WUWT
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable
has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the
programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable
energy “simply won’t work”. ...............There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people
who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is
dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was
not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to
fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make
renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered
exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting
wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without
human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these
exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model."
Saturday, 22 November 2014
The following people are not climate scientists either ......
"The following people are not climate scientists either. I expect you to in future point this out whenever either of the following talks on the topic of climate."
James Hansen: astronomer / physicist
Michael Mann: mathematician/geologist
Al Gore: divinity major
Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
Rajendra Pachauri: railroad engineer
Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
David Suzuki: geneticist
Paul Nurse: geneticist
Eric Steig: geologist
John Cook: bachelor of physics
Joe Romn: physicist
John Holdren: plasma physicist
Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physics
Dana Nuccitelli: masters degree in physics
James Hansen: astronomer / physicist
Michael Mann: mathematician/geologist
Al Gore: divinity major
Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
Rajendra Pachauri: railroad engineer
Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
David Suzuki: geneticist
Paul Nurse: geneticist
Eric Steig: geologist
John Cook: bachelor of physics
Joe Romn: physicist
John Holdren: plasma physicist
Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physics
Dana Nuccitelli: masters degree in physics
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
Seven Killed In Ferocious US Snowstorm
SkyNews
At least seven people have died after a massive
early season snowstorm described as one of the worst in living memory
struck parts of Michigan, upstate New York and New Hampshire.
The city of Buffalo was badly hit with up to 1.8 metres
(6ft) of snow falling, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared a
state of emergency........ It hit on a day when much of the US was enduring icy weather.
Temperatures on Tuesday fell to freezing or below in all 50 states."
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Climate change and the left
Bishop Hill
The issue of why the political left is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change alarmist ideology/faith, and hence there are relatively few left wing sceptics, is quite complex and would take more space and time than I intend to impose on you here. But may I, as a lifelong Labour supporter, offer a couple of broad observations. They are by no means comprehensive and omit many nuances. But they are major general factors which I have observed in the party for 61 years, and in Parliament for almost 30 years. ........I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. ......While this need persists and there persists the misconception that the Green faith is somehow leftish and in pursuit of the common good, then most on the political left will stay with it. To shake them it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy. That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor."
The issue of why the political left is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change alarmist ideology/faith, and hence there are relatively few left wing sceptics, is quite complex and would take more space and time than I intend to impose on you here. But may I, as a lifelong Labour supporter, offer a couple of broad observations. They are by no means comprehensive and omit many nuances. But they are major general factors which I have observed in the party for 61 years, and in Parliament for almost 30 years. ........I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. ......While this need persists and there persists the misconception that the Green faith is somehow leftish and in pursuit of the common good, then most on the political left will stay with it. To shake them it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy. That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor."
Interview with physicist Will Happer on climate change
WUWT
This past Tuesday I took my camera to Princeton University to conduct an interview with physicist Will Happer, whose work you probably know. This is a 4-minute video I put together after that interview, which I hope you’ll find interesting. I should be clear that no money or anything else exchanged hands, although Dr. Happer did buy me a cup of coffee."
This past Tuesday I took my camera to Princeton University to conduct an interview with physicist Will Happer, whose work you probably know. This is a 4-minute video I put together after that interview, which I hope you’ll find interesting. I should be clear that no money or anything else exchanged hands, although Dr. Happer did buy me a cup of coffee."
Election over, so US, China agree to make unenforceable long term commitment with no consequences
JoNova (Australia)
Now that the mid-term elections are over in the US, Obama is free to announce the climate commitments that voters didn’t need to hear. (I did say this would happen.) It’s a “landmark” agreement and a “gamechanger”, but no one can point out what happens if either country doesn’t stick to its agreement.
The end-point of this grand theater of intent and glorious promises is Paris 2015."
Now that the mid-term elections are over in the US, Obama is free to announce the climate commitments that voters didn’t need to hear. (I did say this would happen.) It’s a “landmark” agreement and a “gamechanger”, but no one can point out what happens if either country doesn’t stick to its agreement.
The end-point of this grand theater of intent and glorious promises is Paris 2015."
Obama’s fake promise to spend on a fake problem
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
Australia’s Left are ecstatic that Barack Obama has spoiled Tony Abbott’s party, putting global warming on the G20 agenda with an alarmist speech and the promise of $3 billion to a climate fund: .......
Once again, we see a key divide between the Left and conservatives - an obsession with seeming over doing. The Left is impressed by a seeming promise to seem to do something about what seems a problem. Conservatives note that it’s actually a highly qualified promise to spend unaffordable money on largely non-solutions to an unlikely problem.
Oh, and how rude is Obama to take on Abbott with politicking on a visit?"
Australia’s Left are ecstatic that Barack Obama has spoiled Tony Abbott’s party, putting global warming on the G20 agenda with an alarmist speech and the promise of $3 billion to a climate fund: .......
Once again, we see a key divide between the Left and conservatives - an obsession with seeming over doing. The Left is impressed by a seeming promise to seem to do something about what seems a problem. Conservatives note that it’s actually a highly qualified promise to spend unaffordable money on largely non-solutions to an unlikely problem.
Oh, and how rude is Obama to take on Abbott with politicking on a visit?"
Obama Pushes for World Climate Pact After China Deal
NewsWeek
A Sino-U.S. breakthrough on reducing carbon emissions proves a global deal on climate change is achievable, U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday, as campaigners hailed new momentum in long-stalled talks.
Announcing a $3 billion contribution to a U.N.-backed climate change mitigation fund, Obama said the China-U.S. deal showed the way forward. “If China and the U.S. can agree on this, then the world can agree on this—we can get this done,” he said in a speech on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brisbane. .........However, Republican James Inhofe, regarded as the chief climate change skeptic in the U.S. Congress, signaled Obama would struggle to get the funds through the legislature, particularly after his position was weakened in recent mid-term elections.
“President Obama’s pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the U.N. $3 billion for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle,” Inhofe said."
A Sino-U.S. breakthrough on reducing carbon emissions proves a global deal on climate change is achievable, U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday, as campaigners hailed new momentum in long-stalled talks.
Announcing a $3 billion contribution to a U.N.-backed climate change mitigation fund, Obama said the China-U.S. deal showed the way forward. “If China and the U.S. can agree on this, then the world can agree on this—we can get this done,” he said in a speech on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brisbane. .........However, Republican James Inhofe, regarded as the chief climate change skeptic in the U.S. Congress, signaled Obama would struggle to get the funds through the legislature, particularly after his position was weakened in recent mid-term elections.
“President Obama’s pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the U.N. $3 billion for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle,” Inhofe said."
Monday, 10 November 2014
Why environmentalists defend the wealthy against the poor
Matt Ridley
Despite these social and economic advantages, eco-toffs put their self interest to one side and campaign selflessly for the greater Gaian good, worry about the effect that climate change will have on future generations and yearn for a more holistic version economic growth.
But is greenery really quite so selfless? Take climate change. The “synthesis report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warns of an increased “likelihood” of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts if emissions continue. But when you cut through the spin, what the IPCC is actually saying is that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all (scenario RCP2.6) through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid century culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100 (scenario RCP8.5).
This latter scenario makes wildly unrealistic assumptions about coal use, trade, methane emissions and other things; RCP2.6 is equally unrealistic in the other direction. So let’s focus on the two middle scenarios, known as RCP4.5 and RCP6. In these more realistic projections, if you use the latest and best estimates of the climate’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide (somewhat lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC), the most probable outcome is that world will be respectively just 0.8 and 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than today by the last two decades of this century. .........
By contrast, the cost of climate policies is already falling most heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year. The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.
Greens think these harms are a price worth paying to stop the warming. They want (other) people to bear such sacrifices today so that the people of 2100, who will be up to seven times as rich, do not have to face the prospect of living in a world that is perhaps 0.8 - 1.2 degrees warmer. And this is the moral high ground? "
Despite these social and economic advantages, eco-toffs put their self interest to one side and campaign selflessly for the greater Gaian good, worry about the effect that climate change will have on future generations and yearn for a more holistic version economic growth.
But is greenery really quite so selfless? Take climate change. The “synthesis report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warns of an increased “likelihood” of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts if emissions continue. But when you cut through the spin, what the IPCC is actually saying is that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all (scenario RCP2.6) through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid century culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100 (scenario RCP8.5).
This latter scenario makes wildly unrealistic assumptions about coal use, trade, methane emissions and other things; RCP2.6 is equally unrealistic in the other direction. So let’s focus on the two middle scenarios, known as RCP4.5 and RCP6. In these more realistic projections, if you use the latest and best estimates of the climate’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide (somewhat lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC), the most probable outcome is that world will be respectively just 0.8 and 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than today by the last two decades of this century. .........
By contrast, the cost of climate policies is already falling most heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year. The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.
Greens think these harms are a price worth paying to stop the warming. They want (other) people to bear such sacrifices today so that the people of 2100, who will be up to seven times as rich, do not have to face the prospect of living in a world that is perhaps 0.8 - 1.2 degrees warmer. And this is the moral high ground? "
Catastrophism Out in the Cold
Quadrant Online (Australia)
America's Democrats, and one well-heeled 'carbon capitalist' in particular, received a monumental thrashing in the US midterm elections, despite a lavishly financed ad campaign of eco-alarmist propaganda. It seems voters are nowhere near so dopey as their betters imagined"
America's Democrats, and one well-heeled 'carbon capitalist' in particular, received a monumental thrashing in the US midterm elections, despite a lavishly financed ad campaign of eco-alarmist propaganda. It seems voters are nowhere near so dopey as their betters imagined"
IPCC’s 'scary’ new report is needle stuck in an old groove
Telegraph
Ploughing through the new “Synthesis Report” put out by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we may be reminded of one
of those old gramophone records, when the needle got horribly stuck in a
groove. Compiled by many of the IPCC’s veteran alarmists, in yet another bid
to get that “global climate treaty” that isn’t going to happen in Paris next
year, it wheels on all the familiar scare stories. Melting polar ice, rising
sea levels, floods, droughts and hurricanes are all in there – even though
these are largely contradicted not just by the actual evidence, but even by
the much more cautious contents of the vast technical reports they were
meant to be “synthesising”.
On the basis of these increasingly implausible claims, the report’s authors
join the growing chorus of calls for humanity to cut CO₂ emissions by 80 per
cent, the cost of which, they tell us, would only require us to reduce the
world’s economic growth by a mere 0.06 per cent, or 1/1,666th."
Christopher Booker
Climate change is a problem. But our attempts to fix it could be worse than useless
Telegraph / Bjorn Lomborg
Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems. While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years, 4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving, and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation. .........The fundamental problem is that green energy is too expensive, which is why it will need billions in subsidies the next two decades. Instead of making more failed promises to pay ever more subsidies, we should spend the money on research and development of the next generations of green energy sources."
ED: Bjorn Lomburg is a warmist pretending to be a critic.
Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems. While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years, 4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving, and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation. .........The fundamental problem is that green energy is too expensive, which is why it will need billions in subsidies the next two decades. Instead of making more failed promises to pay ever more subsidies, we should spend the money on research and development of the next generations of green energy sources."
ED: Bjorn Lomburg is a warmist pretending to be a critic.
Who are the Real Deniers?
The Australian Climate Sceptics
Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:
Who denies natural climate change? ....."
Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:
Who denies natural climate change? ....."
EIKE: IPCC Synthesis Report “In Crass Contradiction To Almost Every Measurement And Trend In Nature”
NoTricksZone
Puls then provides a list contradictions, falsehoods and distortions stemming from the new Synthesis Report, all of which are refuted by measurements and facts which Puls provides: ...."
Puls then provides a list contradictions, falsehoods and distortions stemming from the new Synthesis Report, all of which are refuted by measurements and facts which Puls provides: ...."
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155
WUWT
True to form, the IPCC Synthesis did not discuss IPCC deficiencies, but focused on dire predictions. The new operative term was irreversible. Unless drastic action is taken to stop all human CO2 emissions, dire consequences would result that is irreversible. A major issue with such predictions is that the Nongovernmental, International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concluded that many natural, cyclical processes have not been incorporated in IPCC’s claims of human-caused climate change. If so, and if processes are cyclical, the effects are naturally reversible.
By ignoring significant failures in its science, the IPCC continues to raise the question is climate science, as interpreted by the IPCC, a natural (physical) science or is it a human construct? "
True to form, the IPCC Synthesis did not discuss IPCC deficiencies, but focused on dire predictions. The new operative term was irreversible. Unless drastic action is taken to stop all human CO2 emissions, dire consequences would result that is irreversible. A major issue with such predictions is that the Nongovernmental, International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concluded that many natural, cyclical processes have not been incorporated in IPCC’s claims of human-caused climate change. If so, and if processes are cyclical, the effects are naturally reversible.
By ignoring significant failures in its science, the IPCC continues to raise the question is climate science, as interpreted by the IPCC, a natural (physical) science or is it a human construct? "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)