temperature: an
    example from eastern Colorado, USA (PDF)

    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 421-434, April
    2002)

    – Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.

    When Was The Hottest Summer? A State Climatologist Struggles for an
    Answer

    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp.
    723-734, May 2002)

    – John R. Christy

    Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the
    atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)

    (Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June
    2002)

    – C. R. de Freitas

    Reconciling observations of global temperature change (PDF)

    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp. 24-1, June 2002)

    – Richard S. Lindzen, Constantine Giannitsis

    Global
    Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric Variability
    (PDF)

    (Physical Review Letters, Volume 89, Number 2, July 2002)

    – R. B. Govindan et al.

    Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)

    – S. Fred Singer

    Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather
    Dynamics

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)

    – Marcel Leroux

    The "Greenhouse Effect" as a Function of Atmospheric Mass

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 2-3, pp. 351-356, May 2003)

    – Hans Jelbring

    Global
    Warming (PDF)

    (Progress in Physical Geography, Volume 27, Number 3, pp. 448-455, September
    2003)

    – Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

    Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term
    geologic data

    (Ecological Modelling, Volume 171, Issue 4, pp. 433-450, February 2004)

    – Craig Loehle

    Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of
    Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution (PDF)

    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 3, February 2004)

    – Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas

    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models
    versus observation (PDF)

    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 13, July 2004)

    – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    Key Aspects of Global Climate Change

    (Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 469-503, July 2004)

    – K. Y. Kondratyev

    Nonlinearities,
    Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth's Climate System
    (PDF)

    (Climatic Change, Volume 65, Number 1-2, pp. 11-38, July 2004)

    – Jose A. Rial et al.

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
    (PDF)

    (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 88, Number 9, pp. 1211-1220, September 2004)

    – Lee C. Gerhard

  18. The problem … the main problem is that the ipcc is getting money to prove that us humans are causing the problem. That is the problem.

    I find it funny as the ice recedes
    .. they are finding civilizations. But … they did find a brochure of that 1403 hummer. Who knew .. sheepskin interiors!

    Prue … arrogance. .. that humans can change climate.

    And 150 years of data? Earth been around for 4 and half billion years. … good sample.

    Now … it's changing to pollution. No correlation to climate change.

    And we move on……………

  19. The organizers of this presentation, Friends of Science did a thorough analysis of Cook et al's study that concluded that there's a 97% Consensus. It's actually, 0.5%

  20. Great presentation! Talking about waking up… Also watch Jesse Lee Peterson if you want to wake up on a personal level.

  21. Fuck yeah, what if we cleaned up the planet for nothing? What a waste of time, just to stop wearing our gas masks in the cities.
    Get behind your local oil dealer, so one day we can be as filthy rich as these guys!
    I really like the part about nature, .mc Donald's love this too so much, they right behind getting more cows.
    Climate science never said water vapour is a contributor. You distort the facts, cherry pick examples almost to like a religious perspective on god, and a few dumb asses believe this so you keep making money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top