NOTE: the graphic is from PJM.
For the millennials who may not be able to read a pie graph (or even know what a pie graph is):
- coal: 33%
- natural gas: 33%
- nuclear energy (much of which will be going away in the out years): 27%
- subtotal: 93%
- multiple fuels, which I assume include heating oil, diesel, fuel oil: 4%
- subtotal: 97%
- I can't make out solar or wind on the pie graph
Transferring $100 billion from OECD to a couple of islands in the South Pacific, administered by a committee in South Korea, tells me:
- this whole thing is a scam; and,
- this $100 billion won't do anything to combat AGW (which doesn't exist anyway)
Fact check:
- there were not exactly 1,500 private jets flying into Davos
- not all private jets carried only one or two passengers; some carried more
- not all private jets were owned by billionaires; some were leased; and some of the "billionaires" were only multi-millionaires
- “Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.”
Google, in this case, is unhelpful. Google searches on AGW will simply take you to religious arguments: one either "believes" in AGW or one doesn't "believe" in AGW. When it comes to AGW, I am not agnostic. I am an atheist.
In this case, it's all about "following the money."
As one example this story is all over the AGW blogosphere, but won't be reported in the mainstream media. Just as the mainstream sports media won't report on how the PGA ruled on Justin Thomas' infraction yesterday (but that's another story).
This is not some low-level worker-bee. This is the head of the UK global warming climate scheme/scam:
How much has Algore made on this scam?
See comments below to explain why this screenshot is posted here:
***************************
The Book Page
Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, James Gleick, c. 1992.
I think years from now, when the evidence comes to light, we will find that global warming was a mere scheme to keep the lemmings occupied from noticing the real improprieties being committed by governments and just-mentioned billionaires.
ReplyDeleteA lot of truth to that.
DeleteIs your primary source for your viewpoint on this subject wattsupwiththat? If not, what other sources are you sampling from to put together your worldview?
ReplyDeleteIs it that you deny the data that shows a .8 C average global temperature rise over the last 60 years or do you rationalize that rise as natural wax and wane?
I won't follow up with a pile of arguments, I'd just like to understand how someone comes to this conclusion and feels so strongly about it that it is confidently brought up everyday.
1. My notes on the blog pretty much detail my arguments -- and those arguments have been there since the beginning (2007 when I started the blog).
Delete2. My first realization that this was a scam goes all the way back to Enron, Kenneth Lay, and Al Gore.
3. I did not need any single outside source to form my opinion after reading data from dozens of sources, on both sides of the argument.
4. The best sources, now, to support my argument, are found in the sidebar at the right, under "non-Bakken featured blogs" which I have added to the body of the post for easier viewing.
Thanks, I'll take a wander through sometime.
ReplyDeleteMy one note is on scam logic. Any federal, or global, level legislation that involves a lot of money is going to have corruption. I wouldn't use such corruption as proof that underlying claims are false. ie There is a ton of corruption in defense spending. I'd claim this is an argument for more a more rigorous checked spending system and not an argument that defense is a fictitious endeavor. You could find schemes and corruption in both programs of merit and those that are a total waste of time and money.
I'll go seek out some long-form audio debates, I find it a good refresher and challenge to my conventions.
... unrelated comment I'll slide in here. Those refracks are amazing. I'm always surprised what these engineers can pull off.
Thank you. Yes, those re-fracks are amazing. This will be the untold story of the shale revolution. In conventional drilling, one sticks a straw into a pool of oil and that's it -- 50% return in primary production over many years. But tight oil -- on any given frack they don't come near the 50% production return so it will require multiple fracks over the lifetime of a well.
DeleteThe real question is how big is the reservoir in the Permian, Eagle Ford, and the Bakken? Every time the USGS surveys tight oil, the estimates are revised upwards.
With regard to the blogs noted at the sidebar regarding global warming, the most intriguing is Bjorn Lomborg. He seems the most qualified to opine and appears not have a hidden agenda. I can't say the same for the rest. Bjorn Lomborg doesn't post often and some of his stuff can be a bit dense, but overall, it's his type of analysis that impresses me the most.