Wasting Other People’s Money; Renewable Energy Jobs at $60 Million Each


Unfortunately, that headline isn’t a joke, and it highlights the obscene amount of waste involved in Green Energy. There are infinitely better uses for those public dollars, but because of the epically misguided green lobby, money is poured down the green rat hole with absolutely zero benefits to show.

“The Clare Solar Farm stands to get something like $340 million in subsidies over the next 13 years  for 5 jobs! That works out at $60 million a job.”

What I found interesting is that the Clare Solar Farm is owned by a Saudi billionaire, Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, is building solar farms at tax payer’s expense in Queensland. That isn’t a joke. Why would Saudi Arabia be building solar farms when the bulk of their wealth comes from oil? Is Saudi Arabia suicidal? No. They are glad to take tax payer’s money to build solar farms because they know solar has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being commercially viable, and will never threaten oil. If Saudia Arabia truly thought solar had a chance they would do what Abu Dhabi did and try to undermine the industry by funding movies like the anti-fracking Promised Land.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment


Climate Science Fiction; Ice Melts in Sub-Zero Temperatures.

Do the laws of physics cease to exist in the Slimate Clience Departments of our Universities? As I’ve pointed out countless times on this Blog, I am not a Climate Scientist, never have been, never will be, but I know a whole lot about science, the scientific method, statistics, mathematics, computer modeling, quantum physics, chemistry and have a Ph.D. in common sense. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through its absorption, thermalization and/or re-emittance of Infrared Radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18µ. My experience has been that if you simply ask the question “how would 13 and 18µ cause that observation,” 99% of all the claims made by climate alarmists crumble under scientific scrutiny. Just yesterday I wrote an article applying this principle to the Polynya in the Weddell Sea. There simply is no mechanism by which CO2 could focus the GHG effect on a specific area of ice, and not have the same impact elsewhere. CO2 blankets the globe, there aren’t large areas with higher and lower concentrations of CO2, especially over the ice desert of Antarctica. CO2 is well mixed at 400ppm across the globe.

Recently there have been a lot of alarmist claims that CO2 is causing the polar ice sheets to melt. In order to melt ice, it takes a ginormous amount of energy, and for the atmosphere to melt ice the #1 criteria is that the atmospheric temperature must be above 0°C. 0°C represents the melting point of water, 100°C represents boiling. In order for the polar ice to be melting due to CO2 caused Global Warming ( and it has to be warming not climate change, only warmth melts ice), one would have to demonstrate that the polar regions have temperatures above 0°C during the time of the ice melt. The problem is, the polar regions haven’t shown any warming over the past 100 years.

Extensive analysis of temperature trends in the Arctic reveals that there has been no detectable long-term change since the beginning of the 20th century, and thus predictions of a sea ice-free Arctic in the coming decades due to dramatically rising temperatures are not rooted in observation.


The same lack of warming can be found in Antarctica as well. This may be news to the experts in the Slimate Clience departments of our universities, to have melting, you have to have warmth, and if the atmosphere isn’t warming, something else must be melting that ice. The only other logical explanation would be the oceans are melting the ice, and if that is the case, you would have to explain how CO2 and IR Radiation between 13 and 18µ can warm water, which it can’t. This fact hasn’t gone unnoticed by others:

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Climate Alarmists are Blinded by Ideology and Ignorance

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

I’m not a slimate climatist, never have been, never will be, but I know a whole lot about science, the scientific method, statistics, mathematics, computer modeling, quantum physics, chemistry and have a Ph.D. in common sense. Today NBC is reporting about a huge 30,000 sq/mi Polynya the size of Maine opening up in the Weddell Sea.  The implication, of course, is that CO2 driven climate change is likely causing it…but they do mention that there isn’t enough data to know the true cause.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to look at the location of the Polynya and know it isn’t even remotely related to CO2. The Polynya is located in the dead center of a huge ice sheet in an area dominated by sub-zero temperatures…thus the surrounding ice. CO2 is 400 ppm across the entire ice sheet, and the temperatures are sub-zero across the ice sheet as well. CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation between 13 and 18µ evenly across the entire ice sheet. There is no cosmic magnifying glass that somehow focuses the impact of CO2 emitted IR at a specific spot in the ice sheet. CO2 won’t cause a regional differential like a hole in a specific spot, and not elsewhere, especially warmer areas.

If I take an outdoor pool in the winter that is frozen and put a heating element on the floor of the pool, the ice immediately above the heating element may melt, and stay melted as long as I have the heating element turned on.  It takes a lot of continual heat and energy to warm water and melt ice in sub-zero temperatures, and it takes ginormous amounts of continuous energy to melt a hole the size of Maine in an ice sheet.  The moment I turn the heating element off, the ice will immediately begin to once again form and close up the hole. The black body temperature of 13 to 18µ is -80°C, so there is no way for CO2 to be burning a hole in the ice, especially when the atmospheric temperature is sub-zero. CO2 simply doesn’t deliver the necessary heat to melt ice in sub-zero temperatures, and there is certainly no way to localize the effect.

Without any data to rely upon what-so-ever other than what NBC provided and common knowledge of the region, I’m almost 100% certain they will discover that the ice is melting from below, not above, and the heat source will be volcanic/geothermal. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would reach that conclusion. The problem is, common sense is completely lacking the field of slimate clience. Facts are, NBC and other climate alarmists will never discover the truth because they simply aren’t looking for it. If you can blame a Maine sized Polynya in sub-zero Antarctica on CO2, you are simply irretrievably lost, and will never see the forest through the trees. The answers are right in front of their face, but they refuse to accept them. All they see is CO2.

Post Publishing Edit:

Nevertheless, the Weddell Polynya is reasonably well understood. “The Southern Ocean is strongly stratified. A very cold but relatively fresh water layer covers a much warmer and saltier water mass, thus acting as an insulating layer,” explains Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, head of the Research Division at GEOMAR. Under certain conditions, the warm water of the lower layer can reach the surface and melt the ice. “This is like opening a pressure relief valve – the ocean then releases a surplus of heat to the atmosphere for several consecutive winters until the heat reservoir is exhausted,” adds Professor Latif.


IR between 13 & 18µ does not penetrate the oceans, and cannot be the cause of the deep, warm water. Unless you can explain how 13 & 18µ IR can warm the deep oceans, you can’t blame CO2 for this observation.

Post Publishing Edit #2: New map of Antarctic geothermal heat suggests Steig & Mann 2009 weren’t measuring ‘global warming’

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Sea Levels Debunk the AGW Theory


The theory goes that man is causing CO2 to increase at an increasing rate, causing temperatures to increase at an increasing rate, which caused land-based glaciers to melt at an increasing rate, which should cause sea levels to increase at an increasing rate. Everything is a second derivative argument. Because of this direct relation between temperatures and sea level rate of increase I’ve always maintained that the fact that sea levels weren’t increasing at an increasing rate, this fact provided a “Smoking Gun” debunking the AGW theory.

More research has just been published reinforcing this debunking and demonstrating that sea levels are not related to atmospheric CO2, and are not increasing at an increasing rate. In fact, they are quite stable.

A new paper by renowned Swedish sea level expert Prof. Axel Mörmer published in the International Journal of Earth & Environmental Sciences dumps lots of cold water on the premise that today’s sea level rise is caused by man and is unusual.

Mörner’s paper looks back at the last 500 years of sea level rise and shows that natural variables are the major drivers, and not man-made CO2-driven global warming.

The Swedish scientist summarizes in the paper’s abstract that there is a total absence of data supporting the notion of a present sea level rise; on the contrary, all available facts indicate present sea level stability.

The paper also states that the recorded sea level changes are anti-correlated with the major changes in climate during the last 600 years. Therefore, Mörner concludes that glacial eustasy cannot be the driving force.

Read more: Renowned Sea Level Expert: “NO TRACES OF A PRESENT RISE IN SEA LEVEL; On The Contrary: Full Stability”

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Common Sense Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming

IsraelDr. Nir Shaviv on Cambridge Debate: ‘I was quite shocked to see how the audience was so one-sided (though far less than the ridiculous 97:3 ratio we hear about!) and unwilling to listen to scientific arguments.’

Like Freeman Dyson, Dr. Shaviv’s provides validation for many of the arguments made in previous CO2isLife posts. The links in the following list highlight past CO2isLife posts. These arguments provide more evidence that when disinterested people with the educational background to understand these issues evaluate the science and data they reach the same conclusion, and that conclusion isn’t that CO2 is causing the warming.
Dr. Shaviv’s Key scientific points:

  1. ‘Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans.’
  2. ‘Anyone who appeals to authority or to a majority [97% claims] to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing.’
  3. ‘The polar bear population is now probably at its highest in modern times!’
  4. ‘There is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature.’
  5. ‘Over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature.
  6. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations.’
  7. ‘The simple truth is that in the height of the middle ages it was probably just as warm as the latter half of the 20th century’
  8. ‘Taking unnecessary precautionary steps when we know they are unnecessary is immoral. It is even committing statistical murder.’
  9. ‘Let us use our limited resources to treat real problems.’

Read More: Israeli Astrophysicist rejects UN IPCC

Please like, share, subscribe and comment

Freeman Dyson Validates CO2isLife

I Told You So

Reading Freeman Dyson’s HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY I was pleasantly surprised at how many of the flaws in the AGW theory I’ve written about in this blog he also identifies. He also highlights how his critics claim that he has “no degree in meteorology and…therefore not qualified to speak,” to which he states “I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.” That is almost the exact statement I’ve made countless time in my blog posts, “While I don’t have a background in climatology (whatever that is), I do have a background that includes multivariable modeling, properly applying the scientific method, advanced statistics and mathematics, quantum physics and chemistry both inorganic and organic. I view not being a climate “scientist” as a benefit, more than a hindrance, because I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m only interested in the truth.”

Why this is important is because both Freeman Dyson and I looked at Climate Change from the perspective of an unbiased, disinterested observer that is trained in physics and mathematics, not political propaganda. We are simply attempting to discover the scientific truth. Because we both are familiar with physics and modeling we both focused on the characteristics of the variables, quality of the data, the significance of the factors, and the explanatory power of the model.  Many of my posts focused on examining those issues, and I  made statements and conclusions based on my own understanding of the variables and physics. I based those posts on a common sense application of the science, all of which were independently reached, and not based upon any conclusion of “peer-reviewed” research. The selection of those issues was based on my estimate of the importance of those variables in a climate model. I wanted to identify the issues that offered the most bang for the buck in either supporting or debunking the AGW theory.

A single paragraph in Freeman Dyson’s article reads like an Index of CO2isLife posts and clearly demonstrates that when two totally independent people with adequate knowledge to understand the issues looks at the AGW theory and climate models, they both reach the same conclusions. The following is the paragraph mentioned above, with links to the CO2isLife blog posts. It is important to note that all those blog posts were written well before the Freeman Dyson article.

In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter.

The one issue Freeman Dyson did not address is the fact that the oceans are warming. The oceans are by far the major driver of the global climate. They are the earth’s thermostat, holding over 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is to absorb and thermalize IR radiation between 13 and 18µ. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate or warm water. To understand what is warming the atmosphere you have to understand what is warming the oceans…and it ain’t CO2 and IR between 13 and 18µ.

Please like, share, comment and subscribe.

Hippos in the Desert; Climate Change is Natural, and Nothing New

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

At one time, in the past 6,000 years, the Sahara Desert was teaming with life, even Hippos.

4. The Wet Sahara

My second heresy is also concerned with climate change. It is about the mystery of the wet Sahara. This is a mystery that has always fascinated me. At many places in the Sahara desert that are now dry and unpopulated, we find rock-paintings showing people with herds of animals. The paintings are abundant, and some of them are of high artistic quality, comparable with the more famous cave-paintings in France and Spain. The Sahara paintings are more recent than the cave-paintings. They come in a variety of styles and were probably painted over a period of several thousand years. The latest of them show Egyptian influences and may be contemporaneous with early Egyptian tomb paintings. Henri Lhote’s book, “The Search for the Tassili Frescoes”, [Lhote, 1958], is illustrated with reproductions of fifty of the paintings. The best of the herd paintings date from roughly six thousand years ago. They are strong evidence that the Sahara at that time was wet. There was enough rain to support herds of cows and giraffes, which must have grazed on grass and trees. There were also some hippopotamuses and elephants. The Sahara then must have been like the Serengeti today.



Please like, share, subscribe and comment