UK Sunday Times: ‘DON’T PANIC’: ‘Global warming has shrunk. The Arctic ice cap has grown. Scientists gathering this week face a struggle to persuade skeptics about the scale of climate change to come’
…EPA Head Gina McCarthy Admits Being Clueless About Any Obama Climate Plan Benefits
…The Oceans Ate Our Global Warming — But We Have No Way To Prove It! Warmist Prof. Ted Shepherd: ‘It appears warming has gone into deep ocean; unfortunately we don’t have instruments to find it’
…UN IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray: ‘The claim that increase of human-induced ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere would cause “global warming” ran into serious trouble right from the start.’
Germany’s Green Party Takes A Beating In National Elections – Climate, Fear No Longer Important Issues
…Michael Mann attacks coal CEO Bob Murray as ‘villain’ — Sounds like defamation, no?
…UK Guardian censors skeptic’s comment on global warming: Skeptic wrote: ‘Mankind has a long history of people who were absolutely convinced that survival depends on everyone else adopting their belief system’
…Europe’s Global Warming Fanaticism Is Killing its Economy…Is The US Next?
Europe’s Global Warming Fanaticism Is Killing its Economy…Is The US Next?
Ladies and Gentleman welcome to the future of America. According to Forbes, Europe’s artificially high energy costs created by their increasing dependence on expensive renewables is killing its economy.
The costs for electricity across Europe are more than twice than here in the US, for example Counting the costs of electricity from all sources, the Institute for Energy Research reported that “Germans pay 34 cents a kilowatt hour compared to an average of 12 cents in the United States).”
Their cost of electricity is high, and they might not be able to pass it on to consumers when consumers are free to patronize businesses operating where electricity costs are much lower. Many businesses under pressure are likely move to a lower-cost location, and jobs will go with them. Antonio Tajani, European Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, warned: “We face a systemic industrial massacre.”
The Boston Consulting Group reports electricity is one of the biggest factors that determine manufacturing costs.
That sucking sound of European business going to the US The Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) reported that its surveys indicated many German business executives would rather move operations to the US than remain handicapped by high European electricity costs as they try to remain competitive in world markets. DIHK Chief Executive Martin Wansleben acknowledged that “The U.S. has become much more attractive to companies than Europe.”
It’s no wonder more European companies are opening or expanding facilities in the U.S., and more U.S. multi-nationals are shifting overseas operations back home:
Airbus is building an aircraft assembly plant in Mobile, Alabama. It will produce A320 jets for the American market. Der Spiegel noted that Airbus “could save on manufacturing costs compared to its plants in Hamburg, Germany, and Toulouse, France.”
Siemens, a German multi-national engineering and electronics company, is making turbines for fossil fuel power plants in Charlotte, North Carolina.
BASF, the German chemical company, has opened a $33 million facility expansion in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Michelin, the French tire producer, is developing a $750 million facility in Greenville, South Carolina.
BMZ GmbH, a German company, opened its U.S. facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia for research, development, assembly and distribution of lithium ion rechargeable batteries.
SO.F.TER Group, an Italian plastics compounding company, is building a new plant in Lebanon, Tennessee.
British-based Rolls Royce …
Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming: ‘The 97% figure represented just 75 individuals’ – – Another study’s ‘results add up to little more than ‘carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas’ and ‘mankind affects the climate.’
Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/contrary-to-reports-global-warming.html
Meaningless consensus on climate change
Andrew Montford, Special to Financial Post | 19/09/13 8:51 AM ETMore from Special to Financial Post
NASA file/APa wealth of new empirical and semi-empirical evidence is now suggesting that any warming is likely to be far, far less than has been predicted by the vast electronic hypotheses that are the climate models.
Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming
Apart from a handful of eccentrics, everyone believes in the reality of manmade climate change. That’s the message of a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the latest in a series of similar efforts that have been used as a stick with which to beat policymakers. But scratch at the surface of any of these publications and you find that there is considerably less to them than meets the eye.
The earliest paper in this series, by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois, reported the results of an opinion poll of climate scientists that Zimmerman had prepared for her MSc thesis. The headline conclusion – that 97% of climatologists thought that mankind was having a significant impact on the climate – was widely reported at the time.
However, although the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals. [The Hockey Schtick broke this news here] And what was not reported in the paper or in any of the ensuing publicity was that many participants were appalled by the survey and recorded their feelings at the time, calling it simplistic and biased, and suggesting that it was an attempt to provide support for a predetermined view.
A second paper, by William Anderegg and colleagues, took a rather different approach, dividing scientists into those who were “convinced” and “unconvinced” by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and then assessing their relative numbers and their scientific credentials. It was observed at the time that the authors appeared to be trying to create a handy blacklist of scientists non gratae, and so their conclusions – that 97% of scientists were “convinced” and that their expertise was greater than that of their “unconvinced” colleagues – were unsurprising.
But again, the problems with the …