Pushing all your bullshit propaganda over here now!!!... Got anything else better to do!! 🤔

& your point is!!? 🤔... Oh yeh!!! 🙄

No energy production is perfect. BUT, compare the environmental damage between them all. People on both sides want to claim it is only the other side that is polluting. It is both, but the point is to analyze the true impacts of all of them.

Energy production vers environmental damage becomes less & less with technology & know how!!!... Could we one day be totally energy efficient with no consequences!!?... 🤔... Not if you believe the likes of Tony!!!

150 will be offered new positions, so Vestas is laying off about 7% of their US workforce. Primarily those making V136 wind turbines which has seen lower demand. This company makes onshore turbines with greater capacity and huge offshore turbines that are selling better. This is capitalism. Do you have a problem with that?

I hope the other 300 employees will get jobs in the petroleum industry. That is also capitalism. Do you have a problem with that NotMev?

@leaMagnet No problem at all. I would love to see all the subsidies and tax breaks end for fossil fuels and renewables, just not one side. Let the market decide, just like natural ga production did to coal. Coal could not compete. Just like the horse could not compete with cars.

My neighbor heats with wood. 1/3 of an acre lots. The smoke pooled near the ground and we breathed wood smoke for six month straight. When you can turn it off you like it more.

Drake when I was kid everyone used wood for heat and it never pooled near the ground. So I have a hard time believing, what you are saying. Those folks in Texas would do better if they had a small wood stove as back up for when the hydro goes out. A good old fashioned oil burner would probably work well too. They don't need hydro to operate. Furnaces are nice, but they don't work without hydro. Even if you have a natural gas fireplace as back up it can operate with out hydro. Of course in Texas they are now saying the pipes for that are freezing up too. Not sure how that happens. I guess they never looked ahead at what could happen if it snows and gets cold. One always need a back up plan. I even have a back up generator. LOL Just in case you know.

I guess that's what the communist want us to go back to. Firewood is the way to go with their bullshit Hoax of Green New Deal.

Some of that higher rate should go toward roads as they use the same roads as gas powered vehicles.

I am not against E Autos. We need to build out the smart power grid. Higher rates for electric car charging can help with financing. Residual power first then commerial, industrial, and transportation . CA has a lot of generator use for E cars during brown outs. We have to become smarter commuters or Zoomers!

Actually (and I'm splitting hairs) there are too many scientist who are beholden to the government's picking the pockets of the taxpayer. After all, governments get to pick the winners and losers in nearly every industry.

Idiot!!! 😝... ☝️⬆️👆

@Outrigger stated "Germany got through by buying coal fired electricity from Poland, nuclear from France, and natural gas from Russia for their remaining gas-fired plants. " PROVE IT. Show me any web site or article that gives me numbers and dates!

Well, you prrobably won't belive this guy, but here he is. Sky News Australia. .......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqM9OIPzMHs ..... But "Green" energy was already failing in Germany before Feb 2021. ......"Germany now generates over 35 percent of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources. Over 30 000 wind turbines have been built, with a total installed capacity of nearly 60 GW. Germany now has approximately 1.7 million solar power (photovoltaic) installations, with an installed capacity of 46 GW. This looks very impressive. Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17 percent of the installed capacity." ....... https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Is-Germany-Too-Dependent-On-Renewable-Energy.html ......... And from Feb 10 .... "According to Prof. Schwarz: ...... With this supply of wind and photovoltaic energy, it’s between 0 and 2 or 3 percent – that is de facto zero. You can see it in many diagrams that we have days, weeks, in the year where we have neither wind nor PV. Especially this time for example – there is no wind and PV, and there are often times when the wind is very miniscule. These are things, I must say, that have been physically established and known for centuries, and we’ve simply totally neglected this during the green energies discussion. Will have to rely on foreign energy in the future" ...... https://stopthesethings.com/2021/02/09/coal-comfort-total-collapse-in-wind-solar-output-leaves-freezing-germans-desperate-for-coal-fired-power/ ...... And at the end of this video, the reporter says auf Deutsch, translate to English; .... "if there is still too little electricity in the grid, it has to be imported, for example coal electricity from Poland" ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYubOxsjmI

Another quote from the youtube video above. ..."The reporter says the plan is that Germany will have to rely more on natural gas (from Russia), coal power from Poland and nuclear power from France."

Contrary to what all the wind+solar adorants would make us believe, there is no doubt that Germany as eco-pioneer is NOT self-sufficient regarding green energy, notwithstanding an impressing installed capacity of roughly 100 GWh. As this graph (https://www.vernunftkraft.de/de/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/EEX-Januar-2021.pdf ) shows on pg 1, Germany is averaging at only around 20 % of an (flattened) energy demand of nearly 60 GWh for January 2021 by wind+solar input. In this period, grid operators sustained losses of more than 0.8 billion Euro for feeding fees they have to pay to green energy supplier by law (pg 8).

Now who to believe. The largest economy in Europe, Germany, and their continued plans to move to renewables? I guess so that they ruin their economy, crush their industry, and become a third world nation? https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts What are the trends in this data?

@notmev: I see rising inputs of renewables, which is not disputed and doesn't alter the fact that notwithstanding all the subsidies and mobility restrictions, self-sufficiency is far away. I see also a flattening GDP curve.

@MrRumpelstilzchen100 Self sufficiency is decades away even for a majority of electrical production from renewable. That is not even taking into consideration trying to replace fossil fuels used in manufacturing (steel,concrete, petrochemicals, fertilizers, plastics,...). As for GDP flattening, what the fuck? Compare their gdp to ours or other countries. Pointing that out is a red herring.

Are you talking me!?? You!!? Or the world??? 🤔

She is following orders from higher up. Most leaders are.

Who's higher up!!? 🤔... God!??

FERC warned ERCOT 10 years ago https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ReportontheSouthwestColdWeatherEventfromFebruary2011Report.pdf

So what? With the likes of Andrew Dressler and and Catherine Hayhoe and others with their academic credentials talking about mild Texas summers, well, we should listen to these local experts.

Speaking of failed wind and solar, Germany had awful bitter cold weather as well. There was no wind, and 30,000 raptor choppers sat idle. Very little sunlight still in northern Europe, as well as being cloudy, so solar was a failure. Germany got through by buying coal fired electricity from Poland, nuclear from France, and natural gas from Russia for their remaining gas-fired plants. Your future Texas, if you keep going down this path.

You are a true idiot rigger!! 🤗

You are not an idiot Outrigger. Maybe you have already read this article from Germany, it translates into English so the real idiot may also read it? https://kaltesonne.de/frost-und-schnee-haben-die-erneuerbare-stromerzeugung-im-suedosten-deutschlands-einbrechen-lassen/#more-63018

@Billington 👍

@Outrigger @Billington First that article is about SOUTHEAST Germany, not all of Germany. Take a look at the production and Consumption of electricity for Germany here: https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE Do you notice that renewables are doing well? Do you understand that with the interconnected grids in Europe they can import wind and solar generated electricity from areas where the wind is blowing and the sun is shining when it is not doing that in Southeast Germany? But lets play this game. @Outrigger stated "Germany got through by buying coal fired electricity from Poland, nuclear from France, and natural gas from Russia for their remaining gas-fired plants. " PROVE IT. Show me any web site or article that gives me numbers and dates!

@notmev: Do you realize that average alternate current transmission losses of around 6 %, as referenced for example in WIKIPEDIA, don’t pertain to specific transmissions several thousand kilometres long, and that there are heat waves spanning thousands kilometres across several regions with no wind at all?

@MrRumpelstilzchen100 Ever hear of HVDC? Take a look at europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

@notmev: Yeah, there I read something about low nominal transmission losses of 3 % per 1k kilometres, but higher converter expenses as well as losses, discouraging shorter transmission lines and finally, something about more downtimes.

"The current issue lies more with traditional energy resources. Texas power plants do not have advanced winterization. That means mechanical failures occur during freezing temperatures. Mechanical failures also impact oil production. Almost half of US natural gas is a by-product of oil production. So that has also impacted natural gas availability…just as gas demand has surged for heating. As temperatures have dropped, natural gas pipelines have started to freeze and gas is moving slower than normal. The level of gas being consumed to heat homes means lower pressure in the pipes. That also makes it more difficult to bring natural gas power plants back online. Natural gas supplies are constrained across the country due to the cold." https://electricityplans.com/texas-electricity-outage-winter/

Fossill fuel generated electricity may have been unreliable in the bitter cold in Texas, but Wind is potentially unreliable at any time. I.E., When the wind doesn't blow. In our rush to convert to the misnamed "Green" energy, you should consider how much air quality has improved over the decades. There is not a crisis in air pollution. There is no need to rush to unreliable wind and solar. I downloaded these numbers from the EPA website a couple of years ago, showing how air quality has improved since 1990. .......Nationally, concentrations of air pollutants have dropped significantly since 1990: .... - Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour, -77% .... - Lead (Pb) 3-Month Average, -80% .... - Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual, -56% .... -Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour, -50% ,,,, -Ozone (O3) 8-Hour, -22% .... -Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM10) 24-Hour, -34% .... -Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) Annual, -41% .... -Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) 24-Hour, -40% .... -Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour, -88% .... -Numerous air toxics have declined with percentages varying by pollutant ........... During this same period, the U.S. economy continued to grow, Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.

@Outrigger You forgot the one pollutant, CO2, that is causing anthropogenic climate change!

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential trace gas, without which there would be no life on Earth.

A new study finds rising CO2 concentrations (and warming) have driven the rapid increase in Earth’s photosynthesis processes, or greening. .... CO2-induced planetary greening leads to an enormous expansion of Earth’s carbon sink. .... By 2100 this greening-sink effect will offset 17 years of equivalent human CO2 emissions. ..... This easily supersedes the effect of the Paris Agreement’s CO2-mitigation policies. ..... In a break from the deflating global news of viral infections and rising death rates, a groundbreaking new study (Haverd et al., 2020) affirms the “beneficial role of the land carbon sink in modulating future excess anthropogenic CO2 consistent with the target of the Paris Agreement” via the fertilization effect of rising CO2....... There has been a 30% rise in global greening since 1900. CO2 fertilization is the “dominant driver” of these greening trends, with an additional positive contribution from climate warming. ........ When CO2 levels double (to 560 ppm), this CO2-fertilization-greening effect is expected to increase to 47%. ....... Growth in the land’s carbon sink – absorbing excess CO2 emissions – will reach 174 PgC by the end of the century. ...... This is the equivalent of eliminating 17 full years of human CO2 emissions. ......https://climatechangedispatch.com/earth-greening-rising-co2/

@Outrigger CO2 is a trace gas and is required for life on earth. Yet you would not last long if I dropped you into a vat of CO2. Now that would be wrong and only cause problems because of the level of CO2. But guess what, CO2 does change the climate, but I guess in your mind it canonly change things for the good even though its a trace gas. How convenient!

We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here

Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46

@notmev, are you kidding? Nitrogen makes up 78 percent of Earth’s atmosphere. Can you breathe pure nitrogen? Without CO2 there is no life on this planet. CO2 levels were higher at the beginning of the last 4 glaciations than it is now.

Hey rigger!. Big woopty fucken doo!! 17 years by 2100 sounds like its going to be such a great achievement hey!!! 🙄. In the meantime!!! 🤔... I noticed you ignore my point on a previous comment about this subject!!? 🤔... Maybe we should just start building those massive glass domes to live in where we can control the national environment!! 🤔... But as we haven't! Maybe we should let nature, be natural!! Do you think!??. Instead of changing what has always been since mankind arrived!!. So how long ago do you think that was!?? & What do you think the CO2 levels were way back then!!? & Like all the ways up until before the industrial revolution!!! 🤔... Hey, just for your information man!! Too much CO2 in our atmosphere is going to cause problems!!!. Unless I spose, you want to live in a submarine!!? Or a glasshouse!??... Which one would you prefer to live in???. Maybe neither! Maybe Mars is looking good!! 😝... Oh BTW!!. Grow a brain flea!!!

notmev CO2 is not a pollutant, try living without it.

@notmev: "The current issue lies more with traditional energy resources. ..." - You seem to have overlooked Tony's referral to oil and gas being dependent in Texas on wind too!

@NotTonyHeller666: If you want let nature be natural than you're free to set an example and live as a naked man in the Amazonas. But civilization as such isn't nature, but bound to be "culture".

@Outrigger This an example of exactly the paltering that your side does. You link to an article that quotes a paper by Haverd: "beneficial role of the land carbon sink in modulating future excess anthropogenic CO2 consistent with the target of the Paris Agreement” THIS is the full sentence: "These findings suggest a larger beneficial role of the land carbon sink in modulating future excess anthropogenic CO2 consistent with the target of the Paris Agreement to stay below 2°C warming, and underscore the importance of preserving terrestrial carbon sinks." also in the paper: "This finding is important for the future role of land carbon sinks, suggesting an underestimate by current models of potential CO2 removal under low‐emission scenarios consistent with the Paris Agreement targets. " Denialists pull parts of a paper out, leaving the stuff you don't like behind to push a false narrative. READ the paper. It is based on the LOW-EMMISION scenario of the Paris Agreement. Denialists loose sleep over those low-emission scenarios. Also, I won't even start to go into the weaknesses of the study. You don't have an ability to understand any science says there is a negative effect to increased CO2 levels. Increases of the trace gas, CO2, ONLY has positive effects according to you.

@notmev: It lies in the eye of the beholder who denies what, you “denial monger”. Whoever reproaches “denial” is usurping the role of the ultimate arbiter of truth, and demonstrates his immaturity for open debate. But anyway, for the public: Outrigger cites an attenuating effect from the said paper, namely removal of atmospheric CO2 by “land sinks” in the form of living plants. Whether in accordance with the Paris Accord’s tenets or not is irrelevant. We have to point out that all climate agreements up until now haven’t shown any effects on the rise of CO2 levels, they are continuously and unashamedly rising, even in the year 2020 with a lot of lockdowns. That’s because warming oceans release CO2 unimpressed of anthropogenic emissions. And that’s exactly the reason why CO2 levels were at 300 during the ice age cycles, seen the other way round. And atmospheric CO2 levels rose in 50 years, namely from 1970 to 2020, by roughly 27 % (from 325 ppm to 414 ppm, see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide). This corresponds to an increase by roughly 0,5 per cent per year. No way earth at this pace will be experiencing 900 ppm in the year 2100 (contrary to what is suggested in the link above, with graphs inconsistent to this assertion). However, for the optimal effect of “land sinks” by way of living plants, a value of around 1.000 ppm CO2 or even more would be desirable, as it is practiced in real greenhouses for better plant growth. Moreover: The atmospheric greenhouse effect has its limits, because not more than 50 % can be emitted back to earth after being absorbed by greenhouse gases (“radiative force”). When the atmosphere is saturated enough, there is no driving force anymore behind additional CO2 levels.

notmev - People can get sick by having too little CO2 in their body. It is not a pollutant .....https://www.normalbreathing.com/co2/

notmev - I wasn't trying to prove anything by the Harverd paper except that CO2 is a not a pollutant. There are only a few things I agreed with her on. You're the one who wrongly called CO2 a pollutant. Really dumb.

Sorry, 11% loss of electricity because of wind turbine freezing is huge in this dire scenario.

And what about the larger loss of thermal generation from oil,gas, and nuclear because of the cold? Try and read this, please. https://electricityplans.com/texas-electricity-outage-winter/

So many have said the wind turbines and the fossil fuel infrastructure was not properly winterized to these types of temperatures. OK, fair enough. But why should they be? Like Tony points out, Texas climate academics have been saying that Texas winters will be mild in the future because of global warming. You know the likes of Andrew Dressler and Catherine Hayhoe. If you listen to this foolishness, you pay a price.

@Ourigger Anthripogenic climate change causing increased cases of sudden stratospheric warming, manipulating the arctic oscillation and polar vortex being locked in place due to stationary highs. Just a thought on why they might want to consider changing their long term plans. And again, on average (you know what that is), winters will be warmer in the coming decades.

Spare me your fake grasp on the climate. A little more humility about the incredibly complex atmosphere from you and other climate experts, please. They said something similar about global cooling in the 1970s, that it would make the polar vortex more unstable.

@Outrigger Spare me your incorrect history lesson on what climate scientists were saying in the 70s. Time magazine articles do not count as climate scientist predictions. AND, if you had any brain you would know the minority predictions of a coming cold were based on aerosols and their effect on sunlight. As for my fake grasp on the climate, touche. I'm not a climate scientist, I just read research articles. Anthropogenic climate change and its effects on the polar vortex is complex and is an area of disagreement and current research. But the difference is that when the scientific community arrives at a consensus based on research and more data, I will believe it even if what I previously pontificated is proven false. https://climatecrocks.com/2021/02/17/the-weather-is-wacc-but-science-still-unsettled/

I've listened to this kind of BS since was in college in the '70s. One climate catastrophe after another. All were wrong. Fool me once same on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Silly you. It was far more than the Time magazine story. It fairly regularly repeated in the News. We all thought it would probably happen. I was even taught it in college! You just don't know, you weren't there. You've swallowed a lie about what was going on at the time.

@Outrigger I was in college in the 70s too. Now why did I not fooled by the minority of global cooling predictions but you did? But then, I was born a nerd. Have you ever looked at anything having to do with an evaluation of what SCIENTISTS were saying back then about global warming/cooling? I'm suofucking tired of denialists holding up newspapers and magazine articles that were wrong to use that as a justification of denying the science. Newspapers and magazines made headlines to sell their stuff. Now it is the same for blogs and videos, clickbait. https://7c043864-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/agwanalysis/response-to-global-warming-a-chilling-perspective/Survey%20of%20Articles%20published%20in%20the%2070s%20Predicting%20Global%20Warming%20or%20Cooling.png?attachauth=ANoY7co_MCtqKBaSBxOS3KYVQWoaRfrlfGklwkow2dkJPVPw0oJktM-10uTJRb09uS3DK2tJ7HlQ3rKGQVMRxlXtK9k-FZLb8i6SoiYjC0KF-PS8yFXBZyHC7I5eHHXPObVXI8a1Z24ovMgJkDBQ_jU2-hRsZmz-QTMf-4TYxrdcsILovEZEpNfWZ9YrMgber5Qn5cZBNpxl6apWYGxkz3Q4bh9eqLuCLAYXpxifzqFTySlYegRX74wvXpQHSbV17E-WgJEG_otx9VxqgoXj5P3QZZDszLg6mEJxACwjNE3pNNxy6DwAwTwmAUKDphrJCr2fpHlzrSiKVGyuts_Mkb0bsIguIwIz-6qlyncYdL0Oq755lLNFALw%3D&attredirects=0 https://phys.org/news/2008-02-global-cooling-1970s-myth.html https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

You must've been oblivious, or something. And no it wasn't just about global cooling. .....Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970: ........ "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald ... "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner ........ "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial ........ "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich ........ "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich ....... "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day ...... "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter ......... "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine ........ "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt ........ "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich ........"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt ....... "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine ......... "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt ........ Quotes from "Earth Day, Then and Now," by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com. May 1, 2000. ...... ....... And there's this...... https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ ..... Included in the above link is the letter to President Nixon by 42 top American and European scientists of a coming Ice Age.

Gee Whiz, I've fallen into the trap that science is done by consensus. The lie that a large number of scientists didn't believe in Global Cooling in the '70s is meant to salvage the reputation of science as absolute truth, and absolve it of errors, so that we have to believe Global Warming and the lie of the 97% consensus. Consensus is not how science is done and the consensus argument is meant to silence opposition and debate.

@Outrigger "Consensus is not how science is done and the consensus argument is meant to silence opposition and debate." Spoken by someone who has never done research, written a paper, and had to have gone thru the acceptance process. You don't have a clue. Really you don't. Do you know how famous me or anyone would become if we could PROVE that CO2 has had nothing to do with the warming in the last half century? Have you ever published anything in a peer reviewed pubication? Do you know a scientist you can talk to? Please do this.

@Outrigger Since you are so fond of a burst of old quotes to support your side. Here is an example of the opposite side: When the global temperature readings are in for 2017, it’s going to be a very hard sell for climate-science deniers: 2017 will likely be ranked either side of 2015 as the second or third hottest year on record, with 2016 still in top spot. The hottest five-year period recorded in the modern era will be the one we’ve just had. Communities around the world, and the flora and fauna we share it with, feel the effects of that steady rise through extreme weather, droughts, heatwaves, shifting rains, melting ice and rising sea levels. Levels of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and land clearing keep climbing. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions highest on record But some remain convinced that the whole thing is an elaborate hoax and readily find a home for their conspiracy theories and pseudoscience in conservative media outlets and, too often, on publicly funded ones too. Climate-science deniers love to fling around accusations that climate change models are massively over-egging the global warming pudding and should not be trusted (climate scientist Zeke Hausfather has a great technical explainer on this). While many pseudo-sceptics are quick with an unfounded criticism, it’s rare for them to put their own alchemy to the test by making firm projections about what’s to come. But sometimes they do and the results are often spectacularly and comically bad. Let’s have a look at a few. The $10,000 bet In 2005, two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted a $10,000 bet with the British climate modeller James Annan that will be concluded in a couple of weeks. At the time, Annan had been looking around for sceptics willing to put money behind their predictive prowess. He bet the two Russians $10,000 that the six years between 2012 and 2017 would be warmer than the six years between 1998 and 2003. Temperature data from the US National Climatic Data Centre – since renamed the National Centres for Environmental Information – would be used. Annan thought human-caused global warming would keep pushing temperatures higher. The Russian pair thought solar activity would drop away and this effect would be enough to cause global temperatures to fall. With only one month of data to go, you don’t need a maths degree to see who is rubbing their hands. So far, only two years between 1998 and 2003 rank in the top 10 warmest years, compared with at least five years between 2012 and 2017. Annan told me: “Yes I am confident of winning the bet, even the threatened eruption of Agung couldn’t matter … even if it had happened earlier this year. With only a few weeks to go, there is no chance of sufficient cooling for me to lose.” El Niño enough? In 2011, a group of Australian and New Zealand “sceptics” predicted that temperatures were about to plummet. The year 2011, they said, would likely be “the coolest year globally since 1956 or even earlier”. Largely ignoring the role of increasing levels of greenhouse gases, the group, led by Australian John McLean, thought instead that the cycle of warming El Niño and cooling La Niña weather patterns would be enough to explain what would happen that year. This natural cycle had entered its cooler phase in late 2010. You might have guessed it, but the group was wildly wrong. Global temperature chart from 2011 showing the failed prediction of a group of climate science deniers Global temperature chart from 2011 showing the failed prediction of a group of climate science deniers Composite: Graham Readfearn/NOAA For the globe to be as cool as 1956, the temperatures would have to have been about 0.15C below the 20th century average. Instead, they were about 0.5C above the 20th century average. According to data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011 tied as the 11th warmest year on record. At the time, 2011 ranked as the warmest La Niña year on record. What about Newsweek? In April 1975, Newsweek magazine ran a story highlighting how some scientists thought the world was heading for global cooling. Climate science deniers love to cite that Newsweek story to claim there was a consensus among scientists in the 1970s that the world was heading for global cooling. They cited it so often, it became Newsweek’s most popular ever. The dodgy logic goes like this. Because scientists were wrong then about future temperatures, they might be wrong now about projections of further warming. Don’t think too hard about the internal inconsistency of the argument where they use some flawed predictions from the 70s to try and disprove the global warming we’re actually experiencing, but that they will also say isn’t happening. The real story is this. Some scientific studies in the 1970s did suggest the world was going to cool. But even back then, analysis has shown that for every study predicting cooling there were six studies predicting warming. Plimer minus £1,000 In 2008, Prof Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist and mining industry figure, accepted a bet from a British climate policy expert and economic modeller, Dr Chris Hope. Hope had been at a conference in Cambridge where, he later wrote, “most of the participants were sceptical about the influence of humans on the climate”. Hope took the microphone and offered a £1,000 bet that 2015 would be hotter than 2008. Plimer, who thinks climate change is all natural and nothing to do with humans, accepted the bet. Oops. According to the UK’s MetOffice, 2015 turned out to be the hottest year on record. In fact, every year from 2009 to 2015 was hotter than 2008. Plimer continues to be invited on to conservative media outlets to speak as an “expert” on climate change, while publishing books disparaging climate science and renewable energy and serving on the boards of several mining companies, including those owned by Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart. Plimer gave an interview to the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation a few weeks ago, shortly after the former Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, had given that group’s annual lecture. In October on Sky News, Plimer told the News Corp political commentator and fellow climate science denier Andrew Bolt that human-caused climate change was a “fallacy based on fraud promoted by fools”. As in 2008, Plimer continues to be wrong. Archibald prize? In 2006 and 2007, the Perth-based geologist David Archibald made several predictions about the coming years and decades. It was going to be cool, cool, cool. “The sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2C,” wrote Archibald. He dismissed the role of extra CO2 in driving temperatures (big mistake) and instead plumped for solar cycles as the key driver of global temperatures. He predicted that years would get progressively cooler heading out to 2030. According to Archibald, this would see temperatures peaking in 1998, with temperatures bottoming out around the year 2025 to levels not seen since at least the late 19th century. Scientists have beaten down the best climate denial argument Read more What happened? When Archibald made his “prediction”, 1998 was the hottest year on record and he thought it would stay that way until at least 2030. Now, 1998 has dropped all the way down to eighth warmest, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Archibald last made headlines in early 2017, when the geologist was running for the far-right One Nation party in Australia’s federal election, and called single mothers “ugly” and “lazy”. Cooling any minute Don Easterbrook is a geology professor at Western Washington University who has been making predictions of imminent global cooling for the best part of two decades. Easterbrook, a regular at climate science denial meetings run by the Heartland Institute, rejects the role of increasing CO2 and thinks that all you need for predicting future climates is to look at natural cycles of the past. So in 2001 Easterbrook thought: “If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end in the next few years, and global warming should abate, rather than increase, in the coming decades.” So it was any minute now for cooling. In 2006 Easterbrook said: “The current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool.” In 2008 he wrote that his “predicted cooling seems to have already begun”. That year he also wrote: “In a nutshell, in 2001 I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus three to five years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data ... If the present cooling trend continues, the [United Nations climate change] reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.” So, what happened? According to NOAA, the following year, 2009, was the fifth warmest year on record, 2010 tied for the warmest, then 2011 and 2012 were relatively cool at the 11th and 10th warmest years. When the data was in for 2013, it was the fourth warmest year. The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all progressively ranked warmest on record. That global cooling is just round the corner though. Any minute now. Rapid cooling Kevin Long is an Australian mechanical engineer and one of those “long-range” weather forecasters who pull together things like moon cycles and sun spot activity to make predictions. In January 2014, Long declared the world was heading for “the most rapid global cooling trend for two centuries” and that during 2016 this event “should become very obvious to all”. Environmental crusaders risk their lives to save Philippine paradise Read more Long said it was “unlikely” the public would be told about the coming global cooling, because of all the “anthropogenic global warming propaganda” that the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change was endlessly “peddling”, backed by an “extremely biased world media”. So how’s that rapid global cooling trend going? We sort of know already, but 2017 is likely to be the second or third warmest year on record. Climate fail army Fellow Guardian environmental blogger Dana Nuccitelli wrote a whole book about the predictive qualities of this failed army of “sceptics”, called Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics. Apart from being wrong, all these failed predictions have one thing in common: they all reject the role that human emissions of carbon dioxide are having on global temperatures. The natural cycles used by many to make predictions, such as El Niño or the Pacific decadal oscillation or the activity of the sun, are well known and well studied. But as the failed predictions show, those natural cycles have lost their grip on the world’s temperature. Carbon dioxide is increasingly in charge. So allow me to make a couple of predictions. First, based on their record, climate-science deniers will keep telling you that global cooling is just around the corner or that all that extra CO2 will be just great anyway. Second, many will look to the comments section to yell that climate models are broken and global temperature records are being nefariously tampered with. In short, the climate fail army will descend.

@notmev: Your endless citations aren't necessary to convey the dogma that whoever won't fall for fear porn is a denier, thus making debate superfluous.

@MrRumpelstilzchen100 Do you feel the same about Outrigger's "endless citations"? My bloated response was in response to his multiple similar postings.

Would the could effect pipe lines? The controls for the pipelines? Just asking? Also, 2MW lost due to wind turbine shutdown, over 25MW of gas,oil, and nuclear shutdowns. An order of magnitude greater for thermal resources, but ITS THE TURBINES!

Sorry, no matter how you spin it, 11% loss of power is huge. ..... Texas power demand is much higher in the summer than winter because of air conditioning, and some power plants are taken off line in the winter for deep maintenance. Looks like Texas took too many power plants off line for the winter. But hey, you know, global warming, it'll be a mild winter. Andrew Dressler and Catherine Hayhoe said so.

The loss of thermal plants this week were NOT planned maintenance shutdowns. You are now starting to lie so much that you must be attached to tony at the hip. If I'm wrong about it being planned shutdowns, prove it. In the mean time. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/conservatives-falsely-blame-renewables-for-texas-storm-outages https://apnews.com/article/false-claims-texas-blackout-wind-turbine-f9e24976e9723021bec21f9a68afe927 https://climatecrocks.com/2021/02/17/bogus-texas-wind-turbine-story-comes-undone/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes?sref=pbOaIEpG https://www.powermag.com/texas-gov-declares-ercot-reform-emergency/

I would say a 50% failure rate for wind in this arctic event in Texas is a catastrophe. But wind doesn't need bitter cold to fail, it fails any time there's no wind.

@Outrigger You probably aren't interested in real numbers but here it goes. ERCOT was predicting 8MW of wind power before the artic blast. 50% of wind turbines went out, but instead of resulting in 4MW, they wind turbines that were still running where delivering 6MW. At least try and research at ERCOT first before posting.

And 2MW loss is a catastrophe as well in this kind of emergency situation. Why can't you understand that? That's a pretty big slice of electricity when everything was needed. Do you not understand what loss on the margins means in this situation?

@Outrigger The BIG difference is that I've posted info on both losses of renewable and thermal electrical generation in Texas. You, Tony, Hannity, Perry, Abbot, .. all like to push that wind is the problem that caused the outages. I can't find a single post of yours where you detail the effects of the arctic cold on thermal generation (electrical controls, water freezing in pipelines, pipe head freezing, nuclear plant going down,..). Those items contributed to over 2/3rds of the electrical generating capacity loss. But denialists like you, only talk about a smaller aspect to push your agenda.

Told'ja notmev would be mad, LOL..

@Outrigger Come on, give me a break here. That was such an outrageous lie. I prefer the more complicated ones, where I have to research and dig for the misinformation, or partial truths, or lawyer speak,...

Not clear what your point is. There is only so much energy to go around. Once 11% goes from one source, those who lost it turn to the other sources. End users are not attached to a particular turbine or pile of coal. Everyone is impacted by the 11% loss, either by an outage or increase in costs.

@malone_jp The point is blaming wind turbine shutdowns for the loss of fossil fuel extraction is more than misinformation it is lying: "The current issue lies more with traditional energy resources. Texas power plants do not have advanced winterization. That means mechanical failures occur during freezing temperatures. Mechanical failures also impact oil production. Almost half of US natural gas is a by-product of oil production. So that has also impacted natural gas availability…just as gas demand has surged for heating. As temperatures have dropped, natural gas pipelines have started to freeze and gas is moving slower than normal. The level of gas being consumed to heat homes means lower pressure in the pipes. That also makes it more difficult to bring natural gas power plants back online. Natural gas supplies are constrained across the country due to the cold." https://electricityplans.com/texas-electricity-outage-winter/

Ok I agree, there are other reasons for failure. That's not he point you were making though originally.

Cuming in your pants or what!!? 😝... 🤔

You do know that "buttplug666" is only a program designed to reply to things only. You will not see an original and worthy of discussion idea coming from it.

Try me out caption!! 🤗

Who's them!!? 😳 😝... 🤔

Excuse our resident vaccine casualty, lil’ sperg, he ran out of medication last night and his spergian ways will be a bit more exaggerated until he gets his welfare check from his daddy. Then he’ll be back to his predictable clown antics.

Buhahahaha keyboard warrior burning through keys at every stroke. Your cries are like screaming for help at the bottom of the ocean for help. No one care....

Did you ever hear that Dice Clay comment to an audience member, "you should have been a blow job?". Just wondering :)

Lol...Alinski to the hilt. Propaganda 101...accuse your enemy of what you are actually doing.

It seems the evidence for my first paragraph, is very strong!!!

something that has been known for years people that regularly use vulgarity are attempting to cover for lack of intelligence and ability to communicate, the first line proves my point

If you listen to Tony much!. You will exactly know & understand what I & you have just said!! 🤗

Hello pajama boy. How do you like your new climate‘s are? He is all for green energy as long as it does not obstruct the ocean view from his mansion.

Fucken idiots!!! 😝... 🤔

Are you ready to start, shaking it!!? 😝... 🤔

Don't stop donating!!! 🤗

Why!!?... 🤔

I'm back and yes TH is doing is best paltering. "Wind turbines shutting down caused the all the problems." I could try and get TH to read and educate himself, but really why would he. He is still vying for the denialist money train. https://climatecrocks.com/2021/02/16/confirmed-gas-coal-nuclear-failed-texas-not-wind/ Woodfin, ERCOT’s senior director of system operations, the state's supplies of electricity natural gas, coal, nuclear generation and wind turbines were all affected by the the record cold and a very un-Texas-like snow fall that all but ground commerce and travel to a halt to start the work week. Most of the drop off came from generators powered by non-renewable fuels, Woodfin said. More from Woodfin: "While ice has forced some turbines to shut down just as a brutal cold wave drives record electricity demand, that’s been the least significant factor in the blackouts, according to Dan Woodfin, a senior director for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the state’s power grid. The main factors: Frozen instruments at natural gas, coal and even nuclear facilities, as well as limited supplies of natural gas, he said. “Natural gas pressure” in particular is one reason power is coming back slower than expected Tuesday, added Woodfin." https://climatecrocks.com/2021/02/16/confirmed-gas-coal-nuclear-failed-texas-not-wind/ https://twitter.com/JesseJenkins/status/1361691683222654980?s=20

Been there brother!

It's a badge of honor to be banned by wannabe fascist and evil Google/YouTube.

Hey Brother!!! Me & you too!! 👍... Three times from Tony on YouTube, but only twice on newtube so far!! 🤗

Look at FecalMiner666 try and seduce his prey into his trunk spelunking proclivities, baiting him with fake camaraderie based on what a victim he is. Classic vampiristic maneuver of the spergalorian larper clan, using pity as a means to access the fecal nuggets he covets.

Poor little man craving attention again!!... It's ok mate, you know I'll always talk to ya! 🤗

Fat chance, the Weather Channel is a committed warmunist operation. I recommend not using them, ever.

I'd recommend not listing to Tony!!. But hey!!!

I have no buffering issues here, so it's not NewTube. Maybe there are too many devices using the same connection you are using. Lots of other reasons to. Check out this list of things to check. https://www.avast.com/c-how-to-stop-buffering

I too saw this -- for the 2nd time -- both times only during Joe's promise to stop fossil fuels.

The newtube creator said you can only upload in HD format which was a huge mistake because of people like me and probably you who can't keep up with the bandwidth requirement due to too much traffic on our home networks. Biggest mistake mistake creator of this site could've done. Unless your a good network guy and can use qos for your device.

You can try rumble he uploads on there they allow lesser picture formats like 320 p and 480p and your network would be able to handle that traffic.

That Joe Biden clip always buffers, it's almost comical how that's the exact clip the video gets stuck, it's not even a high quality clip.

Only comments seem to buffer me!!? 😝

Are you trying!!?... 🤔