So if the models are so hopelessly riddled with errors and uncertainty that an anthropogenic radiative forcing signal cannot be distinguished from noise, or if the total magnitude of the warming attributed to humans is one-tenth to one-hundredth of the error or uncertainty ranges, why are those who dare question the degree to which humans affect the Earth’s climate branded as “deniers” of science?

Kenneth Richard, http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/13/uncertainties-errors-in-radiative-forcing-estimates-10-100-times-larger-than-entire-radiative-effect-of-increasing-co2/


Sunday, 4 July 2010

Primary school forced to turn off wind turbine after bird deaths

I imagined it went a bit like this:

(1) We believed you when you said CO2 was a threat, and windmills part of the answer.

(2) We believed you when you said children in primary schools should be told of climate threats.

(3) We believed you when you said our windturbine would kill only one bird a year.

But then reality started to intrude.  14 dead birds in six months.  Headteacher coming in early to clean them up before the children arrived.  Children being upset by birds killed during the school day.  And, at last:

Windturbine shut down.

Now perhaps the teachers, having seen (3) was a lie, will review what they have done on (2), and that will surely take them into (1) and the dawn of a shocking realisation: humanity's CO2 has a negligible effect on climate, but it does benefit plants, and thus in due course, insects, birds, bees, herbivores, and people.

Story of the turbine here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/7870929/Primary-school-forced-to-turn-off-wind-turbine-after-bird-deaths.html

Some pathos here:

We've tried so hard to be eco-friendly but now we can't turn it on.
"We can't get rid of it either because we bought the turbine we had to apply for grants and the grant from the Department of Energy and Climate Change states that it has to stay on site for five years."
This tiny turbine only wasted £20,000, killed 14 birds, and disturbed perhaps a few dozen children.  And it is hard to get rid of.  Scale this up to the UK's national programme of massive subsidies for windfarms.....Looking to the future of these, Dreadnought's poem comes to mind:
I met a traveller from a distant shire
Who said: A vast and pointless shaft of steel
Stands on a hill top… Near it, in the mire,
Half sunk, a shattered turbine lies, whose wheels
And riven blades and snarls of coloured wire
Tell that its owners well their mission read
Which did not last nor, nowhere to be seen,
The hand that paid them and the empty head.
And scrawled around the base these lines are clear:
‘My name is Milibandias, greenest Green.
Look on my works, ye doubters, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round this display
Of reckless cost and loss, blotless and fair,
The green and pleasant landscape rolls away.
Note: Ed Miliband was an energy secretary in the previous government of the UK, and a prominent climate alarmist.

Note added 7 October 2011: Another school in England loses its turbine, and nearly some of its pupils: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/06/wind-turbine-fail-school-left-holding-the-bag-for-53000/

Note added 14 March 2012: a windfarm in the States may shut down at night because of a dead bat - post at Bishop Hill.  A comment on this post also gives a local newspaper link for the above story: http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/8252862.Portland_school_turns_off_wind_turbine_to_halt_seabird_slaughter/

'Meghan Cox Gurdon: Leaving the lights on won't kill a polar bear' - a journalist reacts to adult hysteria reaching children

Extract from a piece today in the Washington Examiner (hat tip:http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/) :

'Two small girls appeared in the kitchen. One of them looked vexed; the other looked worried.

"Can you please tell her that global warming isn't real?" asked the exasperated party.
Through my mind swept a series of possible responses. They ranged from the instinctive ("People are suffering from hysteria."), to the equivocal ("Many believe it's real and many do not."), to the blandly reassuring, ("Sweetheart, it's not something you need to worry about.").
"Why do you ask?" I punted.
"Someone told her that if she leaves a light on, a polar bear would die."
Blandness and equivocation disappeared.
"Nonsense," I told the child. "Grown-ups are investigating global warming and arguing about it. The one thing I can tell you is that you shouldn't be afraid to turn the lights on. It's not going to affect a polar bear either way." '

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Leaving-the-lights-on-won_t-kill-a-polar-bear/article/12489




The article concludes (my emphasis added):

'Put aside the debate over climate science for a moment. These are adult matters, or at least they should be. It's iniquitous for grown-ups -- who themselves are roiled over the subject -- to transfer their anxieties to children who are too young to wrap their minds around the issues, let alone "save" the Earth.
It's unfair. Ultimately, it may also redound to the environmental movement's disadvantage. For just as children discover that there is no Santa Claus and no tooth fairy, they'll eventually stumble on the statistics indicating that the world hasn't warmed appreciably for a decade. In other words, today's 8-year-olds may grow up to discover that the guilt and fear perpetuated upon them in childhood were based mostly on vapor, on adult hysteria. We ought to protect them from that, at least.'


Amen to that.  Oh for ten thousand times ten thousand of articles like this one to be published!