Yep. And made artificially cheap relative to other energy alternatives by ensuring that the full cost of their use & associated emissions is paid for by others (who may not have used them), non-voluntarily – effectively a subsidy.
-
-
"While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account." That is why I look at the physics.
-
Carl Mears shows that the models are worthless. And he is on your side. http://www.remss.com/research/climate/ …pic.twitter.com/5e1qPulFEz
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I also look at the empirical manifestations of warming beyond models. And there are scores of them. That is why ECS has a range of 2.5 C to 4.5 C. But that is a close enough range to make energy policy.http://wxshift.com/climate-change/climate-indicators/arctic-sea-ice …
-
There has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent for 13 years. Enough BS already. ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/masie_4km_allyears_extent_sqkm.csvpic.twitter.com/iE8wrtR2dS
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.