&gt; The article uses the word &quot;electricity&quot;
not &quot;energy&quot;.<p>Wrong.  E.g., one of the statements in the
article is, and I saw and responded to,
was:<p>&gt; The country has recently made headlines
by operating 100% on renewable energy for
285 days.<p>So it&#x27;s the &quot;country&quot;, presumably the
whole &quot;country&quot;, including electricity,
cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes,
etc.<p>And that statement said &quot;energy&quot; and not
just &quot;electricity&quot;.<p>Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw
were for solar panels and wind turbines.
I saw mention of their hydroelectric
facility but no picture.  So, tough not to
guess:  The article is propaganda for
electric energy via wind and solar and,
then, wants to jump to say &quot;energy&quot; for
the whole &quot;country&quot;.<p>I responded very calmly to the misleading
propaganda.<p>It it crystal clear that this article is
solidly in the center of the community of
global warming and climate change
alarmists.  Okay, let&#x27;s look at that
subject.  Surprisingly, we now have some
quite good ways to do that.<p>We look in two parts, (1) the predictions
of warming and (2) the real science.<p>(1) THE PREDICTIONS<p>So, the claims of human caused global
warming claimed to be science and made
some predictions.  Good:  The predictions
were for a lot of global warming.<p>At<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energyadvocate.com&#x2F;gc1.jpg" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energyadvocate.com&#x2F;gc1.jpg</a><p>is a comparison of actual temperatures and
temperatures predicted from the global
warming community.  Immediately from the
graph, the predictions are way too high.<p>Then, net, according to science, we regard
the candidate science as failed, as junk.<p>Really, right there is the end of the
global warming science.  Done.<p>But, maybe that devastating refutation is
too succinct.  So, for more, below I
include three chunks of evidence, (A) --
(C):<p>(A) A WSJ DISCUSSION AND GRAPH<p>There is a lot of expert overview
discussion, at<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;online.wsj.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;online.wsj.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;SB1000142405297020430140457717...</a><p>with<p>&quot;Commentary<p>No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There&#x27;s no compelling scientific argument
for drastic action to &#x27;decarbonize&#x27; the
world&#x27;s economy.  January 27, 2012<p>Editor&#x27;s Note:  The following has been
signed by the 16 scientists listed at the
end of the article:&quot;<p>See also the graph there that compares
actual temperatures with measured
temperatures.<p>(B) THE US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
REPORT<p>There is the report:<p>Committee on Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
National Research Council, Surface
Temperature Reconstructions for the Last
2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196
pages, National Academies Press, 2006,<p>available at<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nap.edu&#x2F;catalog&#x2F;11676.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nap.edu&#x2F;catalog&#x2F;11676.html</a><p>From that report, if only from just the
graph on page 2, as far as we can tell,
the temperature in 2006 was exactly the
same as in year 1000 well before any human
industrialization.<p>(C) THE VOSTOK DATA USED BY AL GORE<p>In his movie, Al Gore showed a graph of
data from the ice core samples from the
Vostok station in the Antarctic.  The
graph covered several hundred thousand
years and showed both temperature and CO2
concentrations rising and falling
together.  That graph was Gore&#x27;s main
evidence that more CO2 causes global
warming.<p>But, just looking at the graph shows that
the CO2 levels rose about 800 years after
the temperature rose.  So, clearly the
higher CO2 levels did not cause the higher
temperatures.  The higher temperatures
were caused by something but not CO2
levels.  That situation was clear right in
Gore&#x27;s movie for anyone who just looked at
it.  Net, Gore&#x27;s evidence was really solid
evidence that CO2 did not cause global
warming -- just read the graph.<p>SUMMARY OF PART (1)<p>For the science, pictures of arctic sea
ice in the summer, polar bears, glaciers
falling into the ocean, stories about the
snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, other
anecdotal evidence, etc. are just
irrelevant and not at all convincing
otherwise.<p>Instead, we need just a simple comparison
of real temperatures and predicted ones.
Since the predictions of the candidate
science were badly wrong, we reject the
candidate science.  In science, it really
is just that simple.<p>(2) THE REAL SCIENCE<p>But we do have some real science that
explains temperatures quite accurately back
at least for some hundreds of thousands of
years.<p>Here in just a few lines I take the
entire, global, IPCC, Al Gore, Kyoto,
Paris, etc., EPA, NOAA, Obama, carbon
footprint movement and totally destroy it.
It&#x27;s, to use a word, &quot;settled&quot;.<p>Sure, can strike a match and, thus, warm
the planet, but that warming is not
significant.<p>For anything significant, for anything
reasonable, CO2 and methane have nothing
to do with the climate.  Even a factor of
10 times the present concentration of CO2
will do essentially nothing to the
climate. Same for CFC&#x27;s.  Same for men not
shaving and drinking Coke instead of
Pepsi.<p>Yes, CO2 and methane have to be counted as
greenhouse gasses, but their effects are
just insignificant for earth in the past,
the present, and any reasonable future, no
matter what is going on on Venus (has a
lot of CO2 and is really hot).<p>And, so far human activity has had nothing
to do with the climate.<p>Instead, here is what the heck has been
driving climate change so far, back at
least for some hundreds of thousands of
years and right to the present as in year
2015:<p>More clouds have a cooling effect.  The
rate of cloud formation varies with the
rate of water droplet formation, which
varies with the rate of cosmic rays (a
significant cause of water droplet
formation) hitting the atmosphere which
varies with the amount of solar wind
blocking the cosmic rays which varies with
the rate of sun spots which varies with
the activity level of the sun which has
absolutely nothing at all to do with
anything on earth, not CO2, not methane,
not humans or human activity.<p>Reference:<p>A very nicely done BBC video:<p>&quot;The Great Global Warming Swindle&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg</a><p>As in the BBC piece, in the last 100
years, temperature has varied with the
solar wind and not with CO2.<p>Net the climate science arguing about the
effects of CO2 on the climate no longer
has even a square nanometer to stand on.
That candidate science is done, &quot;settled&quot;,
forget about it.<p>Here, for asking a very appropriate
question challenging some outrageous
propaganda, I&#x27;ve been attacked and am due
sincere, public apologies.