You will need to register if you were an old (2012) MCL user

Just to be clear, while this is mycoffeelounge.net, Paris let the old place die, all posts from the original MCL are most likely gone forever

Don't let the fact that your browser remembers your old username and password fool you, but you can, of course, use your old username here, when you register

Climate Change The Scam.



  • Oops. On June 5th, an event described as “an avian incident” started a fire at the California Valley Solar Ranch plant in California. The 250MW plant was reduced to 40MW of generation. It’s expected to be back up and running on July 1. By then the incident will have cost the company $8m.

    ‘Avian Incident’ Knocks Out 84% of Massive California Solar Farm
    by Millicent Dent, Blomberg

    An “avian incident” sparked a fire at one of California’s biggest solar farms, affecting 1,200 acres and knocking out 84% of the California Valley Solar Ranch’s generating capacity.

    Impressive company spin:

    “ incidents such as these give us continued confidence in our risk prevention and mitigation plans.””

    It’s not clear if this was one bird, or a flock.

    The plant covers 2000 acres (8km2) was built in 2013 at an estimated cost of $1.6b using a $1.2b loan from taxpayers through the DoE. It makes about 550 GWh a year at times that may or may not suit Californians. No doubt readers here will help out comparing the output of an equivalent coal plant built at a similar cost. Imagine if a flock of birds (or just one) put a coal plant out of action for nearly a month?

    It’s just another reminder that complexity costs. More infrastructure spread over more area means more potential points of failure. On the plus side, the bird incident obviously didn’t affect generation for half the time this month. (Nighttime).



  • ‘Climate Emergency’: Ireland Set to Ban Private Cars While Planning Mass Third World Migration.

    Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionise’ people’s lifestyle and behaviours, according to local media.
    “Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boost the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration.

    In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals — which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide — are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports.

    Launching the plan in Dublin, leader Leo Varadkar outlined his vision for an Ireland of ‘higher density’ cities consisting of populations whose lifestyles and behaviours have been totally transformed by ‘carrot and stick’ policies outlined in the climate plan.

    “Our approach will be to nudge people and businesses to change behaviour and adapt new technologies through incentives, disincentives, regulations and information,” the globalist prime minister said.

    “We are going to change how electricity is produced and consumed, how our homes and workplaces are heated; the way we travel; the types of vehicles we purchase; and how food is produced.

    “It’s about vibrant, populated city centres, liveable, with excellent amenities and transport as we embrace higher densities.”

    The document, which was unveiled on Tuesday, features more than 180 measures to decarbonise the Irish economy including making private car ownership prohibitively expensive — with petrol and diesel car sales banned by 2030, a date by which it says general carbon tax will be increased from €20 a tonne to “at least” €80.

    In addition, the plans demand that coal and peat-fired power stations are replaced with wind farms and other “green” energy sources in order to meet the requirement that 70 per cent of electricity will be generated from renewables by 2030.

    How to go to Dhimmi Hell in a hand basket Northern Ireland style.

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/06/20/ireland-ban-cars-climate-mass-migration/



  • @Lizard-King said in Climate Change The Scam.:

    Irish economy

    That's a good one 😂



  • Congressional testimony demonstrates that man-made intensive livestock grazing since 1879 has reduced the size and intensity of U.S. wildfires to lowest levels since the 1600s.

    In Congressional testimony regarding ‘Natural Disasters in the Wake of Climate Change’ hearings, Dr. Judith Curry, former Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, agreed that “climate variations have been important drivers of wildfire occurrence in ponderosa pine forests across western North America for at least 400 years.” But she demonstrates that human land use associated with “intensive livestock grazing disrupted fuels continuity and fire spread and then active fire suppression maintained the absence of widespread surface fires during most of the 20th century.”

    The 2014 ‘National Climate Assessment Report’ claimed that the Southwest would be the most vulnerable U.S. region to CO2 emissions’ generated climate change causing:

    “Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires.” Its models predicted a “doubling of burned area in the southern Rockies, and up to a 74% increase in burned area in California” would result in a “conversion of forests to woodland or grassland.”

    But rather than the perma-drought reduce mountain snowfalls forecasted by NCAR, California in its 2018-2019 water year reported a record 200 percent of average Sierra snowpack, the second most precipitation for May, and the Department of Water Resources reported river run-off at about 165 percent of average for this time of year.

    Directly contradicting NCAR, Dr. Curry demonstrated that for the past 400 years the link between widespread wildfires has been ocean circulation patterns associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation influence on temperature and moisture patterns.

    In the Southwest, El Niño ocean warming cycles cause increased wet year production of grass and needle litter. These events tend to be followed by La Niña ocean cooling causing dry years associated with “fires synchronized across this region.”

    Dr. Curry highlights that climate change advocates are only focused on recent temperature and wildfire records since 1950s. This ignores that U.S. wildfire intensity has consistently trended down during the “era of livestock grazing and fire suppression” that began in about 1879, an era prior to use of coal for electricity and oil for transportation.

    Records within the narrow livestock grazing era reveal that cyclical wildfire activity with the most elevated period being from 1916 through to the 1930s. Wildfires stayed uniformly low during the 1950s through 1970s, then became elevated again after 1985.

    The 1930s still holds the modern era records for many of the worst U.S. weather disasters. Notable events include the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 as the strongest landfalling hurricane, the worst drought in 1934, and the largest number of severe heat waves in 1934.



  • Open Your Eyes. The Planet’s Not Dying (At Least Not Here in America.)

    In a way, I can’t blame those who grew up in the Cold War for being pessimistic about the future. We lived then in an age of potential nuclear annihilation and Hollywood made sure that we knew about what would happen if it occurred. The studios rolled out film after film of post-apocalyptic dystopian worlds from Planet of the Apes to Soylent Green. These films were usually shot in vast desert areas in foreign countries because the truth is that America is still very, very beautiful.

    I recently returned from a road trip to Florida and marveled at the lushness along highway I-95. Huge 40-foot trees lined the way in North and South Carolina then Georgia. Flowering plants grew wildly behind these mammoth giants of nature. Grassy plains spread far and wide along the Virginia route as cattle grazed behind the fences.

    I happen to live in the greenest borough of New York City: Staten Island. We have tons of parks, 3 golf courses and the best tasting tap water in the country. In the center of the island we have Moses Mountain, a testament to the efforts of conservationists who rallied again the construction of an expanded highway that would cut through the Green belt. Due to local opposition, this section was never completed. The mound of rock and soil remained where it was and came to be known as Moses Mountain after Robert F. Moses, the City Parks Commissioner and head of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, who had planned the parkway in the first place. Today Moses Mountain is well covered with a variety of trees and other vegetation. What started as barren rock and loose soil is now a wooded ecosystem that more resembles Vermont than NYC.

    Therein is the difference between genuine conservationists whose primary goal is to provide clean air and water; and environmental wackos who want to control our behavior with useless governmental mandates in a Green New Deal. Vice President Al Gore became a global warming alarmist and billionaire with his ridiculous carbon credit scheme. So many people fell for his Inconvenient Truth film that nobody bothered to check its flawed data.

    I have never been swayed by the hoax because the first thing I recognized is that it was based on data that was only a few hundred years old and our planet has existed for several billions of years before we did. Also there has never been a scientific consensus about global warming and if anyone tries to spout the nonsense that a majority of ‘climate scientists’ agree on climate change, they are conning you.

    Most of the costly changes that the Green community is pushing don’t work but somebody is making beaucoup money selling turbine windmills and solar panels. The windmills kill anywhere from 140,000 to 328,000 birds annually. Why hasn’t PETA demonstrated against them? Of course, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has lots of skeletons in its closet that doesn’t bear scrutiny. It routinely euthanizes animals left in its overcrowded facilities. Amanda Schinke, a spokesperson for the organization, explained how "euthanasia is a product of love for animals who have no one to love them." Thank goodness, they’re not in charge of nursing homes.

    It would be more charitable to describe the green advocates as misinformed rather than just plain stupid, but it’s getting harder and harder to do that. When I read that people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Hollywood liberals are hysterically pronouncing that the world will end in 12 years or so, doubts about their IQs grow.

    I’ve written several columns debunking the global warming hoax in the New York Sun and Irish Examiner USA newspapers. But since these vehicles were merely preaching to the choir, I always recommend the late comic George Carlin’s YouTube video pointing out the absurdity of environmental junk science.

    "The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles... hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?"

    The late and great author, Michael Crichton, was also adamant about exposing junk science.

    "The global crisis is not 100 years from now - it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and antihuman doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world.... If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now."

    While the uninformed or deliberately deceitful liberals in Congress spout the incipient danger of climate change which demands a Green New Deal policy here, they ignore the real villains in other countries causing pollution.

    I watched the animated children's movie, The Lorax, with my grandchildren years ago. One of the villains is the Mayor, Aloysius O'Hare, who sells air to the gullible residents of the polluted town which has no trees. The subtle message here is that corrupt humans have destroyed all the oxygen producing trees and this has led to the town's disastrous environmental crisis.

    In 2012, Global Post reported in an article by Liu Meng;

    "Chen Guangbiao, a Chinese private entrepreneur known for his philanthropy, began to sell canned fresh air Monday, a move he claimed was to draw more people's attention to environmental protection. We've sold 1,000 cans in Tongzhou district today, earning about 5,000 yuan ($792)," Chen told the Global Times Monday, adding that he will donate all the earnings to the Chinese military to defend the Diaoyu Islands. The air is collected from revolutionary regions, including Jinggang Mountain in Jiangxi Province, some ethnic minority areas and Taiwan, and sells for four to five yuan each, he said. "One only has to open the can, directly 'drink' it or put the nose close to the can to breath deeply," said Chen."

    Although California, with its ridiculous mandates has seen smog and dirty air undo past improvements, most of the country has done the most to reduce deadly emissions and pollutants. We didn’t need Paris or Kyoto accords to bully us. Trump was right.

    Now the left needs to do one thing to get off the climate change merry-go-round.



  • Tony Heller of Real Climate Science presents 10 key graphs that reveal just how pernicious the climate scam really is. The graphs show that carbon emissions have been going way up, as has the use of fossil fuels. These are correlated, as are corresponding declines in hunger and poverty, and an increase in life expectancy. The carbon emissions that liberals regard as ideologically unclean are both an effect and a cause of the improving human condition, as they help the crops to grow.

    The progressives who control the media don’t care, because they do not mean the human race well; their only interest is in acquiring more power. As for the nice people duped into going along with the hoax, Heller quotes 19th century author Charles Mackay:

    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Youtube Video

    Ten Key Graphs Behind The Climate Change Scam



  • Whether higher CO2 levels are more a cause or an effect of warmer temperatures is still debated. What we do know is that higher CO2 levels benefit humanity by benefiting plants. This is one reason the use of fossil fuels is inversely correlated with global poverty. CO2 is greening the planet.

    Via Watts Up With That:

    In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.

    Global greening has affected all ecosystems – from arctic tundra to coral reefs to plankton to tropical rain forests – but shows up most strongly in arid places like the Sahel region of Africa, where desertification has largely now reversed. This is because plants lose less water in the process of absorbing carbon dioxide if the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher.

    If it turns out that CO2 really does measurably increase temperature, this too will contribute to the availability of food, freeing up farmland that is currently buried under ice. In warmer times, Scandinavians farmed Greenland. It got its name from the lushness that characterized this vast tract of land before global cooling set in.

    The benefits of CO2 are hardly unknown:

    Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food.

    More plant life benefits mankind and wildlife alike. The problem is, it does not benefit authoritarian leftists, who cherish a pretext to assert control over energy and transportation.



  • Everything must be hyper-regulated to the point of total suppression because everything causes global warming — even trees.

    Via Wired:

    Sunitha Pangala, a British postdoc researcher, spent two months traveling the Amazon’s waterways strapping gas-measuring equipment to thousands of trees. She found that trees, especially in the extensive flooded forests, were stimulating methane production in the waterlogged soils and mainlining it into the atmosphere.

    Methane production, right there in the sacred rainforest.

    [S]he had discovered a hitherto ignored major source of the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It now seems that most of the world’s estimated 3 trillion trees emit methane at least some of the time.

    The first most important greenhouse gas is not CO2. It is water vapor. Big Government had better regulate that too, or else the climate might continue to fluctuate the way it always has.

    It has been known for at least a century that trees emit methane. Until now, no one thought to investigate how much in the context of global warming hysteria.

    Meanwhile, moonbats/snowflakes/SJWs/Watermelons/frightbats lay the groundwork to ban meat because cows emit methane.

    Now we learn that planting trees may not reduce greenhouse gases as much as we were told. More importantly, we learn that climate science is still in its infancy. At this point, it is too corrupted by political considerations to take seriously anyway.

    Nobody knows what the climate will do. The only thing we can be relatively sure of is that allowing leftists to exploit climate hysteria to impose repressive policies is unlikely to have a perceptible effect, much less a beneficial one.



  • At this point, you are probably wondering, do ideologically compliant climate scientists and warmist journalists have any integrity at all? In light of the latest barrage of global warming propaganda, Tony Heller of Real Climate Science provides the definitive answer

    Youtube Video



  • We're All Going to Starve to Death...Again

    According to the draft of a new United Nations IPCC report, "Climate Change and Land," the world's land and water resources are in dire shape. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report was produced by 108 experts from 52 countries, nominated by governments, observer organizations, and IPCC bureau members. (I don't recall getting an invitation, despite my extensive interest in energy use and food economics — wonder why!) The "experts" insist that deserts are expanding, extreme weather is destroying crops, and 10 percent of the Earth's people are already going without food. Soon mankind as a whole will be short of food, millions will starve, and nations will be plunged into chaos as populations engage in warfare and mass migration in search of food.

    Ho...hum. It's Thomas Malthus all over again.

    The U.N. climate experts have played this record so often now that it's grating — like having to listen to "Blowin' in the Wind" another 40 times.

    Unlike Malthus, who felt that mass starvation was inevitable (and that it would "solve" the problem of overpopulation, albeit at a tremendous cost), the IPCC experts appear to have a kinder, gentler solution: put all the Earth's resources and industries under the control of the world climate commissars. Call in the experts to regulate land use, food distribution, and energy production. Give up our freedom to live as we wish, travel as we wish, and dine as we wish, and the experts will save us.

    One can feed ten times more people on grain alone than on grain-fed beef, so going vegan makes sense to the experts. But who's going to enforce such measures and by what means? And what about the liberty of those who'll be made to eat broccoli instead of beef?

    The real problem, I believe, is the IPCC, which is an unelected panel consisting of theoreticians who seem out of touch with ordinary citizens. A panel consisting of ordinary Joes would do a better job of representing the interests of mankind at large. The experts may think mankind can simply forego meat consumption and the problem will be solved, but that's not the way most persons look at it. Meat consumption in the developing countries, in particular, is expanding at a rapid rate because these populations look upon meat as a luxury. Chinese per capita meat consumption has risen from 5 kilograms in 1961 to something like 55 kilograms today. It's one thing for the experts to deny themselves pork chops, but do they have the right to tell billions of others to forgo meat before they've ever had the privilege of consuming it?

    The IPCC summary report, released July 8, states that global food shortages may cause mass migration from poorer nations to rich ones. A New York Times story on the report suggests that recent migration from Central America to the USA may have been spurred by food shortages resulting from drought linked to global warming. Certainly, poverty is behind much illegal migration to the USA, but it seems a stretch to think global warming is behind it. The cause is actually America's antiquated immigration laws, laws that Democrats refuse to fix since mass migration suits their plans for political control based on increasing the Hispanic vote. Illegals are rushing our borders because Democrats are encouraging them to do so.

    The U.N. report links the purported food crisis to global warming, which, it is claimed, causes damage to topsoil, water supplies, and crop yields. The reality may be quite the opposite. Warmer temperatures, should they arise, will expand the crop line in temperate regions. Vast regions of Canada, Alaska, and Russia may be opened up for agriculture. Even Greenland may once again be "green," as it was during a warm spell when the island was colonized by Norsemen in the 10th century. Higher levels of carbon dioxide will also spur plant growth, leading to greater crop production.

    The IPCC claim that global warming undermines crop production is not supported by the current facts. According to the British Geographer, world agricultural production since 1961 has increased by 240 percent and at a rate far faster than world population growth, and it shows no sign of slowing. Reliable data collected from other sources also show a steady uptick in global food production since 1960. During the period in which global warming was supposedly decimating cropland via drought, flood, and storms, total global cropland has risen from 4.38 billion hectares (1960) to 4.87 billion hectares, with no decade showing decline. The IPCC claims that global warming, underway since before 1990, is decimating cropland. It isn't. So where's the beef?

    The underlying theme of all previous IPCC reports seems to be that a global system must be put in place to regulate fossil fuel usage so as to mitigate warming. Now the IPCC has added agriculture to the list of human activities that must be regulated so as to avert disaster. In the end, every human activity, including the existence of human beings themselves — a major source of carbon and methane emissions — will have to be restricted in order to achieve the experts' goals. If it is necessary to ban burgers in order to save the Earth, what else does the IPCC have in store for us? We'll see, since the IPCC is planning further reports, including one on the condition of the world's oceans. One can expert more headlines of environmental catastrophe and more ideas on expanding global government.

    The crucial fact that the experts leave out of this year's global catastrophe update is that mankind craves liberty even more than it does rich food. It's not for the IPCC to say that you and I must be limited in what we choose to eat or drink. I will eat and drink what I choose. If doing so "stresses the land" or releases more methane into the air, so be it. If farmland is indeed becoming "stressed," as the IPCC claims, meat prices will rise to levels that place meat beyond the means of most of the Earth's population. So it's back to rice and beans, in any event, long before we arrive at mass starvation, global conflict, or planetary demise. The best way to discover this rational price for meat and other luxury items is via the free market — not through the rantings of a panel of experts.

    As for solutions, eat what you like, and be merry. I myself am a vegan, if only for health reasons. I wonder how many of the climate "experts" meeting at their costly confab in Geneva have joined me.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/were_all_going_to_starve_to_deathagain.html



  • JoNova: Feast your eyes on Streaky Bay’s thermometer — over bitumen for 31 long hot years.

    Ken Stewart rates the Streaky Bay site as one of the worst he has seen This is an influential site because it’s in a remote area, is used to “correct” official ACORN sites, and has been running for a long time. Last October the BOM finally moved it to a completely new (and much better site) – only three decades too late. Strangely, they didn’t give the new site a new station number? Normally the old and new sites would be run concurrently with two different numbers so the data from both could be compared and the differences in temperature between them could be worked out. Is that an accident? Does it hide the terrible quality of the previous site? The Streaky Bay information (site 018079) tells us it opened in 1865 but the site only has monthly data from 1926 and daily data from an even shorter period. The rest presumably hasn’t been digitized yet.

    As best as I can tell, the station metadata appear to mark this site as being at the post office from 1865 to 2018, and record the ground cover as becoming asphalt in July 1987. That means for 31 years the Australian Bureau of Meteorology knew the site was sitting on hot bitumen and couldn’t be bothered to move it? The BOM gets more than a million dollars a day, and claims there’s a dire crisis running, and they don’t even care enough to measure climate change properly? They’re not even trying. According to Stewart, Streaky Bay’s artificially hot data was used to “correct” the Acorn sites at Adelaide, Ceduna, Eucla, Forrest, Kyancutta, and Port Lincoln.


Log in to reply