In NZ there's chat that banks are becoming wary of making long term loans to purchasers wanting to buy homes in suburbs vulnerable to sea level rises. If I owned a house in one of these suburbs I'd sell it quickly before the market values take too much of hit.

Well, it must not be profitable and efficient after all -- yet -- or in the near future.

In a recent auction of US offshore areas for wind energy, only 4 of 11 companies bidding bothered to walk away with a little less than 400,000 acres. It is the business of these companies to know, and they're not going to throw away money (like governments do with taxpayer money) to experiment with the funds provided by their stockholders.

If this was a profitable and efficient endeavor, there would have been more than 4 taking the business risk.

MMCC Believers are retreating.

Several news sources are reporting that the world is tiring of all the taxes, the regulations, the unexplainable projects, and the hair-on-fire predictions of doom that never materialize.

Economics is k*ing again.

Even very liberal source Politico is demoralized.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... 4-36424229

This month’s fuel-tax riots in Paris and the defeat of a carbon-fee ballot measure in Washington state show the difficulty of getting people to support a levy on the energy sources that heat their homes and power their cars. Meanwhile, even the most liberal Democratic candidates this year gave carbon taxes scant if any mention in their climate platforms, focusing instead on proposals like a phaseout of fossil fuels and massive investments in wind and solar power.

Why have Dems been mum? They can't explain it in specific terms to regular folks, and the Dems don't understand it themselves.

John Constable, in a report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, shows that efforts at renewable energy have been failing and are now in decline. Efforts in many countries to FORCE a transition from fossil fuels to renewables have mostly resulted in wasted money and the death of flying foul. And it's been mostly taxpayer money, through government grants, that has been wasted.

https://www.thegwpf.com/renewables-and- ... 4-36432433

For almost as long as there has been a climate policy, emissions reduction has been seen as dependent on the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Policies supporting this outcome are ubiquitous in the developed and developing world; markets have been coerced globally, with varying degrees of severity it is true, but with extraordinary force in the OECD states, and particularly in the European Union. The net result of several decades of such measures has been negligible.

The UN and the IPCC has been caught manipulating data too many times to even consider them seriously.

The hypocrisy continues.

Apparently not all countries are concerned about climate change. Brazil's new president is in the process of destroying even more of the rain forest. Indonesia has pledged to stop their slash and burn farming techniques. I have no idea if they have stopped or not. It's a crazy world we live in.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... icanes.pdf

Udon Map wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 10:16 am

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 8:37 am

20190118-033012.jpg

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is dedicated to proving that global warming is not occurring. While it has crafted a great name with an unbiased air to it, it is anything but unbiased.

And Believers staff organizations that are dedicated to proving that global warming is occurring. So?

The data is either correct, or it isn't. I'm sure that if it is inaccurate, someone from the "hockey stick crowd" will write a paper refuting it.

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 10:19 am

Udon Map wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 10:16 am

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 8:37 am

20190118-033012.jpg

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is dedicated to proving that global warming is not occurring. While it has crafted a great name with an unbiased air to it, it is anything but unbiased.

And Believers staff organizations that are dedicated to proving that global warming is occurring. So?

The data is either correct, or it isn't. I'm sure that if it is inaccurate, someone from the "hockey stick crowd" will write a paper refuting it.

OK, let me add some detail. You will likely discount it (as you do with anything that does not agree with your opinions), but others may be interested.

It's an anti-global warming lobbying group.

It was originally set up as a charitable foundation; however, in 2014 the Charity Commission for England and Wales, a department of the U.K. government which reports directly to Parliament rather than any particular Minister or government department, ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality in its climate change coverage, blurred fact and comment, and demonstrated a clear bias. So to circumvent those rules, it set up another organization, the Global Warming Policy Forum, which was not registered as a charity. Talk about fraud and deception!

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has repeatedly rejected requests to disclose its sources of funding. As one manager at the London School of Economics put it,

These documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders.

If they're credible in your view, great. Others may not see it the same way.

I understand completely. Fully. All of that is wonderful information and something to consider.

But it's about the data. Additionally, the repeated revelations of manipulated data by Believers and their organizations is cause enough to consider everything when looking at MMCC.

If you automatically discount the data without reading the report or offering some refutation with sources regarding the data, there's no point in posting a link. Just do a thumbs up or thumbs down based on what someone thinks about the source alone. I get it. I guess I can do the same for all the sources that I may not agree with all the time. It's a ridiculous premise.

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 10:41 am

But it's about the data. Additionally, the repeated revelations of manipulated data by Believers and their organizations is cause enough to consider everything when looking at MMCC.

It's the same. The data scandal a few years ago by those who support the idea that global warming isn't any better or worse than what these guys are doing.

As always, you're entitled to your opinion.

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 11:22 am

As always, you're entitled to your opinion.

You wouldn't agree that an organization which demands transparency from others but maintains complete secrecy regarding itself is hypocritical?

Udon Map wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 11:39 am

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 11:22 am

As always, you're entitled to your opinion.

You wouldn't agree that an organization which demands transparency from others but maintains complete secrecy regarding itself is hypocritical?

So now it's a discussion about recognizing hypocrisy?

I'm pretty good at it when I know all the facts. I don't know the origin of the information on that organization.

But it's still about the data.

There are some people and organizations out there who are right even some of the time. Even CNN falls into that category. I don't discount everything that they spout just because it's CNN. I dig deeper. It's still about the data even with them.

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 2:31 pm

Udon Map wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 11:39 am

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 11:22 am

As always, you're entitled to your opinion.

You wouldn't agree that an organization which demands transparency from others but maintains complete secrecy regarding itself is hypocritical?

So now it's a discussion about recognizing hypocrisy?

Yes.

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 2:31 pm

But it's still about the data.

No it's not, not on this point. The organization demands complete transparency from organizations which espouse a different opinion. If it doesn't provide the same level of transparency and insists on keeping its own information secret, that's hypocrisy.

The data relates to the substantive issue of climate change, a completely different issue.

My post was about the data.

Yours is about the source, a completely different issue. Arguing a position that I'm not making.

Clemson 44 - Alabama 16.

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 4:54 pm

My post was about the data.

Yours is about the source, a completely different issue. Arguing a position that I'm not making.

And you think that the source doesn't affect the data? That's not the position you took when ClimateGate was first uncovered....

It's sort of like you. Always putting forth data which which shows how great Trump is, and pretty much ignoring or rationalizing data which is inconsistent with your opinion.

Udon Map wrote: ↑

January 19, 2019, 8:18 am

Lone Star wrote: ↑

January 18, 2019, 4:54 pm

My post was about the data.

Yours is about the source, a completely different issue. Arguing a position that I'm not making.

And you think that the source doesn't affect the data? That's not the position you took when ClimateGate was first uncovered....

. . .

I explained this already. I don't discount information solely because of the source.

There have been a handful of news organizations who have fired employees for lying in a series of their stories or editing audio or editing photos. NY Times, ABC, NBC, etc. I still read their reports and judge them accordingly.

Here is some simple data .....

Temperature anomaly from 1951-1981 global mean temperature and increase over previous decade

1960–1969 −0.014 °C +0.006 °C
1970–1979 −0.001 °C +0.013 °C
1980–1989 0.176 °C +0.177 °C
1990–1999 0.313 °C +0.137 °C
2000–2009 0.513 °C +0.200 °C
2010–2017 0.728 °C +0.215 °C (incomplete decade)

Decadal averages help smooth out annual variations. As can be seen, every decade was warmer than the previous decade. The last 4 periods have shown a total warming of over 0.7 degrees centigrade. There is an obvious increasing trend. IF the temperature continues to increase at the current rate we would see the global temperature increase by 2 degrees this century. But if the rate continues to accelerate ......

You may think that two degrees is nothing to worry about. But if it pushes the extremes up (like in the recent Australian heatwave) we will get significant ecological impacts. During the Heatwave in Australia before Xmas about one third of a species of fruit bat died in 2 days from heat stress. They are a highly visible, social species which lives in colonies, other smaller less social species of animals may just seem to 'disappear'.

Also, a 2 degree rise would result eventually in a 5-10 metre rise in sea level - although that would probably take hundreds of years.

And it is going to be -38 C (wind chill) in Toronto tonight.

One doubts if the polar icecap will be retreating, or any icebergs will be melting, in this type of weather unless those areas are much warmer than here.