PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Desmond
08-02-2015, 10:02 AM
FATALLY FLAWED CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER ‘SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN’[/URL]
Speaking of which, I came across this (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf)while looking at your source Roy Spencer the other week. Basically one of his articles was so fundamentally flawed that the editor-in-chief of the journal responsible for allowing it to be published stepped down over it.


... After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements ... Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. ...

The whole article is worth a read, though I can't post it all here.

Patrick Byrom
10-02-2015, 08:44 PM
Dishonestly, Jono puts a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal of good standing like Nature on an equal footing with a post on a denialist blog which have been checked out by some statisticians one of whom has known denialist leanings and the other is retired and obscure.

I'm not saying there are no problems with Marotzke's paper. But if Nic Lewis wants to be taken seriously then he is going about it completely the wrong way.
Exactly. He is calling for the paper to be withdrawn, but that normally only happens if there is fraud or plagiarism, neither of which he is alleging. If the paper is just mistaken (no matter how basic the error might be), he should submit his own paper to Nature, or contact the authors - not attack them on a blog. And he should also use independent statisticians who are experts in climatology, and who are able to make specific criticisms.

As far as I can tell, the claims by Nic Lewis are not justified, although the issue appears to be a fairly subtle one. There is a very technical discussion about the paper here (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/), which covers some of the issues Lewis raises.

Ian Murray
11-02-2015, 05:05 PM
Exactly. He is calling for the paper to be withdrawn, but that normally only happens if there is fraud or plagiarism, neither of which he is alleging. If the paper is just mistaken (no matter how basic the error might be), he should submit his own paper to Nature, or contact the authors - not attack them on a blog. And he should also use independent statisticians who are experts in climatology, and who are able to make specific criticisms.

As far as I can tell, the claims by Nic Lewis are not justified, although the issue appears to be a fairly subtle one. There is a very technical discussion about the paper here (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/marotzke-forster-response/), which covers some of the issues Lewis raises.

How real scientific dissent works:-

Failure in real science is good – and different from phony controversies (http://theconversation.com/failure-in-real-science-is-good-and-different-from-phony-controversies-37217)
The Conversation
10.2.15
...

antichrist
24-02-2015, 06:55 PM
Why is polar vortex breaking off and freezing USA, anything to do with global warming?

Ian Murray
25-02-2015, 04:27 PM
Why is polar vortex breaking off and freezing USA, anything to do with global warming?

The polar vortex and jet stream are slowing and reaching higher peaks and lower troughs, causing extreme weather in northern latitudes. It is becoming evident that arctic warming (i.e. climate change) is the cause.


The Arctic has warmed about twice as much as the rest of the world and the responses to the warming by some variables such as sea ice have greatly exceeded expectations. Evidence is mounting to indicate that the response of the jet stream to this new thermal regime has been to tend to slow down and meander more, with a greater tendency to develop blocking patterns. In the UK, the run of wet, dull summers and the run of prolonged cold outbreaks in recent winters shows what can occur when the jet steam behaves in a meridional and sluggish fashion. At the moment it's more active: on the morning that this was written, April 14th, a 130-knot jetstreak was racing NE over the northwestern UK on the eastern limb of a deep upper trough: it was mild and wet with a sou-westerly gale blowing but with alternating bouts of sunny and cloudy, wet weather forecast for the week ahead. Changeable weather is the norm for NW Europe: prolonged periods of any weather type are historically atypical and may be noteworthy when they occur. Clearly, we need to get a good handle on what is going on here and how future responses may play out in our weather-patterns: already it seems to be the case that we are going to have to develop greater adaptability to a greater range of prolonged weather-extremes. How that plays out in terms of agriculture and economics remains to be seen, but there should be no room for complacency.
http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2015, 02:17 PM
Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/25/cold-and-snow-destroy-global-warming-claims/)
James Taylor, Forbes, 25 Jan 2015


Global warming activists are in full-throttle damage control, desperately claiming global warming causes record snow and cold.

The Center for American Progress claimed (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3622201/brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr/), “climate change may have affected the [Boston] snowstorm — may have made it more likely, may have made it worse than it would have been without so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”

National Geographic published an article titled, “Blizzard of Nor’easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150126-blizzard-weather-climate-northeast-science/).”

“How global warming can worsen snowfalls (http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2015/02/04/global-warming-won-prevent-massive-snowstorms-study-suggests/tJIpBkbD56rb7XjTBkZdrJ/story.html),” read a Boston Globe headline.

Global warming alarmists’ own prior global warming claims, however, indict their current claims.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated very clearly (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/569.htm), “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Well, winters are clearly not becoming milder or bereft of heavy snowstorms.

Many global warming activists are still attempting to defend the discredited IPCC prediction, claiming a single winter does not invalidate a long-term trend. As the Union of Concerned Scientists claimed, “Winters have generally been warming faster than other seasons in the United States and recent research indicates that climate change” is causing it. The problem with such an assertion is that last winter was exceptionally cold and snowy, too. And winters nationwide have been getting colder for the past 20 years (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/04/30/twenty-years-of-winter-cooling-defy-global-warming-claims/). Objective scientific data show winters have been getting colder and colder throughout the United States for the past two decades. When global warming alarmists claim winters will become warmer and free of snow, yet their predictions are proven false for 20 years in a row, at some point logical people come to realize that global warming alarmists are selling snake oil.

The most meaningful lesson from the unusually cold and snowy recent winters is that global warming (http://climatechangereconsidered.org/) is so minor as to be barely noticeable. When temperatures rise merely a fraction of one degree, the polar ice caps won’t melt, the oceanic conveyor belt will not shut down, alligators will not take up residence in Montana, cats will not start living with dogs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0), and winters will not suddenly disappear. We will still have very cold and snowy winters. We will still have hot summers. Your grandfather will still claim that to make it to school each day he walked barefoot through the snow, uphill each way (http://izquotes.com/quote/221372).

Global warming alarmists will still try to sell their snake oil, hoping you will forget that tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, snow, and heat waves all really did occur prior to 1988. Most of these events actually occurred more frequently in decades past. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/) And global warming activists will try to induce you to forget their prior snake-oil predictions, like the warm and snow-free predictions issued by the IPCC. They claim every weather and climate event – whether warmth or cold, rain or shine – is caused by global warming. Global warming is the new snake oil that soulless hucksters on the Western frontier claimed applied to every malady a person could experience.

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2015, 02:25 PM
Dishonestly, Jono puts a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal of good standing like Nature on an equal footing with a post on a denialist blog which have been checked out by some statisticians one of whom has known denialist leanings and the other is retired and obscure.
Dishonesty, RW uses terms like "denialists" as if warm-mongers are the epitome of objectivity, although they depend on scare-mongering to retain government funding, and leftists depend on it so they can justify more taxes and regulations.

Rincewind
01-03-2015, 02:35 PM
Dishonesty, RW uses terms like "denialists" as if warm-mongers are the epitome of objectivity, although they depend on scare-mongering to retain government funding, and leftists depend on it so they can justify more taxes and regulations.

One is operating within scientific discourse and without fiscal conflicts of interest. Denialist like the GWPF are not engaging in scientific discourse but rather communicating via blogs and press releases and are beholden to coal and oil money interests.

Ian Murray
01-03-2015, 03:39 PM
Why warm-mongering is now called "climate change": to make it unfalsifiable
It was your side of the debate which changed "global warming" to "climate change". to make it sound less alarming to US voters (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange)


Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claim
James Taylor, Forbes, 25 Jan 2015
Taylor has trouble differentiating weather and climate. US annual temperatures are rising steadily (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/recent-us-temperature-trends), despite expected regional weather variations.

At the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate-at-a-Glance (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/)site plot average temperature for winter (3 months starting December) for the period 1895-2015 for the lower 48, and you get this:

2837

The trend is clearly warming, not cooling. Taylor cherry-picked his start and finish dates.

Ian Murray
01-03-2015, 03:56 PM
Dishonesty, RW uses terms like "denialists" as if warm-mongers are the epitome of objectivity, although they depend on scare-mongering to retain government funding, and leftists depend on it so they can justify more taxes and regulations.
What would any government hope to gain by funding climate change research which leads to the inescapable scientific conclusion that trillions of dollars must be spent on mitigation and abatement measures by governments to avert disasters.

On the other hand, who does stand to benefit by thwarting attempts to reduce carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels? Would private industries place their own interests ahead of the public good? (Hint: think tobacco, leaded petrol, CFCs)

Ian Murray
02-03-2015, 12:57 PM
...The trend is clearly warming, not cooling. Taylor cherry-picked his start and finish dates.
Or looking at the last 30 years, the minimum period for determining trends:

2839

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2015, 08:04 AM
In Australia, the Green Energy Fantasy Has Collapsed (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/28/in-australia-the-green-energy-fantasy-has-collapsed/)
David Kreutzer / @dwkreutzer / 28 February 2015

Australia is just the latest ship’s prow to warn us away from the treacherous path of green energy mandates, taxes, and subsidies. Among the others have been Germany, Spain, and Italy.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported the collapse of the wind power market in Australia. The Liberal government there is pulling the plug on state subsidies for the renewable energy industry. Without those subsidies, investor interest evaporates. So much for the claims (also here and here) that wind and solar technologies are already competitive.

In the U.S., we had a sneak preview of what happens to wind power when it goes, cold turkey, off subsidies. An expected end to the wind Production Tax Credit on Dec. 31, 2012, dried up the investment pipeline so thoroughly that even though the PTC was retroactively reinstated just weeks after its expiration, only one wind turbine was installed in the U.S. in the first six months of 2013.

Grid parity? That’s not what we saw in the U.S. in 2013, and it’s not what wind energy companies in Australia are telling us with their actions right now.

What happened in Australia to get to this point? In 2011, the Labor government of Kevin Rudd pushed through a scheme to restrict CO2 emissions. When introduced, the approach resembled a cap-and-trade program, which effectively hides costs to consumers. But over time, the program morphed into a more explicit carbon tax.

As is almost always the case, the costs of these restrictions were downplayed while the proposal was being considered. However, the laws of science and economics cannot be legislated out of existence, and the inevitable costs soon became apparent. The program led to significant increases in the price of electricity, and the voters in Australia were not pleased with having been duped.

In fact, the carbon taxes were so unpopular that the Labor party ousted Rudd from its leadership and campaigned, in part, on getting rid of its own tax. The election’s outcome, however, forced an alliance with the Green party, whose demand was to keep the tax in place.

The voters didn’t forget the hoodwinking. In a subsequent election, they put a Liberal-National Alliance coalition in power in a campaign that was dominated by promises to remove the carbon tax. This time the politicians kept their word and jettisoned the tax.

Patrick Byrom
03-03-2015, 05:42 PM
In Australia, the Green Energy Fantasy Has Collapsed (http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/28/in-australia-the-green-energy-fantasy-has-collapsed/)
David Kreutzer / @dwkreutzer / 28 February 2015
…What happened in Australia to get to this point? In 2011, the Labor government of Kevin Rudd pushed through a scheme to restrict CO2 emissions. When introduced, the approach resembled a cap-and-trade program, which effectively hides costs to consumers. But over time, the program morphed into a more explicit carbon tax.

As is almost always the case, the costs of these restrictions were downplayed while the proposal was being considered. However, the laws of science and economics cannot be legislated out of existence, and the inevitable costs soon became apparent. The program led to significant increases in the price of electricity, and the voters in Australia were not pleased with having been duped.

In fact, the carbon taxes were so unpopular that the Labor party ousted Rudd from its leadership and campaigned, in part, on getting rid of its own tax. The election’s outcome, however, forced an alliance with the Green party, whose demand was to keep the tax in place.

I often wonder if Capablanca-Fan actually reads articles before he posts them. Obviously not in this case, as almost everything above is wrong. And the mistakes are not subtle ones: Julia Gillard was PM in 2011 when she introduced a carbon tax, which was intended to become a cap-and-trade system (not the other way round); the costs were known beforehand, which is why they were compensated for; Rudd was actually returned to the leadership after the carbon tax was introduced; and Labor lost the election in 2013.

David Kreutzer is obviously an idiot who can't use Google. But at least he has never been (presumably) an Australian - Capablanca-Fan has no such excuse.

Ian Murray
03-03-2015, 09:31 PM
I often wonder if Capablanca-Fan actually reads articles before he posts them. Obviously not in this case, as almost everything above is wrong. And the mistakes are not subtle ones: Julia Gillard was PM in 2011 when she introduced a carbon tax, which was intended to become a cap-and-trade system (not the other way round); the costs were known beforehand, which is why they were compensated for; Rudd was actually returned to the leadership after the carbon tax was introduced; and Labor lost the election in 2013.

David Kreutzer is obviously an idiot who can't use Google. But at least he has never been (presumably) an Australian - Capablanca-Fan has no such excuse.

They both are equally ill-informed about energy markets, it seems. In Europe subsidies are certainly being phased out as renewables become more cost-efficient and the need for subsidies declines. Germany is a unique case, building new coal stations to replace its nuclear stations closed for political reasons - nothing to do with renewables. Spain is now exporting its dirt-cheap solar power to the European grid at a nice profit, thank you very much. Italian commercial PV feed-in tariffs were over-generous, and are being scaled back as the overall economy declines.

The Australian renewables industry and its 24,000 workers are in limbo as the Abbott government pushes to reduce the Renewable Energy Target, set at 20% by 2020 by the Howard government with bipartisan support. The RET costs the taxpayer nothing, and its reduction only benefits the coal, gas and oil generators by increasing their market share.

The Labor Party is now framing an emissions trading scheme to take to the next election. The recent carbon tax, painted so darkly by Abbott in opposition, has now been dismissed as a non-issue by the public - they are no better off now since its abolition. Electricity now costs more in fact than when it was taxed.

It is noteworthy that the National Bank of Abu Dhabi has just released a report promoting investment in renewables (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/02/10-reasons-why-abu-dhabis-top-bank-says-you-must-back-renewables/) as the way of the future. This from the United Arab Emirates in the Persian Gulf, built from nothing by its petroleum reserves.

Ian Murray
05-03-2015, 02:39 PM
Carbon crash, solar dawn: Deutsche Bank on why solar has already won (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/carbon-crash-solar-dawn-deutsche-bank-on-why-solar-has-already-won-51105)

Deutsche Bank has produced another major report that suggests solar will become the dominant electricity source around the world as it beats conventional fuels, generates $5 trillion in revenue over the next 15 years, and displaces large amounts of fossil fuels.

In a detailed, 175-page report, the Deutsche analysts led by Vishal Shah say the market potential for solar is massive. Even now, with 130GW of solar installed, it accounts for just 1 per cent of the 6,000GW, or $2 trillion electricity market (that is an annual figure).

But by 2030, the solar market will increase 10-fold, as more than 100 million customers are added, and solar’s share of the electricity market jumps to 10 per cent. By 2050, it suggests, solar’s share will be 30 per cent of the market, and developing markets will see the greatest growth.

“Over the next 5-10 years, we expect new business models to generate a significant amount of economic and shareholder value,” the analysts write in the report. Within three years, the economics of solar will take over from policy drivers (subsidies),

Their predictions are underpinned by several observations. The first is that solar is at grid parity in more than half of all countries, and within two years will be at parity in around 80 per cent of countries. And at a cost of just 8c/kWh to 13c/kWh, it is up to 40 per cent below the retail price of electricity in many markets. In some countries, such as Australia, it is less than half the retail price.

The case for solar will be boosted by the emergence of cost-competitive storage, which Deutsche describes as the “next killer app” because it will overcome difficulties in either accessing the grid or net metering policies. “We believe reduction(a) in solar storage costs could act as a significant catalyst for global solar adoption, particularly in high electricity markets such as Europe,” it writes.

“As we look out over the next 5 years, we believe the industry is set to experience the final piece of cost reduction – customer acquisition costs for distributed generation are set to decline by more than half as customer awareness increases, soft costs come down and more supportive policies are announced....

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2015, 09:55 AM
No, Being a Climate Change Skeptic Isn't Like Fearing Vaccines (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34088)
By Stephen Moore, 24 Mar 2015


Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming—and some of the same “experts” were on board both scares. National Geographic even acknowledges this inconvenient fact, but explains that even though the climatologists were all wrong several decades ago, this somehow actually helps make the case for global warming.

Wait, for a scientific fact to be true, it has to be testable and refutable. But if any weather pattern confirms “climate change,” then by definition it is neither refutable nor is it testable. That’s convenient.

Here is how the magazine derisively describes one reason why there is such widespread skepticism on climate change: “Many people in the United States—a far greater percentage than in other countries—retain doubts about that consensus [of global warming] or believe that climate activists are using the threat of global warming to attack the free market and industrial society generally.”

Wait. It is an irrefutable truth that many climate change activists are using the climate change issue as a means of attacking free market capitalism. This past summer major environmental groups gathered in Venezuela to solve leading environmental problems like global warming, concluding in the Margarita Declaration “The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system.” In fact, the statement itself included the motto, “Changing the system, not the climate.”

So how is it delusional paranoia to believe that the climate change industry wants to shut down capitalism when the movement plainly states that this is their objective? And how can a movement be driven by science when its very agenda violates basic laws of economics? I am no scientist, but I am first in line in questioning the wisdom and motivation of a movement whose purpose is to steer the U.S. economy off a cliff toward financial ruin.

One other point on the issue: If there were no ulterior motive of the greens and their only agenda was to stop the rise of the oceans by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then most honest and rational people would say the solution is for America to build perhaps 40 nuclear power plants over the next decade [well, why not, since Obamov is happy for Iran to build them—C.-F.]. In 2013, coal provided just under 1.6 million gigawatts of electricity. One nuclear power plant (such as South Korea’s 6 reactor Yonggwang plant) can provide 50,000 gigawatts annually. So production from just 40 of these plants would equal the entire amount of electricity produced from coal. This would provide cheap and abundant electric power with almost no greenhouse emissions and would not slow industrial progress. But most in the climate change crowd hate nuclear power.

Patrick Byrom
25-03-2015, 10:12 AM
No, Being a Climate Change Skeptic Isn't Like Fearing Vaccines (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34088)
By Stephen Moore, 24 Mar 2015

Forty years ago the experts warned of a coming ice age, now they are absolutely certain the earth is warming—and some of the same “experts” were on board both scares.No they didn't! Most experts predicted global warming. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2015, 10:38 AM
No they didn't! Most experts predicted global warming. (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Obviously this alleged (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/)expertise didn't filter down to Time (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html), New York Times (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Why.pdf) (which claimed that this was the expert scientific consensus), and National Geographic itself (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/)!


“Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next glacial age…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595.

Rincewind
25-03-2015, 10:45 AM
Obviously this alleged (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/)expertise didn't filter down to Time (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html), New York Times (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Why.pdf) (which claimed that this was the expert scientific consensus), and National Geographic itself (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/)!


“Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next glacial age…. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, 1972″ –National Geographic, November 1976, p.595.

Neither the NYT, Time or National Geographic are publications which experts typically publish their results. Forty years ago there were some experts who thought that the global cooling was imminent. However that is also true today. However forty years ago the majority of experts were looking at warming a more likely scenario. Read the paper that Patrick linked too and this is pretty clearly what the majority of experts were publishing and citing in the scientific literature since 1965 (at least). Therefore the canard of the change of scientific consensus from cooling to warming is exactly that, a canard.

Ian Murray
25-03-2015, 04:34 PM
Neither the NYT, Time or National Geographic are publications which experts typically publish their results. Forty years ago there were some experts who thought that the global cooling was imminent. However that is also true today. However forty years ago the majority of experts were looking at warming a more likely scenario. Read the paper that Patrick linked too and this is pretty clearly what the majority of experts were publishing and citing in the scientific literature since 1965 (at least). Therefore the canard of the change of scientific consensus from cooling to warming is exactly that, a canard.

Quite so. See also http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

The '60s and '70s were the times of acid rain, which destroyed much of the Black Forest inter alia, caused by smokestack aerosols containing sulphates. The aerosols' reflection of sunlight increased the earth's albedo, and threatened to cool the surface, but not enough to surpass greenhouse gas warming. Clean air legislation disposed of the threat, as did later banning of CFCs save the ozone layer. The world community is capable of united action to protect the atmosphere.

Patrick Byrom
25-03-2015, 09:12 PM
... New York Times (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Why.pdf)[/I] (which claimed that this was the expert scientific consensus), ...

I couldn't find any reference in that article to global cooling being the "expert scientific consensus".

Anyway, as my link explains:

There are too many potential newspaper articles to adequately assess and, because they report on current events, even articles in the same paper by the same author separated by only a few months can be quite different. For example, the following are titles from two New York Times articles:
“Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead” (Sullivan 1975a) and “Warming trend seen in climate; two articles counter view that cold period is due” (Sullivan 1975b).

Selecting a few articles is just cherry-picking. Ironically, this is exactly the same tactic used by opponents of vaccination: Select a few examples of adverse results, and use them to "prove" that vaccines are dangerous.

Desmond
26-03-2015, 06:46 AM
It's not surprising that jono wants to talk about articles from the 70s. Anything to avoid talking about the demonstrable global warming trends.

Ian Murray
29-03-2015, 09:53 AM
Abbott’s climate policy farce deepens as big polluters get free kick (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbotts-climate-policy-farce-deepens-as-big-polluters-get-free-kick-37149)
Renew Economy 27.3.2015


The climate and clean energy policy of the Abbott government has descended further in pure farce with the release of critical details of the Direct Action scheme that reveals there will be no requirement on major energy polluters to limit greenhouse gas emissions...

Along with the Abbott government’s decision to scrap the carbon price and cripple the renewable energy target, and starve agencies such as ARENA of funds, threaten to close down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and abolish or diminish independent voices such as the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission, it has done nothing but serve the interests of fossil fuel generators....

antichrist
29-03-2015, 10:31 AM
Abbott’s climate policy farce deepens as big polluters get free kick (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbotts-climate-policy-farce-deepens-as-big-polluters-get-free-kick-37149)
Renew Economy 27.3.2015


The climate and clean energy policy of the Abbott government has descended further in pure farce with the release of critical details of the Direct Action scheme that reveals there will be no requirement on major energy polluters to limit greenhouse gas emissions...

Along with the Abbott government’s decision to scrap the carbon price and cripple the renewable energy target, and starve agencies such as ARENA of funds, threaten to close down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and abolish or diminish independent voices such as the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission, it has done nothing but serve the interests of fossil fuel generators....

the Liberal party have been doing that since before I was born, was uranium decades ago though not exactly fossil

Patrick Byrom
10-04-2015, 03:31 PM
Good News about Global Warming: (http://johnquiggin.com/2015/04/07/co2-emissions-levelling-out/#more-13150)

Preliminary estimates from the International Energy Agency, released in March, suggest that energy-related emissions of CO2 were unchanged in 2014 compared to 2013. Countries experiencing notable drops in emissions included China, Britain, Germany and the EU as a whole, but not, of course, Australia. This has happened before, but only in years of global recession, whereas the global growth rate in 2014 was around 3 per cent. Of course, there are plenty of special factors such as a good year for hydro in China. Still, after looking carefully at the numbers, I’ve come to the conclusion that this really does represent, if not the long-sought peak in emissions, at least the end of the link between rising living standards and CO2 emissions.

antichrist
11-04-2015, 09:11 AM
Good News about Global Warming: (http://johnquiggin.com/2015/04/07/co2-emissions-levelling-out/#more-13150)

Preliminary estimates from the International Energy Agency, released in March, suggest that energy-related emissions of CO2 were unchanged in 2014 compared to 2013. Countries experiencing notable drops in emissions included China, Britain, Germany and the EU as a whole, but not, of course, Australia. This has happened before, but only in years of global recession, whereas the global growth rate in 2014 was around 3 per cent. Of course, there are plenty of special factors such as a good year for hydro in China. Still, after looking carefully at the numbers, I’ve come to the conclusion that this really does represent, if not the long-sought peak in emissions, at least the end of the link between rising living standards and CO2 emissions.

Haven't you read that China has been fudging their figures. The Communist Party for the past ten years would not know what an ethic is - just ask their neighbours stretching right down to the Philippines, trying to rob land and fishing & mineral rights everywhere by force.

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2015, 04:53 AM
The Renewable Rort and its Friends (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/04/10/the-renewable-rort-and-its-friends/?hc_location=ufi)
Posted on 8:16 am, April 10, 2015 by Alan Moran

The RET issue is coming to a head. Bear in mind, the rationale for the scheme is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions but it does this to a trivial extent and at a very high cost. The real rationale is now how to soak consumers for a dud product that could not survive in the absence of subsidies.

Today in the Fin David Leyonhjelm (http://www.afr.com/opinion/renewable-energy-target-bomb-set-to-explode-20150409-1mhc48) points out


Renewable electricity generators have received $9 billion in industry subsidies over the 15-year life of the RET, in addition to the price they receive for the electricity they produce. Without change, a further $22 billion will be paid by 2030. In the words of the Warburton Review, the RET is “a cross-subsidy that transfers wealth from electricity consumers and other participants in the electricity market to renewable energy companies”.

The renewable permits currently cost about $40 per MWh (roughly doubling the cost of raw energy available form fossil fuels) and the Senator notes that the fall back is a penalty charge of $65/MWh. (Actually that cost is $91 per MWh since it is not tax deductable). The more renewables are required the closer the price moves towards its $91 de facto ceiling.

There is considerable money resting on the outcome and, as the product is intrinsically valueless, the marketing effort is focused on the political dimension. There are a great many politicians gullible enough to lap up the message and others happy to receive financial support from the looters who are wearing out the floor tramping through Parliament House.

One option is for the Minister simply to say that he will not issue any new permits for the current year as they are not needed and to keep on saying that indefinitely.

Patrick Byrom
13-04-2015, 03:15 PM
The Renewable Rort and its Friends (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/04/10/the-renewable-rort-and-its-friends/?hc_location=ufi)…One option is for the Minister simply to say that he will not issue any new permits for the current year as they are not needed and to keep on saying that indefinitely.
It's always amusing when elite commentators try to argue on behalf of the 'consumer', while ignoring what consumers actually want (http://essentialvision.com.au/documents/essential_report_150324.pdf): "32% think the current renewable energy target is about right, 33% think it is too low and 8% think it is too high."

Ian Murray
18-04-2015, 06:36 PM
One of Australia's energy Big Three makes a stand.

AGL turns its back on coal-fired power (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/agl-turns-its-back-on-coal-fired-power/story-e6frg9df-1227308580745)
The Australian Business review
18 Apr 2015


AGL Energy plans to focus *investment on renewable and low-*emission generation technologies, signalling a turn away from coal after spending $2 billion on coal-fired power stations in NSW and Victoria in recent years.

Opening Australia’s first industrial-scale solar plant at Nyngan in central NSW yesterday, new AGL Energy chief executive Andy Vesey announced an about-face in which the company will close all existing coal-fired power stations by 2050.

It will also not build or finance any new conventional coal-fired plants in Australia or extend the life of existing plants.

Instead, AGL plans to invest in renewable and near-zero emissions technologies and focus on distributed renewable energy, battery storage and demand management such as smart meters.

It will also include a forecast for future carbon pricing into all decisions about capital expenditure on generation, despite the government abolishing the carbon tax last year.

The new greenhouse gas policy is aimed at reducing the emissions intensity of electricity generation but leaves it open for AGL to invest in new coal-fired plants that include carbon capture and storage technology....

“Decarbonisation and modernisation of the Australian grid is extremely important to the economy, and we want to get one step ahead of that and lead it.”...

Patrick Byrom
21-04-2015, 11:57 PM
The cartoon says it all (especially the last two panels)! (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/20/no-cranks-allowed-at-abbotts-climate-consensus-centre)

2884

Ian Murray
22-04-2015, 09:02 AM
The cartoon says it all (especially the last two panels)! (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/20/no-cranks-allowed-at-abbotts-climate-consensus-centre)

Nice one, Pat. The embracing of Lomborg by the PMC's department has been welcomed by a splinter group of the nuclear lobby:

Nuclear lobby backs Abbott’s $4m gift to climate contrarian Lomborg (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/nuclear-lobby-backs-abbotts-4m-gift-to-climate-contrarian-lomborg-84984)

In the meantime an ANU study has found that "Australia could achieve both zero net emissions and a 100 per cent renewable energy mix by 2050 – and both at a relatively low cost", as renewables costs plummet while nuclear construction costs soar and fossil fuel extraction costs rise above global market prices, making for example Galilee Basin coal and shale, tar sands and Arctic oil uneconomic:

Australia can achieve deep emissions cuts, 100% renewables by 2050: ANU (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australia-can-achieve-deep-emissions-cuts-100-renewables-by-2050-anu-90110)

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2015, 10:44 PM
The surprising problem that is the greatest environmental danger to women and children (http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/27/the-surprising-problem-that-is-the-no-1-environmental-danger-to-women-and-children/)
Indoor air pollution kills a staggering 4.3 million people a year in the developing world
BJORN LOMBORG, 25 April 2015

The world’s greatest environmental threat disproportionately harms women and children, particularly in the developing world: it is indoor air pollution.

The World Health Organization estimates that indoor pollution kills 4.3 million people a year, mainly because 2.8 billion people still use firewood, dung and coal for cooking and keeping warm, breathing polluted air inside their homes every day. Indoor air pollution from cooking and heating with open fires can cause harm equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.

To put the issue in perspective, take the much more talked-about environmental problem of global warming. WHO estimates that currently 141,000 a year die from global warming, while 4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution—a figure many times higher than even the 250,000 annual deaths from global warming WHO anticipates by 2050. Of course, this does not mean global warming is an unimportant environmental issue, but clearly indoor air pollution should be given high priority as an urgent concern of humanitarians.

The good news is that it is comparatively cheap to tackle the issue. One effective step is to provide half of these 2.8 billion people with improved cooking stoves, which dispel smoke to the outside through chimneys and vents. That alone would save almost half a million lives each year, and avoid 2.5 billion disease days. The cost would be around $5 billion a year, but this investment would yield economic, social and environmental benefits amounting to $52 billion a year.

Take access to water and sanitation: Even though we have seen improvement, 750 million people have no access to any safe source of drinking water, and 2.5 billion – almost half of the developing world – lack even a basic latrine. Beyond the economic impact on families, the inconvenience and demoralizing drudgery it leads to, this deficit actually kills 360,000 people each year.

And, again, women are harder hit than men …

The world’s most pressing environmental issues are entwined with human rights challenges. When world leaders meet at the UN in New York in September to agree on the final set of global targets for the next 15 years, we should demand that they focus on the smartest solutions to the environmental ills that do the most harm.

Patrick Byrom
06-05-2015, 11:59 PM
Perhaps Bjorn Lomborg is only capable of dealing with one problem at a time, but most people, including the WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/), realise that AGW and air pollution both need to be tackled:

Many policies and individual choices have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce major health co-benefits. For example, cleaner energy systems, and promoting the safe use of public transportation and active movement – such as cycling or walking as alternatives to using private vehicles – could reduce carbon emissions, and cut the burden of household air pollution, which causes some 4.3 million deaths per year, and ambient air pollution, which causes about 3.7 million deaths every year.

To state the obvious, the reason AGW is given more attention is because if it isn't dealt with quickly, there will be extremely serious consequences in the longer term.

Ian Murray
07-05-2015, 03:28 PM
Perhaps Bjorn Lomborg is only capable of dealing with one problem at a time, but most people, including the WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/), realise that AGW and air pollution both need to be tackled:...

They are not separate issues. Incomplete burning of biomass and fossil fuels gives a residue of soot (black carbon), which is both a threat to public health and a cause of anthropogenic global warming. Cookstoves are a partial solution at domestic level in the developing world, but better are are carbon-free cookers such as solar ovens, which can be made very simply from cheap materials like cardboard and aluminium foil or more elaborately from sturdier materials, e.g. http://www.instructables.com/id/Best-Solar-Oven. No combustion, no smoke, no carbon.

There are technological fixes to carbon emissions from vehicles and from industrial smokestacks.

Black carbon ranks as second-biggest human cause of global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/black-carbon-ranks-as-second-biggest-human-cause-of-global-warming/2013/01/15/6d4e542a-5f2d-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html)
Washington Post
15.1.13

Ian Murray
08-05-2015, 05:19 PM
Abbott's business guru Maurice Newman gave us another climate-change-conspiracy-theory rant in today's Oz. SMH gave us a more rational account:

Climate change a UN-led ruse, says Tony Abbott's business adviser Maurice Newman
Sydney Morning Herald
8.5.15

The original op-ed:
The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-un-is-using-climate-change-as-a-tool-not-an-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1227343839905)

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
08-05-2015, 06:28 PM
Lomborg is not particularly welcome out here in the west - http://www.uwastudentguild.com/bjorn-lomborg-has-no-place-at-uwa/

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2015, 08:23 PM
I think UWA has just finally got cold feet on that ludicrous piece of Coalition culture-warring.

Ian Murray
09-05-2015, 08:47 AM
I think UWA has just finally got cold feet on that ludicrous piece of Coalition culture-warring.

UWA has gone public - the deal has been cancelled and Abbott's $4m cheque returned to sender.

University of Western Australia pulls out of Bjorn Lomborg centre (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/university-of-western-australia-pulls-out-of-bjorn-lomborg-centre-20150508-ggxmrf.html)

Ian Murray
10-05-2015, 07:16 PM
Barnarby Joyce, in conversation with Andrew Bolt, uses the tired old conspiracy theory argument as the cause of the opposition to the Lomborg centre at UWA.

Barnaby Joyce suggests hostility to Bjørn Lomborg's centre money-based (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/10/barnaby-joyce-suggests-hostility-to-bjrn-lomborgs-centre-money-based)
The Guardian (Australian edition)
10.5.15

Patrick Byrom
10-05-2015, 07:44 PM
Barnarby Joyce, in conversation with Andrew Bolt, uses the tired old conspiracy theory argument as the cause of the opposition to the Lomborg centre at UWA.
Barnaby Joyce suggests hostility to Bjørn Lomborg's centre money-based (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/10/barnaby-joyce-suggests-hostility-to-bjrn-lomborgs-centre-money-based)
The Guardian (Australian edition) 10.5.15
I have been waiting for Lomborg to suggest that the government use the $4 million to help third world countries with indoor air pollution or provide them with clean drinking water. Instead of using the money to discuss priorities in foreign aid, we could use it to actually help people!

Did Joyce really say this (my bold): “Apparently, you’re not allowed to have fascists, Isis [sic] or Bjørn Lomborg speaking at the University of Western Australia.” !?

Imagine the reaction from Bolt or the Australian government if UWA invited a speaker from ISIS :)

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2015, 01:38 AM
Germany’s Green-Power Program Crushes the Poor (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418263/germanys-green-power-program-crushes-poor-robert-zubrin)
by ROBERT ZUBRIN, National Review, 13 May 2015

On May 7, Tom Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-germany-the-green-superpower.html) published an op-ed in the New York Times filled with praise for Germany’s green-power program. “What the Germans have done in converting almost 30 percent of their electric grid to solar and wind energy from near zero in about 15 years has been a great contribution to the stability of our planet and its climate,” gushed Friedman. “ . . . This is a world-saving achievement.”

Friedman is not alone in his admiration for the German energy program. President Obama has hailed it too, saying that the world should “look to Berlin” as the model for its energy future.

However, what Friedman, Obama, and other admirers of the German green-energy strategy fail to say is that it has come at the expense of sky-high electricity rates. According to EU data, Germany’s average residential electricity rate is 29.8 cents per kilowatt hour. This is approximately double the 14.2 cents and 15.9 cents per kWh paid by residents of Germany’s neighbors Poland and France, respectively, and almost two and a half times the U.S. average of 12 cents per kWh. Germany’s industrial electricity rate of 16 cents per kWh is also much higher than France’s 9.6 cents or Poland’s 8.3 cents. The average German per capita electricity consumption is 0.8 kilowatts. At a composite rate of 24 cents per kWh, this works out to a yearly bill of $1,700 per person, experienced either directly in utility bills or indirectly through increased costs of goods and services. The median household income in Germany is $33,000, so if we assume an average of two people per household, the electricity cost would amount to more than 10 percent of available income. And that is for the median-income household. The amount of electricity that people need does not scale in proportion to their paychecks. For the rich, $1,700 per year in electric bills might be a pittance, or at most a nuisance. But for the poor who are just scraping by, such a burden is simply brutal.
...
Germany’s nominal 65 GW of solar and wind generation capacity is worth about as much as 13 GW capacity in conventional power plants. Of the 614,000 GW hours that Germany generated in 2014, 56,000 GWh came from wind and 35,000 GWh from solar, for an actual combined average power of 10.4 GW, or 14.8 percent of all electricity generated. About half of this, or 5.2 GW, has been developed since 2005. However, in 2011 Germany had 20 GW of capacity in nuclear power plants, producing more than twice as much electricity as wind and solar do currently, at less than half the cost, with no carbon emissions whatsoever. But, using the rather improbable threat of a Fukushima-like tsunami as a pretext, the nation’s elites decided to shut them down; 8.3 GW have already been eliminated.
...

Rincewind
17-05-2015, 01:49 AM
That analysis is bogus as it is looking at total national electrical usage and averages it by household income. The analysis is meaningless.

Ian Murray
17-05-2015, 09:34 AM
Using Zubrin's rubbery methodology, each American uses 1.683 kw per hour, which at two persons per household equals 80.784 kwH per day, at 12c per kwH equals $9.69 per day. That's $3538 per household or $1769 per American per year in direct and indirect electricity costs.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2015, 12:30 AM
Pertaining to the German Greenism (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418263/germanys-green-power-program-crushes-poor-robert-zubrin) that:


Like an earlier regime in Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, Germany’s green-energy program is neither green, nor an energy program. Rather, it is a form of ultra-regressive taxation — in effect, a state-sponsored cult of human sacrifice for weather control.

Woodland Heists: Rising Energy Costs Drive Up Forest Thievery (http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html)
By Renuka Rayasam, Spiegel Online, 17 January 2013
With energy costs escalating, more Germans are turning to wood burning stoves for heat. That, though, has also led to a rise in tree theft in the country's forests. Woodsmen have become more watchful.


The problem has been compounded this winter by rising energy costs. The Germany's Renters Association estimates the heating costs will go up 22 percent this winter alone. A side effect is an increasing number of people turning to wood-burning stoves for warmth. Germans bought 400,000 such stoves in 2011, the German magazine FOCUS reported this week. It marks the continuation of a trend: The number of Germans buying heating devices that burn wood and coal has grown steadily since 2005, according to consumer research company GfK Group.

Ian Murray
22-05-2015, 06:29 PM
The skyscrapers of the future will be made of wood (https://theconversation.com/the-skyscrapers-of-the-future-will-be-made-of-wood-42132)
The Conversation
21.5.15

...“We grow trees in British Columbia that are 35 storeys tall, so why do our building codes restrict timber buildings to only five storeys?”...

This ability to use a renewable material to provide a positive response to a key environmental issue facing the construction industry, namely global warming, is nothing short of transformational. The use of concrete is already responsible for 5% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.

The idea of using timber for taller buildings is still in the early days of being accepted across the industry, even if many engineers quickly realised the potential offered by Murray Grove. The ten-storey cross-laminated timber Forte Building in Melbourne appeared shortly afterwards, and then a 14-storey apartment block in Bergen was completed only weeks ago. On a different scale entirely, and scheduled to complete in 2023, will be the 34-storey block in Stockholm’s Västerbro district, which will push the boundaries of timber construction to new limits....

Ian Murray
24-05-2015, 07:07 PM
Walter E. Williams (himself black, as I'm sure everyone knows after constant repetition) has the answer to California's drought - Raise the price of water.

California's Water Problem (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34851)
29.4.15

He pays no regard to the dwindling Sierra Nevada snowpack due to climate change, and the resulting decline in water supply.

California's Snowpack at Record Early-April Low; Sierra Snow Survey Finds Bare Ground (California's Snowpack at Record Early-April Low; Sierra Snow Survey Finds Bare Ground)
The Weather Channe;
10.4.2015

antichrist
24-05-2015, 09:08 PM
I have read how the surface water of the ocean is a record high - well judging on Byron surf temperature on my gut I would heartily agree for this time of year.

Ian Murray
25-05-2015, 10:23 AM
I have read how the surface water of the ocean is a record high - well judging on Byron surf temperature on my gut I would heartily agree for this time of year.
While it's nice to think so, humans can't really detect a temperature anomaly less than one degree. Nevertheless sea surface temperatures are indisputably rising.

2901
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus

While humans may not notice small rises in temperatures, corals (http://www.coral.noaa.gov/education/bleaching-background.html) and other marine ecosystems (http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature) certainly do.

Australian sea surface temperatures are at record-breaking levels (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/record-seasurface-temperatures-in-pacific-point-to-record-warmth-in-2015-and-2016-20150414-1mjooh.html) this year. With mid-Pacific data indicating a likely El Nino event this year added to the mix, last year's temperature record highs are likely to be short-lived.

Desmond
26-05-2015, 08:26 AM
Walter E. Williams (himself black, as I'm sure everyone knows after constant repetition) has the answer to California's drought - Raise the price of water.

California's Water Problem (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34851)His answer also appears to be to stop producing food. Brilliant.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2015, 12:29 AM
UWA has gone public - the deal has been cancelled and Abbott's $4m cheque returned to sender.

University of Western Australia pulls out of Bjorn Lomborg centre (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/university-of-western-australia-pulls-out-of-bjorn-lomborg-centre-20150508-ggxmrf.html)

Yes, typical of the groupthink of modern western unis. Lomborg is not even a climate change "denier". He just has different priorities in how to spend money, i.e. he actually wants to help the most people the most efficiently, which means not spending billions to reduce global temperatures by an tiny amount a century from now. James Delingpole writes in GREEN BULLIES NIX BJORN LOMBORG’S AUSTRALIAN CONSENSUS CENTRE (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/19/green-bullies-nix-bjorn-lomborgs-australian-consensus-centre/):


The University of Western Australia has caved in to green activists and cancelled a planned $4 million Consensus Centre because of its associations with Skeptical Environmentalist author Bjorn Lomborg.

Blond, gay, impeccably left wing and a former member of Greenpeace, Lomborg has long infuriated environmentalists because his personal politics make it so hard for them to trot out their usual excuse that he only says the things he does because he is an evil, right-wing shill in the pay of Big Oil.

Even more frustratingly for his greenie opponents, Lomborg is not even technically a climate change sceptic. He has long accepted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) so-called “consensus” position on global warming. Where he differs from hard-core greenies is simply in his belief that the world has more pressing environmental and social problems than are caused by the marginal influence of man-made CO2 and that these should be given higher priority than combating climate change.

This is the argument of his not-for-profit think tank, the US-based Copenhagen Consensus Center. One of its main purposes is to help argue how governments around the world can get the biggest bang for their buck on environmental spending – providing micronutrients for the world’s malnourished; giving everyone access to clean water; and so on – recognising that the amount of money available for worthy causes is not limitless and that therefore such projects should be subject to a rigorous cost benefit analysis.

[UWA Academic Staff Association Professor Stuart] Bunt’s excuse might carry more weight if UWA hadn’t until recently been the very welcoming home of Professor Steven Lewandowsky, a discredited – and deeply political – social scientist responsible for a widely ridiculed, academically threadbare paper called NASA faked the moon landing: therefore (climate) science is a hoax (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters-by-asking-alarmists-to-fill-out-survey/).

Ian Murray
28-05-2015, 09:26 AM
Yes, typical of the groupthink of modern western unis. Lomborg is not even a climate change "denier". He just has different priorities in how to spend money...
Lomborg is entitled to his science-contrarian views. He is not entitled to a taxpayer-funded platform to air them.


[UWA Academic Staff Association Professor Stuart] Bunt’s excuse might carry more weight if UWA hadn’t until recently been the very welcoming home of Professor Steven Lewandowsky, a discredited – and deeply political – social scientist responsible for a widely ridiculed, academically threadbare paper called NASA faked the moon landing: therefore (climate) science is a hoax
Widely reviled in denialist and conspiracy-theory circles - they don't like that sort of criticism. Lewandowsky's reputation is unblemished in academia.

antichrist
28-05-2015, 09:29 AM
There is one science that the creationists don't deny, or not very often, that is of dentistry - they don't go to a faith healer for a bad tooth

Ian Murray
29-05-2015, 03:49 PM
There is one science that the creationists don't deny, or not very often, that is of dentistry - they don't go to a faith healer for a bad tooth

Posts about creationists belong in the Religion and Science forum. This thread is about climate change.

antichrist
29-05-2015, 09:40 PM
Posts about creationists belong in the Religion and Science forum. This thread is about climate change.

Can see your point but I was making an analogy of their inconsistency as to when they accept and reject science - it is only when it is not important, except for JWs refusing blood transfusions.

Patrick Byrom
30-05-2015, 12:51 AM
Lomborg is entitled to his science-contrarian views. He is not entitled to a taxpayer-funded platform to air them.
The UWA has just saved the Australian taxpayer $4 million - you'd think Capablanca-Fan would be happy about that!

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2015, 04:40 AM
The UWA has just saved the Australian taxpayer $4 million - you'd think Capablanca-Fan would be happy about that!

If it did save taxpayers millions, then I really would be happy. But if that $4 million was simply substituted to fund greenie (or feminist or race-hustling) nonsense I wouldn't be.

Ian Murray
30-05-2015, 08:56 AM
If it did save taxpayers millions, then I really would be happy. But if that $4 million was simply substituted to fund greenie (or feminist or race-hustling) nonsense I wouldn't be.

The $4 million was pulled out of a hat, after science grants had been slashed across the board.

As Joe Hockey said, the only way to balance the budget was to reduce spending. Excuse me? Wouldn't increasing revenue also help to balance the budget?

As The Australia Institute reports (http://www.tai.org.au/content/its-revenue-stupid-ideas-brighter-budget):


The budget currently has a revenue problem not a spending problem. Revenue is down 2.2
per cent of GDP when compared to the average of the 12 years before the GFC. Spending,
after adjusting for unusual government transfers, is running at 0.9 per cent above the
average for the same period. This means that 70 per cent of the budget deficit is caused by a
fall in revenue and 30 per cent by an increase in spending. In other words the budget is not
collecting enough tax, while increased spending is only impacting on the budget in a
relatively minor way.

antichrist
30-05-2015, 10:27 AM
And the Govt just cut more tax on small business - I imagine they were already avoiding lot more than that. And that tax depreciation boost of $20K instant write off won't help Oz much because there was no condition that it be spent in Oz. The same mistake the Gillard Govt made with the GFC stimulus program and roll out. We need to boost manufacturing industry not just import more items. And if manufactured in Oz there are proper wages paid and more pollution controls than overseas so the environment is also helped.

Patrick Byrom
30-05-2015, 04:17 PM
If it did save taxpayers millions, then I really would be happy. But if that $4 million was simply substituted to fund greenie (or feminist or race-hustling) nonsense I wouldn't be.
The UWA has no control over how the government spends money - all they can do is refuse the offered $4 million. So you should be happy they have returned it, instead of criticising them for it. If the government then spends the money on something you don't like, you should attack the government.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2015, 12:58 AM
Cost of rooftop solar systems outweigh benefits by $9bn (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cost-of-rooftop-solar-systems-outweigh-benefits-by-9bnm/story-fn59niix-1227367494904?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial)
Sid Maher, THE AUSTRALIAN, 24 MAY 2015

The costs of programs to encourage the installation of rooftop solar systems have outweighed the benefits by $9 billion and will result in a $14bn subsidy being paid by consumers who do not have panels to those who do.

A report by the Grattan Institute think tank calls for sweeping reforms to electricity pricing, the rollout of smart meters and changes to electricity forecasting.

It says various solar feed-in tariff schemes, under which households with solar panels are rewarded for providing power into the grid, and the current structure of electricity pricing mean “governments have created a policy mess that should never be repeated’’.

Ian Murray
31-05-2015, 08:46 AM
Cost of rooftop solar systems outweigh benefits by $9bn (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cost-of-rooftop-solar-systems-outweigh-benefits-by-9bnm/story-fn59niix-1227367494904?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial)

The costs of programs to encourage the installation of rooftop solar systems have outweighed the benefits by $9 billion and will result in a $14bn subsidy being paid by consumers who do not have panels to those who do.

A report by the Grattan Institute think tank ...

There are flaws in the Grattan report, which make all the difference

The benefits of solar do outweigh its costs. Some have a hard time accepting it (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/25/the-benefits-of-solar-do-outweigh-its-costs-some-have-a-hard-time-accepting-it)
Giles Parkinson
The Guardian
25.5.15


Oh dear. Here we go again. The solar industry is clearly winning the battle to turn the global electricity industry upside down and inside out. The plunging cost of battery storage will accelerate that process. It’s just that some people have a hard time accepting it.

The latest big headlines are from the Grattan Institute, which wrote in a report that the economic costs of rooftop solar outweighed the benefits by $9bn. When you actually look at the numbers, they’re a witch’s brew of mistaken assumptions and omissions...

Ian Murray
31-05-2015, 07:23 PM
Green policies hurt poor and benefit wealthy leftards (header to Post #3310)

Standard demagoguery as we've come to expect from Capa-Fan. Of the 4,442,471 owner-occupied (http://www.ahuri.edu.au/themes/home_ownership) separate or semi-detached private dwellings (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0) in Australia, 1.4 million have solar PV. That's 32%

So, according to Capa's worldview, 32% of those Australian homeowners are wealthy leftards. Does that mean that 32% of the remainder are wealthy conservatives, without solar PV? And the remaining 36% are the poor?

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2015, 03:47 AM
Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity's economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo

Ian Murray
02-06-2015, 10:25 AM
Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity's economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains...

Everything in the garden is rosy. Not a mention of the drain on planetary resources or the pollution of air, land and water. The good life will always be good, thanks to human mastery of the planet.

However, to maintain what we have, we need the resources of one and a half planet earths. If everyone is to live like Americans, we need four earths. If we burn all the fossil fuels still left, we would create a different planet altogether, made unrecognisable by extreme climate change (extreme = an increase in average global temperature of 6°C and higher).

Earth Checkup: 10 Health Status Signs (http://www.livescience.com/11391-earth-checkup-10-health-status-signs.html)

Ian Murray
02-06-2015, 08:37 PM
Big Oil turns on Big Coal, but not to save the planet (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/big-oil-turns-on-big-coal-but-not-to-save-the-planet-49703)
RenewEconomy
2.6.15


In a stunning reversal on years of opposition to a global carbon price, the CEOs of six European oil and gas giants have said they are now ready for a price on carbon. But not so they can save the planet.

Big Oil has broken ranks with Big Coal in a bid to save its own business model, hoping that an international carbon price will phase out coal and cause more gas to be consumed.

The CEOs of the European oil giants Shell, BP, Total, Statoil, Eni and BG Group, with a combined revenue of $US1.4 trillion – although notably not the US giants Chevron and Exxon – sent letters last Friday to the head of the UN climate negotiations, Christiana Figueres, and Laurent Fabius, France’s Foreign Affairs and International Development Minister who will also lead the Paris climate talks later this year.

In the letter, also published in the Financial Times (subscription required), they called for the implementation of “widespread and effective pricing of carbon emissions” with a view to fighting climate change. It is the first time Big Oil has got together in this way, although analysts note that is a move not devoid of self interest...

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2015, 05:33 AM
Hardly surprising. Corporations often hate the free market.

Ian Murray
03-06-2015, 07:52 AM
Hardly surprising. Corporations often hate the free market.

Really? Apart from a carbon tax, when was the last time an industry asked a regulator to tax its waste products?

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2015, 11:36 AM
Really? Apart from a carbon tax, when was the last time an industry asked a regulator to tax its waste products?

Yes really. Have you never heard of regulatory capture?

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2015, 07:55 AM
The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science (http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/climate-wars-done-science/)
Matt Ridley, Quadrant, June 2015

The great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses tested—or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I see bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas.

At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate.

Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.

These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous.

Patrick Byrom
21-06-2015, 12:13 PM
When scientific ideas "persist for decades", that is usually regarded as evidence that they're true, not proof that they're false!

As for the rest of Ridley's rubbish - you can read a demolition here (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/matt-ridley-spins-lysenko-conspiracy.html).

Desmond
21-06-2015, 08:39 PM
The latest global temperature data are breaking records (http://www.skepticalscience.com/latest-global-temp-data-breaking-records.html)
Posted on 15 June 2015 by John Abraham

Just today, NASA released its global temperature data for the month of May 2015. It was a scorching 0.71°C (1.3°F) above the long-term average. It is also the hottest first five months of any year ever recorded. As we look at climate patterns over the next year or so, it is likely that this year will set a new all-time record. In fact, as of now, 2015 is a whopping 0.1°C (0.17°F) hotter than last year, which itself was the hottest year on record. ...

antichrist
21-06-2015, 08:54 PM
That is what you get when you have timid souls like Rudd who would not have a double dissolution to get his climate control measures through. Abbot had just swept Turnbull out on the issue and the population on side to do something constructive. What did Rudd do instead? Write a kid's story. No wonder Gilliard upended him. Where was Gough when we needed him.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2015, 11:05 PM
As for the rest of Ridley's rubbish - you can read a demolition here (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/matt-ridley-spins-lysenko-conspiracy.html).

An anonymous greenie leftist bully; typical. Meanwhile:

Green energy generates big costs for little gain (http://www.afr.com/opinion/columns/green-energy-generates-big-costs-for-little-gain-20150621-ghtluw?stb=fb)
Australian Financial Review, 21 June 2015
Alternate energy Reports of the death of coal are greatly exaggerated. For green power is still very costly and uncompetitive, and likely to remain so despite all the subsidies.

Overall, present legislation entails wind and solar panels having over 15 per cent of the market. If, as anticipated, the renewables displace coal they do so at a two fold cost premium. Overall, this results in an increase in the average wholesale cost of electricity of around 25 per cent from the level it would be if there were no regulatory requirement in place. Because energy intensive industries are sheltered from the effect, this is a much higher impost for other consumers.

These matters aside, unlike elsewhere in the world, Australia's black and brown coal resources are low-sulphur and hence pollution-free. In contrast to windfarms they do not require vast tracts of land and disfigure the natural environment. Nor do they impose the detrimental health effects from low frequency noise and infrasound that, according to the Senate Committee on Wind Turbines, appear to affect 10 to 15 per cent of the population.

All of this has become increasingly topical with the issuance of Pope Francis' encyclical. For although the Pope has called for drastic reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, this comes at colossal costs.

Even imposing a requirement like the Australian "20 per cent renewable" standard substantially raises the cost of electricity. And this is the easy part. In order to replace fossil fuels by the sort of numbers the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sees as being necessary to dampen global warming requires unproven and perhaps infeasible technologies. Energy only comprises 25 to 30 per cent of emissions and Australia's renewable target might therefore reduce emissions by 4 to 5 per cent. This is a tiny step given that the eventual target for Australia is a reduction of 80 per cent from today's levels.

Patrick Byrom
26-06-2015, 12:31 AM
An anonymous greenie leftist bully; typical.
An ad hominem attack - typical (and a logical fallacy). Any response to the substance of the article I linked to?


Meanwhile:
Green energy generates big costs for little gain (http://www.afr.com/opinion/columns/green-energy-generates-big-costs-for-little-gain-20150621-ghtluw?stb=fb)These matters aside, unlike elsewhere in the world, Australia's black and brown coal resources are low-sulphur and hence pollution-free. In contrast to windfarms they do not require vast tracts of land and disfigure the natural environment. Nor do they impose the detrimental health effects from low frequency noise and infrasound that, according to the Senate Committee on Wind Turbines, appear to affect 10 to 15 per cent of the population.
This has got to be satirical (my bold)!

Ian Murray
26-06-2015, 10:12 PM
This has got to be satirical (my bold)!

Others also found it amusing. From http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/abbotts-big-push-for-solar-as-coalition-blows-hard-against-wind-86335:


In the meantime, the mainstream media continues to give vent to extreme views on wind energy, and indeed renewables in general.

One of the most laughable came from Alan Moran, a former energy “expert” for the Institute of Public Affairs, Abbott’s favourite thinktank, which now runs a consultancy called Regulation Economics.

His article in the AFR included this gem:

“Australia’s black and brown coal resources are low-sulphur and hence pollution-free. In contrast to windfarms they do not require vast tracts of land and disfigure the natural environment. Nor do they impose the detrimental health effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound that, according to the Senate Committee on Wind Turbines, appear to affect 10 to 15 per cent of the population.”

Moran also claims that wind energy costs around $120/MWh. Actually, wind energy is being built in Australia at around $80/MWh, as the ACT government discovered in its latest wind auction, and the coal estimate takes no account of its obvious health and climate impacts.

Moran also takes the Pope to task for pushing renewables over fossil fuels, claiming all sorts of financial impacts. It is remarkably similar to Madigan’s speech in the Senate last week.

The Abbott government’s own Warburton Review found this to be untrue, and the long-term savings overwhelmed the initial cost. Even the International Energy Agency says a transition to renewables will come at no extra cost to business-as-usual (meaning a coal-based grid), and wind forms a key plank of its plan to reduce emissions across the globe.

Ian Murray
27-06-2015, 07:49 PM
Rooftop solar, battery storage to dominate Australian grid (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/rooftop-solar-battery-storage-to-dominate-australian-grid-58078)
Giles Parkinson
23.6.15

Rooftop solar and battery storage will account for more than half of Australia’s electricity needs by 2040, reducing the need for fossil fuel generation, as the share of fossil fuels falls by more than half to around 40 per cent.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance says Australia’s power sector will fundamentally change over the next two decades, as households and businesses turn to rooftop solar and storage and utilities shift to renewables to replace ageing coal and gas plants.

It is part of a massive global shift, with more than $3 trillion being invested in small-scale solar and battery storage worldwide, as the global energy system becomes largely decentralised...

Ian Murray
29-06-2015, 07:42 AM
https://video-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpt1/v/t43.1792-2/10334727_976509022380549_2132086919_n.mp4?rl=1500&vabr=346&oh=dbb6ca8b47a052458be618e90fc13aed&oe=55908646

Ian Murray
30-06-2015, 08:49 PM
https://video-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpt1/v/t43.1792-2/10334727_976509022380549_2132086919_n.mp4?rl=1500&vabr=346&oh=dbb6ca8b47a052458be618e90fc13aed&oe=55908646

For some reason this link has become unworkable but I can't delete the post. Pity - it was nice, showing Tony Abbott saying that a steel mill cannot be run by solar power and anyone who thought so was delusional. It was then shown that a steel mill runs on 100 MW, then Elon Musk, while unveiling the Powerwall battery storage system, showing how it was infinitely scalable. His gigafactory (http://www.teslamotors.com/gigafactory) under construction in Nevada has enough renewable output, mainly solar, to run ten steel mills.

Desmond
10-07-2015, 04:00 PM
Predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020 spur northern nations into a race to grab fresh territory (http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-by-2020-spur-northern-nations-into-a-race-to-grab-fresh-territory/story-fnpjxnlk-1227436824473)

THE Arcitc ice is in rapid retreat. Now the world’s militaries are advancing towards an uncertain future as nearby nations scramble to lay claim to the riches which lay beneath.

It’s the closest thing left to virgin territory the modern world has.

But now a freshly aggressive Russia is building a swathe of new — and reactivating many old — military bases along its Arctic frontier.

It’s something that has not gone unnoticed at the Pentagon.

Unlike their political masters, the US defence forces know climate change is real. And they’re having to come to grips with its implications fast.

By 2050, the US Navy predicted as far back as 2002, there could be no ice in the Arctic summer. Their more recent studies state it could happen much sooner.
...
Canada. Norway. Russia. These are the nations which all have significant national borders skirting the Arctic.

The United States (via Alaska) and Denmark (via Greenland) have also staked their claims.

The upshot is a vast stretch of space over which all these nations are bickering.

As the ice retreats, the war of words is heating up.

Now the posturing has started.

In March this year Russia sent 40,000 troops, 15 submarines and 40 warships north. All the way north, in fact.

It was an enormous military exercise aimed at demonstrating its ability to project power over the rapidly diminishing polar ice cap.

To emphasise its point, Russian bombers now regularly range deep into the disputed territory.

The US Defence Force has long taken the consequences of climate change seriously.
...

Ian Murray
16-07-2015, 10:11 AM
FactCheck: has Australia met its climate goals, while other nations make ‘airy-fairy promises’? (https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-australia-met-its-climate-goals-while-other-nations-make-airy-fairy-promises-44656)
The Conversation
16.7.15

The difference between Australia and a lot of other countries … is when we make commitments to reduce emissions we keep them. Other countries make all these airy fairy promises, that in the end never come to … anything. – Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, July 13, 2015....

antichrist
16-07-2015, 11:15 PM
FactCheck: has Australia met its climate goals, while other nations make ‘airy-fairy promises’? (https://theconversation.com/factcheck-has-australia-met-its-climate-goals-while-other-nations-make-airy-fairy-promises-44656)
The Conversation
16.7.15

The difference between Australia and a lot of other countries … is when we make commitments to reduce emissions we keep them. Other countries make all these airy fairy promises, that in the end never come to … anything. – Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, July 13, 2015....

Talk about being a hypocrite - this guy has guaranteed that we did not keep our commitments

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2015, 05:54 AM
Europeans think American’s “addiction” to air conditioning is “stupid” (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/22/europeans-think-americans-addiction-to-air-conditioning-is-stupid/)
BRUCE MCQUAIN, 22 July 2015

Overall, it’s safe to say that Europe thinks America’s love of air-conditioning is actually quite daft.

Well good for them. Because as we recall back in 2003 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths), their “superiority” worked out so well for them, didn’t it?


At least 35,000 people died as a result of the record heatwave that scorched Europe in August 2003, says an environmental think tank.

[…]

The EPI calculated the huge death toll from the eight western European countries with data available. “Since reports are not yet available for all European countries, the total heat death toll for the continent is likely to be substantially larger,” it says in a statement.

France suffered the worst losses, with 14,802 people dying from causes attributable to the blistering heat. This is “more than 19 times the death toll from the SARS epidemic worldwide”, notes the EPI.

Yes, that’s right, air conditioning can save lives. Lots of lives, apparently.

I’ll bet those 35,000+ might have found air conditioning being available to be lifesaving? We certainly lose a few to heat each year, but I’ll be honest, if I’d lost 35,000+ to heat in a single summer, I wouldn’t be smug enough to bring up America’s affection for air conditioning in a negative way.

Ian Murray
24-07-2015, 08:41 AM
Europeans think American’s “addiction” to air conditioning is “stupid”
BRUCE MCQUAIN, 22 July 2015...

A better approach, Bruce, is to reduce heat waves by reining in global warming, not increase global warming by burning more fossil fuels. Try renewable energy, heating/cooling-efficient built environments.

Global Warming Likely Causing More Heat Waves, Scientists Say (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-heat-waves.html)
Warming Arctic may be causing heat waves elsewhere in world (http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/03/warming-arctic-may-be-causing-heat-waves-elsewhere-world)

antichrist
24-07-2015, 10:41 AM
The National Farmers Federtaion that a few years passed resolutions rejecting Global Warming have now recanted and saying it must be tackled head on. When I was into agriculture decades ago a faming consultant advised me of the climate changes due to global warming.

http://www.nff.org.au/read/1204/climate-change-threat-must-be-tackled.html

Capa Fan and Abbott are the silly buggers, and add George Pell

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2015, 01:01 PM
"A Disgrace to the Profession" (http://www.steynonline.com/7091/a-disgrace-to-the-profession)
The World's Scientists - in their own words - on Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science - Volume One
by Mark Steyn, August 11, 2015


As you know, Mann's plan was to sue me into silence. I leave it to legal scholars to assess whether that's working out quite as he intended. However, as Barack Obama likes to say, this isn't just about me. It's also about the perversion of science and the damage done by the climate wars in which Mann has played such an egregious part.

There are many scientists from across the spectrum featured inside, but I would like to cite the two who got me started. The first is Dr Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology:


For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the 'war on science' and is standing up for academic freedom. It's time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann's science, critical of Mann's professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann's behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science.

The second is Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University:


The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that's what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science... It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.

As you can see, there's no shortage of material for this book. Only the other day, two German climatologists Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt said that "Michael Mann can no longer be taken seriously (http://www.steynonline.com/7088/a-safe-pair-of-hands)". So I hope you'll take a gander at "A Disgrace To The Profession": The world's scientists on Michael E Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science - Volume One (http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html).

Rincewind
11-08-2015, 02:56 PM
However, as Barack Obama likes to say, this isn't just about me.

Sadly, as usual with Steyn, it is all about him.

Patrick Byrom
11-08-2015, 06:50 PM
"A Disgrace to the Profession" (http://www.steynonline.com/7091/a-disgrace-to-the-profession)
The World's Scientists - in their own words - on Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science - Volume One by Mark Steyn, August 11, 2015

As you know, Mann's plan was to sue me into silence. I leave it to legal scholars to assess whether that's working out quite as he intended. However, as Barack Obama likes to say, this isn't just about me. It's also about the perversion of science and the damage done by the climate wars in which Mann has played such an egregious part.

Of course the 'Hockey Stick' has been repeatedly confirmed by other climate scientists, so attacking Mann for 'the perversion of science' is ridiculous. Unfortunately Steyn doesn't know enough about science to understand this.

And some of the quotes are already looking dubious (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/). So it's not surprising that the book will be self-published.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2015, 12:07 AM
Of course the 'Hockey Stick' has been repeatedly confirmed by other climate scientists, so attacking Mann for 'the perversion of science' is ridiculous. Unfortunately Steyn doesn't know enough about science to understand this.

And some of the quotes are already looking dubious (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/). So it's not surprising that the book will be self-published.

Who is Greg Laden apart from being a leftatheopath? Anyway, it doesn't help the warm-mongers' case much (bold added):


I have not seen Tett’s quote in its original exact context, but I think it is part of a larger bit of text that makes up part of the so-called Climategate 2.0 emails. If so, Tett said,


I think there are issues in Mann et al’s approach −− recall the Esper et al paper which produced a reconstruction with lots more low frequency variability than others. From the comment on the paper by Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (attached) you can see that Mann’s reconstruction had the least variability of any of the reconstructions. Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes Mann et al got it wrong. How wrong is still under debate and the ECHO−G/HadCM3 results may be over-exaggerating the variance loss for some model-specific reasons.



Zorita did get back to me about Steyn’s use of his quote. He told me that the quote is essentially accurate, and that he has put it on his personal web page several years ago. He was concerned about the perception of objectivity in the IPCC process, so perhaps these researchers should not be part of the process given the controversy at the time caused by the famous Climategate hacked emails. However, he was careful to note that his statement was “not related to the quality of their scientific work. Actually, my statement was a suggestion to isolate the IPCC process from the credibility crisis linked to Climategate.” So this is about perception, not about the quality of the science or the validity of the Hockey Stick. He went on to say, “I feel that those political attacks, specially those against Michael Mann in the US, have no justification.”

Zorita told me that he felt the Hockey Stick was something of a public relations mistake. “The irony is that the hockey-stick is not a proof and not a disproof of anthropogenic climate change. As Stefan Rahmstorf correctly wrote, if the hockey-stick had not existed the case for AGW would not be stronger or weaker. But the hockey-stick had become its symbol and the subject of political manoeuvring.” Interesting idea. Zorita also indicated that he is in the camp of seeing much more variability in the older surface temperature record than the original Mann Et Al research indicated, adding “this has had no relevance for the the case of AGW.”

Patrick Byrom
12-08-2015, 12:38 AM
Anyway, it doesn't help the warm-mongers' case much...The fact that Mann's "Hockey Stick" had been repeatedly confirmed doesn't support the argument that Mann was correct? Really :wall:

Or are you referring to the quotations?

Do you mean the quote from Tett, which he doesn't recall, and for which no context was provided by Steyn? The same Tett who "... has recently co-authored articles with Mike Mann that confirm the Hockey Stick pattern of temperature changes."

Or the quote from Zorita, who "was careful to note that his statement was 'not related to the quality of their scientific work.'"

If these are the most damaging quotes Steyn has, then his book can be safely ignored.

antichrist
12-08-2015, 12:43 AM
If Abbott believes that climate change is crap why did he impose limits on carbon entering the atmosphere?

Ian Murray
12-08-2015, 02:33 PM
A shifty sleight of hand by Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt, announcing the Liberals' emissions reduction target of 26-28% by 2030 was the same as the target announced by the US, also 26-28%. Not mentioned was the US target year of 2025 rather than 2030, which is way ahead of the measly Australian aim. The US target equates to around 41% by 2030.

antichrist
12-08-2015, 03:28 PM
If Abbott believes that climate change is crap why did he impose limits on carbon entering the atmosphere?

Today in Parliament he stated that global warming is caused by humans - he is like a jumping jack who says anything on the day

Ian Murray
15-08-2015, 01:32 PM
How California Is Winning the Drought (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/how-california-is-winning-the-drought.html?emc=edit_ty_20150814&nl=opinion&nlid=72214258&_r=0)
New York Times op-ed
14 Aug 2015

FOR California, there hasn’t ever been a summer quite like the summer of 2015. The state and its 39 million residents are about to enter the fifth year of a drought. It has been the driest four-year period in California history — and the hottest, too.

Yet by almost every measure except precipitation, California is doing fine. Not just fine: California is doing fabulously.

In 2014, the state’s economy grew 27 percent faster than the country’s economy as a whole — the state has grown faster than the nation every year of the drought.

California has won back every job lost in the Great Recession and set new employment records. In the past year, California created 462,000 jobs — nearly 9,000 a week. No other state came close....

Ian Murray
25-08-2015, 07:10 PM
Adani mine a $20b project creating 10,000 jobs? The Abbott government's myths busted (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/adani-mine-a-20b-project-creating-10000-jobs-the-abbott-governments-myths-busted-20150819-gj2u2o.html#ixzz3jhradIcs)
Sydney Morning Herald
20.5.15

When it comes to Australia's largest coal mine, the Abbott government has a difficult relationship with the truth. If you haven't heard, Australia is under siege from a new kind of eco-warrior, one with a manual and money for legal challenges designed to endlessly frustrate economic development.

At the centre of this battle is the proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. The mega mine, led by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, has had its federal environmental approval set aside. Why? Because a Queensland environment group – the Mackay Conservation Group – exercised its legal rights and used a federal court challenge to expose a flaw in the government's assessment of that project.

The government now wants to remove those legal rights and hinder the ability of green groups to access the courts. The Parliament is clearly entitled to debate whether Australia's environment laws are working as they were intended. But it should not be too much to expect that the government defend its position with arguments that have some semblance to the truth. To make its case to protect growth and jobs and stop "vigilante litigation", ministers have repeatedly relied on inflated numbers, distortions and blatant inaccuracies about the Adani project to make their case. Here are some:...

Ian Murray
18-09-2015, 10:28 AM
With a single sentence, Malcolm Turnbull can end Tony Abbott’s war on renewable energy (https://theconversation.com/with-a-single-sentence-malcolm-turnbull-can-end-tony-abbotts-war-on-renewable-energy-47694)
The Conversation
17.9.15

On Monday, as Malcolm Turnbull launched his successful strike against incumbent prime minister Tony Abbott, a sigh of relief could be heard right across the land. In one fell swoop, gone was the stridency and sloganeering of the Abbott-Credlin supremacy, and a real government with a flair for communication and the promise of responsible behaviour was ushered in.

Few would have welcomed the change at the top more than those working in Australia’s long-suffering renewable energy industry. For reasons that still remain obscure, Abbott got it into his head that wind and solar power were the enemy and had to be crushed, while the fossil fuel incumbents, particularly coal exporters, had to be glorified.

Never mind that around the world, renewable energy industries are emerging as real industries of the future, while coal seems to be in terminal decline. Facts like these had no impact on Abbott’s apparent loathing of renewables.

All this can now change. Of course we all understand that Turnbull had to give certain undertakings to the conservative right of his party to secure the numbers needed for the changeover. So his comments in his first Question Time offering continued support for the much-maligned Direct Action proposals of Abbott’s environment minister Greg Hunt (an agenda which Turnbull has previously described as “bullshit”) may be viewed as a holding position until a fresh cabinet goes to election on a new platform, perhaps including some form of emissions trading.

All of this is understood. But the rhetorical war on renewables unleashed by Abbott, treasurer Joe Hockey and their colleagues over the past two years had the desired effect: investment in the industry dried up. It’s easy to see why: you can’t invest in building wind farms if the government refuses to give any indication that these investments will be encouraged to earn their expected return....

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2015, 01:12 PM
Fascist globull warm-mongers want dissenters prosecuted under anti-racketeering laws (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics).

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2015, 03:16 PM
Despite common misconceptions, plastic bags are actually the most environmentally friendly option at checkout. (http://www.bagtheban.com/learn-the-facts/environment)They’re 100% recyclable -- unlike some alternatives -- and studies show banning plastic bags could increase global warming, put more carbon in the air, require more trucks on the road and use up more water because consumers would be forced to use resource-heavy alternatives like paper and reusable bags. Plus, studies show that taxes and bans don't prevent litter or keep plastic waste out of landfills.

Despite common misconceptions, plastic bags are actually the most environmentally friendly option at checkout.

A standard reusable cotton grocery bag must be reused 131 times "to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than" a single use of a plastic bag
It would take 7.5 years of using the same cloth bag (assuming one grocery trip per week) before it's a better option for the environment than a plastic bag reused three times
A study by the University of Arizona found that 50% of all reusable bags contained food-borne bacteria, like salmonella. 12% contained E. coli, indicating the presence of fecal matter and other pathogens
Harmful bacteria like E. coli, salmonella and fecal coliform thrive in reusable bags unless they are cleaned properly after each use with soapy water that is at least 140 degrees [F]
A Canadian study found bacteria build-up on reusable bags was 300% higher than what is considered safe
The lead, usually found on the inside of reusable bags, can rub off onto food, permitting families to ingest the harmful substance

antichrist
23-09-2015, 03:33 PM
Fascist globull warm-mongers want dissenters prosecuted under anti-racketeering laws (http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics).

that is fantastic news, if they need a hangman I will even supply the rope free as an extra

Capablanca-Fan
08-10-2015, 08:12 AM
Suppressing Free Speech (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/38043)
By Walter E. Williams, 7 Oct 2015

So I investigated this call for the use of RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It turns out that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has called for the criminal investigation of people and organizations who are seen as global warming deniers. This would include lawsuits against the coal and oil industries, certain think tanks, and other organizations that question the global warming religion. By the way, so that Whitehouse and his gang don’t appear silly, they’ve changed their concern from global warming to climate change. That’s stupid in and of itself, for when has the climate not been changing, even before mankind arrived?

It turns out that George Mason University meteorologist Jagadish Shukla is the lead signatory of the letter sent to the president and attorney general asking them to use RICO laws to prosecute “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” This GMU professor calling for the prosecution of climate skeptics has been recently revealed as “climate profiteer.” From 2012 to 2014, this leader of the RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.

The effort to suppress global warming dissidents is not new. Grist Magazine writer David Roberts said, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers.

The global warming agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956) explained that “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” That’s the political goal of the global warmers.

Ian Murray
08-10-2015, 09:48 AM
Dutch government loses world’s first climate liability lawsuit (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27774-dutch-government-loses-worlds-first-climate-liability-lawsuit/)
New Scientist
24.6.15

The Dutch government has lost a landmark legal case over its greenhouse gas emissions plans.

The environmental group Urgenda brought a class action suit over climate change on behalf of some 900 citizens, including children. The suit claimed that the government’s action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is insufficient, and is therefore “knowingly exposing its own citizens to dangerous situations”.

Urgenda asked that the court in the Hague “declare that global warming of more than 2 °C will lead to a violation of fundamental human rights worldwide”. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, governments must cut emissions to between 25 and 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 to have a 50 per cent chance of avoiding 2 °C. Yet European Union states have signed up for 40 per cent cuts by 2030.

Three judges agreed with the class action suit, ruling that government plans to cut emissions by 14-17 per cent compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were illegal. The ruling said: “The state should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts.”

The court ordered the Dutch government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 per cent by 2020.

Marjan Minnesma, who initiated the case in 2013, made a statement through Urgenda. “All the plaintiffs are overjoyed by the result,” she said. “This makes it crystal clear that climate change is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with much more effectively, and that states can no longer afford inaction.”...

Capablanca-Fan
08-10-2015, 12:00 PM
From another report (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33253772):

Coal and gas provide much of the Netherlands' energy needs, with the country lagging behind neighbours Denmark and Germany in the use of renewables, our correspondent adds.
The Dutch government can appeal to a higher court and it is not clear yet how the ruling will be enforced.
The European Union recently set a target of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030.

Desmond
08-10-2015, 03:14 PM
Suppressing Free Speech (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/38043)
By Walter E. Williams, 7 Oct 2015

...By the way, so that Whitehouse and his gang don’t appear silly, they’ve changed their concern from global warming to climate change. That’s stupid in and of itself, for when has the climate not been changing, even before mankind arrived?... Well, there sure is someone being stoopid here.

Global warming vs climate change (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature ...

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. ...

Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' ...

Patrick Byrom
08-10-2015, 04:14 PM
Well, there sure is someone being stoopid here.
Williams doesn't appear to do any fact-checking: The remark he claims was made by Joe Romm ("Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds.") was actually a comment posted on Romm's blog.

Ian Murray
08-10-2015, 08:04 PM
Well, there sure is someone being stoopid here.

Global warming vs climate change (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)...

Republican strategist Frank Luntz sent a secret memo to the Bush White House in 2002, urging that 'global warming' be dropped in favour of 'climate change', being less scary. Here's Luntz in a 2006 CBC documentary (http://www.onthemedia.org/story/climate-change-vs-global-warming/transcript/):

FRANK LUNTZ: “Global warming” suggests something more cataclysmic, “climate change” suggests something more gradual, something that takes place over time. “Global warming” is more frightening, “climate change” is less so.

antichrist
08-10-2015, 10:43 PM
Dutch government loses world’s first climate liability lawsuit (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27774-dutch-government-loses-worlds-first-climate-liability-lawsuit/)
New Scientist
24.6.15...................................

Marjan Minnesma, who initiated the case in 2013, made a statement through Urgenda. “All the plaintiffs are overjoyed by the result,” she said. “This makes it crystal clear that climate change is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with much more effectively, and that states can no longer afford inaction.”...

Brilliant result, just hope it could become contagious but unlikely so of course.

Patrick Byrom
09-10-2015, 12:33 AM
Suppressing Free Speech (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/38043) By Walter E. Williams, 7 Oct 2015

So I investigated this call for the use of RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It turns out that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has called for the criminal investigation of people and organizations who are seen as global warming deniers. This would include lawsuits against the coal and oil industries, certain think tanks, and other organizations that question the global warming religion. By the way, so that Whitehouse and his gang don’t appear silly, they’ve changed their concern from global warming to climate change. That’s stupid in and of itself, for when has the climate not been changing, even before mankind arrived?

It turns out that George Mason University meteorologist Jagadish Shukla is the lead signatory of the letter sent to the president and attorney general asking them to use RICO laws to prosecute “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” This GMU professor calling for the prosecution of climate skeptics has been recently revealed as “climate profiteer.” From 2012 to 2014, this leader of the RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.
Williams (deliberately?) leaves out a very important point. The call to use RICO laws was triggered by the discovery that Exxon knew that man-made global warming is extremely dangerous, but concealed this information from the public (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/29/is-the-fossil-fuel-industry-like-the-tobacco-industry-guilty-of-racketeering):

Last week, after an eight-month investigation, InsideClimate News revealed that from the late-1970s to the mid-1980s, scientists at Exxon were in fact at the cutting edge of climate science research. Exxon documents show that top corporate managers were aware of their scientists’ early conclusions about carbon dioxide’s impact on the climate. They reveal that scientists warned management that policy changes to address climate change might affect profitability. After a decade of frank internal discussions on global warming and conducting unbiased studies on it, Exxon changed direction in 1989 and spent more than 20 years discrediting the research its own scientists had once confirmed.

Deliberately concealing research that shows your product is potentially dangerous sounds exactly like the sort of activity that should be prosecuted by the government - as tobacco manufacturers were previously successfully sued by the DOJ using RICO. It is not suppression of free speech.

Capablanca-Fan
09-10-2015, 03:49 AM
As expected, the far-left types on ChessChat, like the one above ↑↑, really do support prosecuting dissent from their warm-mongering. Not surprising, because this has always been an excuse for more taxes and regulation, and for expansion of government power.

Patrick Byrom
09-10-2015, 10:21 AM
As expected, the far-left types on ChessChat, like the one above ↑↑, really do support prosecuting dissent from their warm-mongering. Not surprising, because this has always been an excuse for more taxes and regulation, and for expansion of government power.
So you're saying that manufacturers who conceal evidence that their product may be dangerous shouldn't be investigated by the government (Exxon's scientists knew about AGW, but the company pretended it wasn't happening)?

Rincewind
09-10-2015, 11:36 AM
...or perhaps even more blatantly: VW's misrepresentation of emissions data in some of their diesel powered vehicles.

Patrick Byrom
09-10-2015, 01:43 PM
The appointment of a National Wind Farm Commissioner (https://twitter.com/political_alert/status/652273933081706496/photo/1) means that Capablanca-Fan's position on consumer protection is too right-wing for the LDP, as the appointment was recommended by their only Senator. As the LDP is an extreme right-wing party that only receives a tiny percentage of the vote at Federal elections (much less than the Greens, for example), I'm not sure where this puts Capablanca-Fan on the political spectrum :)

Capablanca-Fan
09-10-2015, 11:55 PM
The appointment of a National Wind Farm Commissioner (https://twitter.com/political_alert/status/652273933081706496/photo/1) means that Capablanca-Fan's position on consumer protection is too right-wing for the LDP, as the appointment was recommended by their only Senator. As the LDP is an extreme right-wing party that only receives a tiny percentage of the vote at Federal elections (much less than the Greens, for example), I'm not sure where this puts Capablanca-Fan on the political spectrum :)

The LDP is hardly right wing on social issues. They are just a small-government party that rightly realizes that Australia has too much of a nanny state.

Patrick Byrom
10-10-2015, 12:35 AM
The LDP is hardly right wing on social issues. They are just a small-government party that rightly realizes that Australia has too much of a nanny state.
True - although we are discussing an economic issue, not a social one. And the LDP is definitely in favour of much smaller government than the overwhelming majority of Australians, which puts you on the extreme right wing on economic issues (in the Australian context, at least).

Capablanca-Fan
11-10-2015, 12:43 PM
True - although we are discussing an economic issue, not a social one. And the LDP is definitely in favour of much smaller government than the overwhelming majority of Australians,
Yes, far too many Australians want the government to give them money taken by force from other Australians. But indeed the LDP has by far the best economic policy of all Australian parties.


which puts you on the extreme right wing on economic issues (in the Australian context, at least).
Why, thank you.

Ian Murray
11-10-2015, 08:23 PM
The appointment of a National Wind Farm Commissioner (https://twitter.com/political_alert/status/652273933081706496/photo/1) means that Capablanca-Fan's position on consumer protection is too right-wing for the LDP, as the appointment was recommended by their only Senator. As the LDP is an extreme right-wing party that only receives a tiny percentage of the vote at Federal elections (much less than the Greens, for example), I'm not sure where this puts Capablanca-Fan on the political spectrum :)

Of course giving Leyonhjelm control of the wind farm enquiry (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/wind-farm-inquiry-is-not-a-case-of-nanny-state-intervention-david-leyonhjelm-says-20150629-gi08zq.html) was a trade-off by Abbott to get his RET amendment through the Senate. He can now pursue his vendetta against the wind power industry.

ER
11-10-2015, 08:41 PM
Excuse me Sir, any chance of sending any of this so called man-or-whatever-else-made global warming down Vic way? Mid Spring and we 're still freezing in the nights here! :P :)

Rincewind
11-10-2015, 09:45 PM
What happens with a increasing mean temperature is that the locals get used to generally warmer weather and then when there is a year where temperatures happen to return to 1990s levels then people start saying "gee it's cold out, so much for global warming" when actually the reason it is remarkable is because of global warming.

Ian Murray
12-10-2015, 07:55 PM
Excuse me Sir, any chance of sending any of this so called man-or-whatever-else-made global warming down Vic way? Mid Spring and we 're still freezing in the nights here! :P :)

Make the most of it while you can, Elliott. Despite the freezing nights, there are current bushfire alerts across the state (http://www.osom.vic.gov.au/#map) as the fire season gets off to an early start. Worse to come as summer gets closer.

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2015, 04:51 AM
Make the most of it while you can, Elliott. Despite the freezing nights, there are current bushfire alerts across the state (http://www.osom.vic.gov.au/#map) as the fire season gets off to an early start. Worse to come as summer gets closer.

When has Australia not been prone to bushfires?

Rincewind
13-10-2015, 07:38 AM
When has Australia not been prone to bushfires?

More usually December to February. Extension of bushfire season costs society a lot of money and another reason that a carbon tax is a sensible measure.

Ian Murray
13-10-2015, 07:58 AM
When has Australia not been prone to bushfires?

There was a time when we were only prone to bushfires during the average fire season (http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/50/australias-bushfire-seasons/). But in recent years the winter rains have dissipated and we get longer and hotter fire seasons (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/busy-bushfire-season-predicted-for-australias-most-populous-regions-20150831-gjbntt.html).

You should be familiar with similar conditions affecting the western US and Canada (www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/wildfires-oregon-residents-future-seasons), with ever-worsening fire seasons.

antichrist
13-10-2015, 10:25 AM
When has Australia not been prone to bushfires?

Part of the reason is that there is very little bush left. Some bush, for example some types of rain forests are virtually non combustible.

Ian Murray
14-10-2015, 03:13 PM
Part of the reason is that there is very little bush left. Some bush, for example some types of rain forests are virtually non combustible.

If that was the case, there would be fewer fires. However the Victorian Premier and chief of the Country Fire Authority have warned that the fire season has already started and a severe season is expected. Specialised water and fire retardant delivery aircraft have been chartered and deployed, at considerable cost.

ER
14-10-2015, 03:42 PM
Make the most of it while you can, Elliott. Despite the freezing nights, there are current bushfire alerts across the state (http://www.osom.vic.gov.au/#map) as the fire season gets off to an early start. Worse to come as summer gets closer.

aha, that's why you 've moved to Tassie Finn? :) Actually, I always look around for some property when down there, but haven't checked the west coast yet! :)

Ian Murray
14-10-2015, 08:01 PM
aha, that's why you 've moved to Tassie Finn? :) Actually, I always look around for some property when down there, but haven't checked the west coast yet! :)

Actually I went the other way. Melbourne to Sydney to Rockhampton then backwards to Brisbane. I now think of myself as a Queenslandwr, but of course I will never be really accepted :)

Kevin Bonham
14-10-2015, 08:30 PM
Actually, I always look around for some property when down there, but haven't checked the west coast yet! :)

At times there's been very cheap property on the west coast. At one stage houses in Rosebery were so cheap that some people were buying them to make a profit on the first home buyer's grant (and get a free house in the process!)

idledim
14-10-2015, 10:28 PM
Check out Maydena as well, Elliott - only about 5 miles from beautiful Mt. Field National Park and an amazingly under-rated little place in my opinion; and I can sell you 2 x excellent blocks there for a very keen price ...

Patrick Byrom
14-10-2015, 11:43 PM
Excuse me Sir, any chance of sending any of this so called man-or-whatever-else-made global warming down Vic way? Mid Spring and we 're still freezing in the nights here! :P :)
I see your request has been answered - Melbourne will reach 34C tomorrow (Thursday), with the minimum being a balmy 18C! Even Hobart will make it to 30C.

ER
15-10-2015, 02:03 AM
I see your request has been answered - Melbourne will reach 34C tomorrow (Thursday), with the minimum being a balmy 18C! Even Hobart will make it to 30C.


My request was granted only for one day - tomorrow 33, Fr Cloudy 26. Sat Scattered Showers 21°,
Sun Partly Cloudy 21°, Mon Mostly Sunny 28°, Tue Mostly Cloudy 28°, Wed Showers 21°, Thu Partly Cloudy 20°
In some of the nights the temperature will fall to 8 C.
I don't mind the heat because I live in a leafy suburb with the beach and the lake just down the road plus I have a/c (air condition) at home!
What I really can't stand is putting the a/c to heater mode in advanced spring!


Check out Maydena as well, Elliott - only about 5 miles from beautiful Mt. Field National Park and an amazingly under-rated little place in my opinion; and I can sell you 2 x excellent blocks there for a very keen price ...

I will check it out next time I am down in Tassie and thanks Ian!
However, I am not looking for something big.
No more gardens and gardening for me!
A little cottage or a double bedroom apartment for the summertime would be great when I decide to reduce my O/S travelling time.
I don't drive anymore, so If I moved down without my companion who belongs to the sitting down watching the TV kind
but is a good driver, I would need an organised shopping centre close by as well as medical services just in case!
Also a chess club would be great
although during summer there are hardly any chess activities anywhere!


At times there's been very cheap property on the west coast. At one stage houses in Rosebery were so cheap
that some people were buying them to make a profit on the first home buyer's grant (and get a free house in the process!)

Thanks Kevin it sounds really good but in my case it's easier said than done. Those areas aren't readily accessible by p/t and although they are beautiful nature wise, they tend to he a tad isolated!
Last time I was in Tassie I had a look around Hobart, over the bridge around Bellerive and Rosny areas and found some really good opportunities, but we 'll see how it goes!

Patrick Byrom
15-10-2015, 01:32 PM
My request was granted only for one day - tomorrow 33, Fr Cloudy 26. Sat Scattered Showers 21°, Sun Partly Cloudy 21°, Mon Mostly Sunny 28°, Tue Mostly Cloudy 28°, Wed Showers 21°, Thu Partly Cloudy 20° In some of the nights the temperature will fall to 8 C.
Which supports Rincewind's point that people have become acclimatised to warmer weather: The long-term average October minimum is 9.5C and the average max is 20C, so these are actually above average (or just slightly below average) temperatures.

I don't mind the heat because I live in a leafy suburb with the beach and the lake just down the road plus I have a/c (air condition) at home! What I really can't stand is putting the a/c to heater mode in advanced spring!
Sounds like a great location. But if you really want to avoid the cold, move to Brisbane - I haven't used a heater for over a decade!

ER
16-10-2015, 03:05 AM
Which supports Rincewind's point that people have become acclimatised to warmer weather: The long-term average October minimum is 9.5C and the average max is 20C, so these are actually above average (or just slightly below average) temperatures.

Sounds like a great location. But if you really want to avoid the cold, move to Brisbane - I haven't used a heater for over a decade!

I have thought about it and I know Brissy reasonably well. It also suits my initial idea of staying there during winters and renting on summers (during which I can't really stand the Brisbane humidity) as a holiday house. There are two factors that stop me though a) I don't want to be spending my retirement time worrying about investments and b) the prices of houses in areas I am interested in ie Chelmer, Fig Tree Pocket, Hamilton, Hawthorne have skyrocketed. It is still a thought though!

and back to the topic, before my post turns into some sort of real estate outlet ...


Which supports Rincewind's point that people have become acclimatised to warmer weather ...

I never doubted that, I was only commenting about my tolerance, or luck of it, to the elements! :)

Rincewind
21-10-2015, 01:51 PM
The UWA has no control over how the government spends money - all they can do is refuse the offered $4 million. So you should be happy they have returned it, instead of criticising them for it. If the government then spends the money on something you don't like, you should attack the government.

The government has now "officially" pulled the plug on the $4m. Apparently Flinders were still entertaining the idea of a Lomborg linked institute. There are still free to do so, of course, but the commonwealth funding now evaporated (yet another green house gas?)

antichrist
21-10-2015, 08:23 PM
Idiot Abbot's climate change-denying Canadian mate has been booted out, replaced by young Trudeau who promises to act on climate change. His ole man was pretty good too.

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2015, 08:37 PM
Thanks Kevin it sounds really good but in my case it's easier said than done. Those areas aren't readily accessible by p/t and although they are beautiful nature wise, they tend to he a tad isolated!

There are buses down the west coast (Tassielink) but they are not at all frequent and travel times are very long. I did the full trip by bus back in 1996. Played in the Tas Champs in Burnie, then caught the bus down to Strahan (as it was winter, this effectively took the whole day). Stayed in Strahan for 4-5 days then caught the bus back to Hobart. If I did this round trip today I would be up for $237 in bus fares.

antichrist
22-10-2015, 09:24 AM
My request was granted only for one day - tomorrow 33, Fr Cloudy 26. Sat Scattered Showers 21°,
Sun Partly Cloudy 21°, Mon Mostly Sunny 28°, Tue Mostly Cloudy 28°, Wed Showers 21°, Thu Partly Cloudy 20°
In some of the nights the temperature will fall to 8 C.
I don't mind the heat because I live in a leafy suburb with the beach and the lake just down the road plus I have a/c (air condition) at home!
What I really can't stand is putting the a/c to heater mode in advanced spring!



I will check it out next time I am down in Tassie and thanks Ian!
However, I am not looking for something big.
No more gardens and gardening for me!
A little cottage or a double bedroom apartment for the summertime would be great when I decide to reduce my O/S travelling time.
I don't drive anymore, so If I moved down without my companion who belongs to the sitting down watching the TV kind
but is a good driver, I would need an organised shopping centre close by as well as medical services just in case!
Also a chess club would be great
although during summer there are hardly any chess activities anywhere!



Thanks Kevin it sounds really good but in my case it's easier said than done. Those areas aren't readily accessible by p/t and although they are beautiful nature wise, they tend to he a tad isolated!
Last time I was in Tassie I had a look around Hobart, over the bridge around Bellerive and Rosny areas and found some really good opportunities, but we 'll see how it goes!


The Gold Coast appears to have everything you listed, especially on Burleigh Hill. Breezes, medical (GWR), public transport, big chess club. Since GFC prices have plummeted. People say all the glass and concrete makes the place hotter than Byron - that is probably true. But in our limited lifetimes global warming will not be too severe. Air cons should be compulsorily fitted with solar energy nor sure how on certain units.

Ian Murray
22-10-2015, 09:56 AM
The long-term future of Australian coal is drying up (https://theconversation.com/the-long-term-future-of-australian-coal-is-drying-up-49364?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+Octo ber+22+2015+-+3681&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+Octob er+22+2015+-+3681+CID_a53b5e332e74e80af0932e21169424e5&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=The%20long-term%20future%20of%20Australian%20coal%20is%20dryi ng%20up)
The Conversation
22.10.15

With the recent re-approval of Adani’s Carmichael coal mine in Queensland, debate over the future of coal has reached fever pitch again. Green groups have argued that Australia should account for the climate impacts of burning coal produced in the country.

Meanwhile, the government has once again come out in support of coal to provide cheap power to developing nations.

It can be hard to make sense of the different sides. In a paper recently published in Energy Research and Social Science, I looked at the long-term future for coal in Australia. My research suggests the current coal woes are just the beginning.

Australia’s failure to reassess its commitment to coal will have serious negative consequences, not only for Australia’s economy, but for the health and well being of millions of people and the global environment....

antichrist
22-10-2015, 09:58 AM
The coal industry is still subsidised for billions a year - that is more profits for billionaires - enough to make me bilious

Ian Murray
22-10-2015, 12:35 PM
The coal industry is still subsidised for billions a year...

So help put a stop to it - http://stopfundingfossils.org/

antichrist
22-10-2015, 06:35 PM
So help put a stop to it - http://stopfundingfossils.org/

Done thanks, I wonder if other responsible bods here will follow suit?

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2015, 03:11 PM
This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel
(http://www.wsj.com/article_email/this-child-doesnt-need-a-solar-panel-1445466967-lMyQjAxMTI1MjI2MjIyMDIwWj)Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.
BJORN LOMBORG, WSJ, 21 Oct 2015

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.

In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

Not surprisingly, in an online U.N. survey of more than eight million people from around the globe, respondents from the world’s poorest countries rank “action taken on climate change” dead last out of 16 categories when asked “What matters most to you?” Top priorities are “a good education,” “better health care, “better job opportunities,” “an honest and responsive government,” and “affordable, nutritious food.”

According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.

Ian Murray
23-10-2015, 04:55 PM
This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel
(http://www.wsj.com/article_email/this-child-doesnt-need-a-solar-panel-1445466967-lMyQjAxMTI1MjI2MjIyMDIwWj)Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.
BJORN LOMBORG, WSJ, 21 Oct 2015

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.
What crap. This sort of garbage is why Lomborg can't find a host country for his Consensus Centre. Health and climate action are not mutually exclusive - see UN Sustainable Development Goals 3, 7 and 13 (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300).adopted this year for implementation by 2030.


According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.…
Coal is not a clean or affordable alternative, with its air pollution and massive infrastructure capital costs. Solar-powered microgrids with battery storage are the perfect alternative.

Patrick Byrom
23-10-2015, 11:58 PM
This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel
(http://www.wsj.com/article_email/this-child-doesnt-need-a-solar-panel-1445466967-lMyQjAxMTI1MjI2MjIyMDIwWj)Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition. BJORN LOMBORG, WSJ, 21 Oct 2015
In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.…
Does Lomborg provide any evidence for this?

Ian Murray
26-10-2015, 07:21 PM
Fossil fuel giants still betting trillions on nothing changing (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/fossil-fuel-giants-still-betting-trillions-on-nothing-changing-71781)
RenewEconomy
22.10.15

The multi-trillion dollar global fossil fuel industry continues to believe that nothing much will change, despite the push to lock in ambitious climate policies in Paris next month, and the emergence of new technologies that completely change the energy market.

A new report “Lost in Transition, How the energy sector is missing potential demand destruction” from the London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative points out that Big Oil, and Big Coal, want investors to back their multi-billion dollar projects on the basis of a false hope: that nothing will change.

This is despite pledges already made in the lead up to the Paris climate change conference that even the conservative International Energy Agency says will result in minimal growth in emissions between now and 2030 – meaning little growth in the market for coal, oil and gas plants.

As Carbon tracker’s James Leeton describes it, the big fossil fuel giants are not just trying to kid their consumers – as VW did through its massive diesel emissions fraud – they are also trying to kid themselves and their investors.

Leeton points out nine assumptions of “business as usual” made by Big Oil and Big Coal in defending their belief that the use of oil, coal and gas will grow by up to 50 per cent in the next few decades, and still account for 75 per cent of the energy mix in 2040.

“Fossil fuel industry thinking is skewed to the upside, and relies too heavily on high demand assumptions to justify new and costly capital investments to shareholders,” Leeton says.

“We have seen in recent weeks how the fossil fuel sector has misled consumers and investors about emissions — the Volkswagen scandal being a case in point — and deliberately acted against climate science for decades, judging from the recent Exxon expose.

“Why should investors accept their claims about future coal and oil demand when they clearly don’t stack up with technology and policy developments?”

The Carbon Tracker analysis suggests that the fossil fuel industry is too optimistic on a range of assumptions, including population and economic growth, and completely ignores the recent climate pledges from more than 150 nations....

Desmond
27-10-2015, 01:53 PM
Meanwhile 2015 is on track to eclipse 2014 as the hottest year on record.

antichrist
27-10-2015, 11:05 PM
Meanwhile 2015 is on track to eclipse 2014 as the hottest year on record.

At least the new Chief Scientist takes climate change seriously even if he is a bit uncenventional in how to solve the problem. Mainly only has answers for first world wealthy countries but hopefully I am incorrect.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2015, 02:10 AM
Infamous anticreationist Ian Plimer on the Pope's embrace of atheopaths and leftard greens:

Heaven and Hell, the Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/heaven-and-hell-the-pope-condemns-the-poor-to-eternal-poverty/)
Ian Plimer has a new book out today, as usual, skewering sacred cows.

“Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty.”

The Pope’s promotion of renewable energy shows that he was poorly advised. The Pope has only listened to a small group of green left environmental activists and atheists, some who are in a warm embrace with communism. Wind, solar, wave and tidal forces do not have the energy density to keep modern society alive. Construction of wind and solar industrial complexes release more CO2 than they save and are inefficient, unreliable and need back up 24/7 from coal, gas, nuclear or hydro. In order to try to make renewable energy more competitive, governments have increased the costs of conventional electricity to the point where there is fuel poverty in Western countries and employment-generating businesses are closing down or moving to countries with cheaper coal-fired electricity. The Pope’s solution to perceived problems is agrarian socialism using wind and solar power.

No Third World country trying to escape from poverty can afford renewable energy and it is only Western countries that use renewable energy because they are wealthy. Wealthy countries didn’t become wealthy overnight and centuries of the evolution of free trade, democracy, creativity, resource utilisation and property rights made wealth creation possible. Governments, collectives or international treaties did not create this wealth. Individuals created it. By denying poor countries access to fossil fuels, Pope Francis condemns them to permanent poverty with the associated disease, short life and unemployment.

The Pope seems to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the new environmental religion that competes with Catholicism. The Encyclical is an anti-development, anti-market enthusiastic embrace of global green left environmental ideology and much of the Encyclical is a denunciation of free markets dressed up as religious instruction.

antichrist
01-11-2015, 07:07 AM
Capa Fan, in the Philippines many of the the poor cannot afford to be on the electricity grid, or if they are it nearly breaks them financially. For cooking they usually use twigs from acacia trees they they prune regularly. So one sees all theses deformed acacia trees that never grow full height due to being continually pruned. They have hydro but with climate change the storm patterns are changing so that is conking out when previously it was not. So coal is actually detrimental to third world power supplies.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2015, 09:53 AM
And despite the Greens sacrificing the poor to the green gods, CO2 emissions have gone up, not down.

Germany’s Effort at Clean Energy Proves Complex (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html)
By MELISSA EDDY and STANLEY REED
NYT, 18 SEPTEMBER 2013

BERLIN — It is an audacious undertaking with wide and deep support in Germany: shut down the nation’s nuclear power plants, wean the country from coal and promote a wholesale shift to renewable energy sources.

But the plan, backed by Chancellor Angela Merkel and opposition parties alike, is running into problems in execution that are forcing Germans to come face to face with the costs and complexities of sticking to their principles.

German families are being hit by rapidly increasing electricity rates, to the point where growing numbers of them can no longer afford to pay the bill. Businesses are more and more worried that their energy costs will put them at a disadvantage to competitors in nations with lower energy costs, and some energy-intensive industries have begun to shun the country because they fear steeper costs ahead.

Newly constructed offshore wind farms churn unconnected to an energy grid still in need of expansion. And despite all the costs, carbon emissions actually rose last year as reserve coal-burning plants were fired up to close gaps in energy supplies.

antichrist
01-11-2015, 10:36 AM
I dont disagree this could occur with skewered planning. But there should also be an embargo on products produced by coal-consuming factories, yes prices will rise in the short term but will rise a lot more if the climate gets out of control.

Ian Murray
01-11-2015, 12:35 PM
Infamous anticreationist Ian Plimer on the Pope's embrace of atheopaths and leftard greens:

Heaven and Hell, the Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty (http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/heaven-and-hell-the-pope-condemns-the-poor-to-eternal-poverty/)
Ian Plimer has a new book out today, as usual, skewering sacred cows.
[from the link]:-
Burning coal releases CO2. This is the gas of life. Plants feed on CO2 and there has been a greening of the Earth with the slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The food for all life on Earth has been wrongly demonised as a pollutant. Some 97% of CO2 emissions are natural.

It has yet to be shown that CO2 drives global warming and all models of future climate based increases in CO2 have failed. Despite hysterical predictions based on models, planet Earth has not deteriorated due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Nature and humans add traces of a trace gas CO2 to the atmosphere

The planet has not warmed for more than 18 years, models predicted a steady temperature increase over this time and a predicted hot spot over the equator has not eventuated. The models are not in accord with measured reality and are rejected. The science on climate change is far from settled, there is no consensus and there is no demonstrated evidence of human-induced global warming.

I can't believe he's still spouting such utter rubbish. His last book was totally discredited (e.g. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/books/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8nf-1225710387147) and he keeps at it.


“Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty.”

Very touching. But I don't understand why cheap coal should be seen as desirable, when solar, wind and hydro energy are not cheap but free - the energy costs nothing!

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2015, 02:23 PM
I can't believe he's still spouting such utter rubbish. His last book was totally discredited (e.g. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/books/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8nf-1225710387147) and he keeps at it.
Oh, by some establishment astrophysicist? That's supposed to be evidence?


Very touching. But I don't understand why cheap coal should be seen as desirable, when solar, wind and hydro energy are not cheap but free - the energy costs nothing!
Is that argument for real? Of course, the issue is capturing the diffuse and intermittent energy from solar and wind. Hydro is fine, although hardly free—over half of NZ's electricity is generated that way, but then this is concentrated in the form of the gravitational potential energy of elevated water. But then, NZ is ideal for hydro, unlike Oz.

Ian Murray
01-11-2015, 05:18 PM
Oh, by some establishment astrophysicist? That's supposed to be evidence?

There's plenty more - take your pick from here (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer)


Is that argument for real? Of course, the issue is capturing the diffuse and intermittent energy from solar and wind. Hydro is fine, although hardly free—over half of NZ's electricity is generated that way, but then this is concentrated in the form of the gravitational potential energy of elevated water. But then, NZ is ideal for hydro, unlike Oz.

Solar intermittency is no longer an issue. Affordable scalable battery storage is here now, with competing brands on the shelves in Australian stores, pioneered by the Tesla Powerwall (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/tesla-already-forcing-down-battery-storage-prices-in-australia-57681).

To provide third-world homes with coal-based electricity, the third world countries would need deepwater coal ports or access to the, coal unloading facilities and
delivery facilitiers (e.g. rail) to power stations (a 500 MW station needs around 225 tonnes of coal per hour, 24/7), and a transmission grid countrywide. The capital and operating costs are enormous, far exceeding the cost of local microgrids running on free energy.

Patrick Byrom
01-11-2015, 05:51 PM
Oh, by some establishment astrophysicist? That's supposed to be evidence?
This is supposed to be an argument? :)

You do realise that an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem):

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Although describing someone as "establishment" is not even a decent ad hominem argument!


... But then, NZ is ideal for hydro, unlike Oz. And solar is ideal for Australia and India.

Ian Murray
01-11-2015, 06:01 PM
...And solar is ideal for Australia and India.

And Africa, as is wind. And there are third world countries like Nepal and the -stans in Central Asia with abundant hydro potential.

Ian Murray
07-11-2015, 08:01 AM
Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?smid=nytnow-share&smprod=nytnow&_r=2)
New York Times
5.11.15

The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business....

Ian Murray
07-11-2015, 08:13 AM
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline After 7 Years Of Review (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/obama-keystone-xl-pipeline_55e74fd1e4b0b7a9633b693c)
Huffington Post Australia
6.11.15

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Friday rejected TransCanada's application to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported oil across the United States-Canada border.

After seven years of reviewing the project, Obama announced his decision -- ending one of the biggest environmental question marks of his presidency -- from the Roosevelt Room in the White House.

"The State Department has decided that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States," he said. "I agree with that decision." ...

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2015, 10:56 AM
[Pointless whinging deleted]
And solar is ideal for Australia and India.
But unlike hydro, solar power is diffuse and intermittent. Way to go to make Australian poor people suffer from energy poverty as in Germany because of their absurd "renewable energy" diktats. But then, to the Greens, poor people must be sacrificed for the Planet.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2015, 10:59 AM
Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You (http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/100815-774738-another-climate-alarmist-admits-what-warming-scare-is-all-about.htm)
BY KERRY JACKSON, Investor's Business Daily, 8 Oct 2015

World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man's combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary "inspired" by Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate." If the title isn't enough to give away Klein's motives for attacking the climate "crisis," then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

"So here's the big question," says Klein. "What if global warming isn't only a crisis? What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"

Rincewind
07-11-2015, 11:40 AM
More IBD conspiracy theories.

antichrist
07-11-2015, 12:15 PM
It is not only climate change, it is also the acidification of the ocean waters that threaten marine life and human food supply. And if so happen that industry had to close down at night fall it would not worry me much. Get humanity closer to nature. But I believe starting up steel furnaces is quite a task.

Ian Murray
07-11-2015, 12:15 PM
But unlike hydro, solar power is diffuse and intermittent.

Solar and wind are predictable, and solar is no longer intermittent - it can be stored cheaply and efficiently. Hydro is problematic as snowpacks dwindle and river flows weaken.

antichrist
07-11-2015, 12:20 PM
With climate change rain patterns are relocating, therefore making some hydro dams redundant, slowly but surely.

Ian Murray
07-11-2015, 12:39 PM
Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You (http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/100815-774738-another-climate-alarmist-admits-what-warming-scare-is-all-about.htm)
BY KERRY JACKSON, Investor's Business Daily, 8 Oct 2015

190 nation states, including all developed countries, recognise the climate change challenges and are attending the Conference of Parties in Paris, beginning in a few weeks. Most of them have done their homework in advance, prep[aring and submitting their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx).

The bleatings of the libertarian outliers are irrelevant.

Patrick Byrom
07-11-2015, 05:31 PM
But unlike hydro, solar power is diffuse and intermittent. ...
If you stop making ad hominem arguments, I'll stop "whinging" about them!

Australia of course is world-famous for its "diffuse and intermittent" sunshine - after all, sunburn and skin cancers are almost unknown here. :(

Ian Murray
08-11-2015, 10:04 AM
Solar power to light the way for Africa as low-carbon campaign launches (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/oct/22/solar-power-energy-africa-low-carbon-campaign-kofi-annan-bob-geldof-richard-branson?CMP=ema-60)
The Guardian
23.10.15

Kofi Annan, Bob Geldof, Richard Branson and international business leaders have joined politicians from 14 African countries to launch a global campaign to bring solar power to the 620 million people on the continent who must still use kerosene, candles and wood to light their homes and cook.

A dramatic fall in the cost of solar power, combined with growing access to mobile phones, has given Africa the chance to leapfrog richer countries’ polluting energy sources and to kickstart business, said Annan, chairman of the Africa progress panel and former UN secretary general....

Annan said that Africa did not have to follow the carbon-intensive pathway and energy practices of the rich countries and emerging countries that have brought the world to the brink of catastrophe. “The UN climate change conference in Paris must draw a line in the sand. Major emitting countries should seize the opportunity to put in place credible carbon pricing and taxation systems and to stop wasting billions on fossil fuel subsidies … we must now come together to break the deadly interaction between poverty and unsustainable energy systems.”

On Wednesday, Nigeria and Sierra Leone signed agreements with Britain to fast-track off-grid solar power to households. A further 12 countries, including Malawi, Senegal and Tanzania, are expected to join the Energy Africa alliance shortly.

“Ten years ago this was not possible. Now it can be turned round easily. The lower costs of solar power have made this possible. Nigeria has 96 million people without access to electricity. Most use kerosene. The default energy source should be solar. That was not available 10 years ago. Now it is,” said the Nigerian vice-president Yemi Osinbajo.

Geldof said that mobile phones allowed people even in remote communities to pay for solar electricity as and when they required it. “We needed technologies to exist before you could electrify a continent and with the advent of this thing we all have in our pocket it makes this doable. This is the moment when Africa switches on, powers up and goes for it.”

Without contributing money at this stage, Britain has pledged to use its offices throughout Africa to help cut red tape, unlock new sources of finance and promote policies to expand household-level solar electricity. It plans to work with donors, investors and lenders, industry and NGO groups, said the international development minister Grant Shapps.

“Energy Africa is a new way of delivering aid. It is about using our influence, getting the commercial markets to work for some of the poorest people in the world. This is about more than switching on lights. It means that the day doesn’t end when the sun goes down … it means not having to walk to town when you want to charge your phone … it means saving money because kerosene is one of the most expensive fuels in the world … It means not giving birth by candlelight,” said Shapps.

....
“Africa’s energy access crisis is holding back growth and keeping people in poverty. It is also one of the greatest market failures of our day. Renewable energy technologies are affordable and accessible – and Africa has some of the world’s richest and least tapped sources of solar energy.”

Ian Murray
09-11-2015, 04:25 PM
Banking On Climate Action, NAB And Commonwealth Bank Move To Support Paris Talks (https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/06/banking-on-climate-action-nab-and-commonwealth-bank-move-to-support-paris-talks/)
New Matilda
8.11.15

Two of Australia’s biggest banks stepped up their commitments to climate action, outlining how they will support the international push to limit the rise in average global temperatures to two degrees or less ahead of a major United Nations summit in Paris this December.

The Commonwealth and National Australia Banks confirmed they support the two degree target, with NAB even going as far as to committing to spending at least $18 billion by 2022 “to help address climate change and support the transition to a low carbon economy”....

Ian Murray
10-11-2015, 09:39 PM
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago. (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)

Global temperature rise set to hit 1°C of warming this year (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/global-temperature-rise-set-to-hit-1c-of-warming-this-year-74926)
ReNew Economy
10.11.15


Scientists expect 2015 to be the first year where global annual average temperature passes 1C above pre-industrial levels.

As of the end of September, global temperature is sitting at 1.02C above the 1850-1990 average, and is “expected to hold” for the rest of the year, a short Met Office report says.

This is another piece of evidence of “systematic warming” of the Earth’s climate, says Dr Peter Stott, head of the climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre.

The news ... comes on the same day as the World Meteorological Organisation announced that the global average concentration of carbon dioxide surpassed 400 parts per million in spring 2015 ...

It is also significant that atmospheric CO2 passed 400 ppm in Spring. Spring is when plant growth increases in the northern hemisphere, absorbing more CO2 than during other seasons.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2015, 12:57 AM
New crystal captures carbon from humid gas (http://www.su.se/english/research/leading-research-areas/science/new-crystal-captures-carbon-from-humid-gas-1.252235?cache=%2Fthird-cycle)
Stockholm University, 15 Oct 2015
A new material with micropores might be a way to fight climate change. Scientists have created crystals that capture carbon dioxide much more efficiently than previously known materials, even in the presence of water. The research was recently published in a report in the scientific journal Science.

One way to mitigate climate change could be to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. So far this has been difficult, since the presence of water prevents the adsorption of CO2. Complete dehydration is a costly process. Scientists have now created a stable and recyclable material, where the micropores within the crystal have different adsorption sites for carbon dioxide and water.


Microporous copper silicate sucks up carbon dioxide (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/10/microporous-copper-silicate-carbon-dioxide-capture)
James Urquhart, Chemistry World, 16 October 2015

In tests the team found that SGU-29 can capture carbon dioxide, even in the presence of moisture, because it has a hydrophobic silica nanotube region and a relatively hydrophilic region. Yoon says the size of the nanotube region of SGU-29 is an excellent fit for carbon dioxide. So, while water cannot enter the nanotube region, carbon dioxide can and is trapped. However, cheaply desorbing carbon dioxide from the material to use it again remains a challenge. 'Right now it requires vacuum and a temperature swing to reuse them,' says Yoon.

Original paper: S. J. Datta, C. Khumnoon, Z. H. Lee, W. K. Moon, S. Docao, T. H. Nguyen, I. C. Hwang, D. Moon, P. Oleynikov, O. Terasaki, K. B. Yoon. CO2 capture from humid flue gases and humid atmosphere using a microporous coppersilicate (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/302), Science 350(6258):302–306, 16 October 2015 | doi:10.1126/science.aab1680

Ian Murray
13-11-2015, 07:42 AM
New crystal captures carbon from humid gas (http://www.su.se/english/research/leading-research-areas/science/new-crystal-captures-carbon-from-humid-gas-1.252235?cache=%2Fthird-cycle)
Stockholm University, 15 Oct 2015
A new material with micropores might be a way to fight climate change. Scientists have created crystals that capture carbon dioxide much more efficiently than previously known materials, even in the presence of water. The research was recently published in a report in the scientific journal Science....

Promising. There is a lot of work being done on ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere at scale.

Desmond
13-11-2015, 07:22 PM
Pretty amazing, considering that Global Warming is just a leftist conspiracy, that we are heading for 2 record-breaking consecutive years of the warmest year on record with records going back 136-odd years. What are the odds?

Ian Murray
14-11-2015, 07:00 AM
Pretty amazing, considering that Global Warming is just a leftist conspiracy, that we are heading for 2 record-breaking consecutive years of the warmest year on record with records going back 136-odd years. What are the odds?

The 2014 global average surface temperature was below 0.9°C above the 1950 baseline. The 2015 average will be +1° above the baseline. We didn't have even one year in the 0.9-1° average range, but jumped more than a tenth. Ominous. It remains to be seen how much of that is due to the El Nino event now building up.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2015, 12:36 PM
I wave the white flag in the face of the overwhelming evidence presented by the leftists here. Climate change is the most serious danger we face. According to eminent climatologist Bernie Sanders, climate change is responsible for Islamonazi terrorism (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260210-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-causes-terrorism).

Rincewind
16-11-2015, 01:28 PM
I wave the white flag in the face of the overwhelming evidence presented by the leftists here. Climate change is the most serious danger we face. According to eminent climatologist Bernie Sanders, climate change is responsible for Islamonazi terrorism (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260210-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-causes-terrorism).

The quotes I've seen Sanders is making an analogy. Increased competition for resources will lead to conflict. This is not a new claim the ipcc second working part on impacts reported in 2014...


Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence).

Ian Murray
16-11-2015, 05:11 PM
The quotes I've seen Sanders is making an analogy. Increased competition for resources will lead to conflict. This is not a new claim the ipcc second working part on impacts reported in 2014...

While there is no direct causal link between climate change and terrorism, as Rincewind says there will be increasing stesssors on natural resources, particularly water, which have the potential to cause conflict.

The Pentagon recognises the security risks in its climate change planning (http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710).

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2015, 09:23 AM
Bjørn Lomborg:

The Paris Climate summit will likely cost more than $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) each year for the rest of the century (http://bit.ly/1X42OXw).

It will reduce global warming by 0.17°C (0.3o6°F) by 2100 (http://bit.ly/1PmmeHV).

EU will pay at least €287 billion annually.

US will pay at least $152 billion annually.

Mexico will pay at least $80 billion annually.

China will likely pay $200 billion annually.

Rest of World will pay another $200 billion annually.

And this is if all politicians do all the smartest policies all the way through the century. Experience shows they usually pick really inefficient climate policies, which usually double the costs.

Maybe time for a smarter policy?

Ian Murray
18-11-2015, 10:25 AM
National pledges made in the run up to Paris have been aggregated (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/climate-2c-global-warming-target-fail) and the total effect will be a rise in global temperature of 2.7°C by 2100. Too high to avoid catastrophic climate events - countries will need to ramp up their emissions-reduction efforts.

Inaction will cost much more than action now.

ER
18-11-2015, 11:31 AM
Bjørn Lomborg:

The Paris Climate summit will likely cost more than $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) each year (...)

EU will pay at least €287 billion annually.

US will pay at least $152 billion annually.

Mexico will pay at least $80 billion annually.

China will likely pay $200 billion annually.

Rest of World will pay another $200 billion annually.



Doesn't the report specify costs for Aus??? I mean if the "Rest Of World" included India and Russia the bill would be much less for us wouldn't it? but still it's that "annually" bit that worries me!

Ian Murray
18-11-2015, 01:00 PM
Doesn't the report specify costs for Aus??? I mean if the "Rest Of World" included India and Russia the bill would be much less for us wouldn't it? but still it's that "annually" bit that worries me!

Carbon policy: smoke and mirrors of Direct Action (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/carbon-policy-smoke-and-mirrors-of-direct-action/story-e6frg6zo-1227322892469)
The Australian op-ed
27.4.15

Last week Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, announced the winners of the Carbon Abatement Fund, the bright, shining light of the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy.

Rarely have we seen so much excitement about the spending of taxpayers’ dollars. $660 million and was set aside or 47 million tonnes of carbon abatement at $13.95 a tonne. Huzzah for the government! Huzzah for the way they spend other people’s money!....

Patrick Byrom
18-11-2015, 01:30 PM
Bjørn Lomborg: ...
It will reduce global warming by 0.17°C (0.3o6°F) by 2100 (http://bit.ly/1PmmeHV).
Only if you believe Lomborg. And you shouldn't (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/09/3720613/lomborg-misleads-paris-climate-pledges/):

Dr. Lomborg sets out to show that the INDCs are useless. To do so he grossly misrepresents the pledges. He constructs an incomplete accounting of the pledges that omits the pledges of many nations, ignores China’s pledge to cap its emissions by 2030, and assumes that the [European Union countries] abandon their commitment to emissions reductions as soon as their pledges are fulfilled.”

Patrick Byrom
18-11-2015, 09:25 PM
Doesn't the report specify costs for Aus??? I mean if the "Rest Of World" included India and Russia the bill would be much less for us wouldn't it? but still it's that "annually" bit that worries me!I wouldn't worry too much. If the reductions are achieved using the most efficient methods - a carbon tax or ETS - then the cost is likely to be only a few hundred dollars per person annually (at most), and there would be compensation. The cost with 'Direct Action' would be much higher, of course, and there won't be any compensation (since it doesn't generate revenue, but only spends it).

Ian Murray
19-11-2015, 09:30 PM
The Senate just voted to block the Clean Power Plan. Here's the good news (https://www.edf.org/blog/2015/11/18/senate-just-voted-block-clean-power-plan-heres-good-news?).


...So take it from someone who keeps a close eye on these votes in Congress: It was a good day for the plan to cut pollution from power plants, for United States climate leadership, and for a clean energy future.

Why?

Because yesterday’s votes showed that the Clean Power Plan has gained support in the Senate since a test vote earlier this year.

More importantly, the votes demonstrated that the Senate is well short of what is needed if Senators truly want to stop the plan from taking effect.

The measures that were passed narrowly (52 to 46) are going nowhere. President Obama will veto these efforts to undo the Clean Power Plan, and there are more than enough supporters of the plan in Congress to sustain the veto....

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2015, 12:42 AM
Only if you believe Lomborg. And you shouldn't (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/09/3720613/lomborg-misleads-paris-climate-pledges/):

Dr. Lomborg sets out to show that the INDCs are useless. To do so he grossly misrepresents the pledges. He constructs an incomplete accounting of the pledges that omits the pledges of many nations, ignores China’s pledge to cap its emissions by 2030, and assumes that the [European Union countries] abandon their commitment to emissions reductions as soon as their pledges are fulfilled.”

Oh of course, we should always trust China's pledges.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2015, 12:43 AM
Carbon policy: smoke and mirrors of Direct Action (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/carbon-policy-smoke-and-mirrors-of-direct-action/story-e6frg6zo-1227322892469)
The Australian op-ed
27.4.15

Last week Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, announced the winners of the Carbon Abatement Fund, the bright, shining light of the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy.

Rarely have we seen so much excitement about the spending of taxpayers’ dollars. $660 million and was set aside or 47 million tonnes of carbon abatement at $13.95 a tonne. Huzzah for the government! Huzzah for the way they spend other people’s money!....

Since when has the Left been concerned about spending other people's money? That is the whole MO of the Left!

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2015, 08:50 AM
Climate Policies Kill Through Fuel Poverty
By E. Calvin Beisner, 19 Nov. 2015

Deepak Lal, one of the world’s leading development economists, wrote in his book Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:


The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. …

[I]t is mankind’s use of the mineral energy stored in nature’s gift of fossil fuels … [that] allowed the ascent from structural poverty which had scarred humankind for millennia.

To put a limit on the use of fossil fuels without adequate economically viable alternatives is to condemn the Third World to perpetual structural poverty.

Although the harm such policies would bring to these poorest of the poor around the world is our greatest concern, we cannot ignore the harm they would bring to millions in the developed world as well.

The starkest measure of that is probably the increase in excess winter deaths (EWDs) caused by fuel poverty. This is a problem that has arisen around Europe over the last decade or so. Policies to reduce global warming by mandatory substitution of more expensive wind and solar energy for less expensive energy generated from coal and natural gas have caused home heating costs to rise substantially, resulting in a rapid increase in fuel poverty — defined as needing to spend 10 percent or more of household income on home heating. This in turn has led to an increase in EWDs.

Ian Murray
20-11-2015, 09:24 AM
Climate Policies Kill Through Fuel Poverty
By E. Calvin Beisner, 19 Nov. 2015

Deepak Lal, one of the world’s leading development economists, wrote in his book Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:

[INDENT]The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. …

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world’s leading development economists, writes in Project Syndicate (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/renewable-energy-decarbonization-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2015-10#eQh8w5rc0edex7Or.99):


In May 1961, President John F. Kennedy stirred America and the world with these words: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” Just eight years later, NASA did just that – with astounding benefits for science, technology, and the world economy. Now, a group of leading scientists, innovators, and economists has identified our era’s moonshot: to replace fossil fuels with clean-energy technologies within this generation.

Since a group of policy leaders from the United Kingdom initiated the Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change earlier this year, I and many others have enthusiastically signed on. The program, named after the NASA moon mission, is built on the idea of “directed technological change.” In other words, through a conscious effort, backed by public funds, we can steer the development of the advanced technologies needed to ensure humanity’s safety and wellbeing. At the top of the list is clean energy, which will enable us to head off the global warming caused by the combustion of massive amounts of coal, oil, and gas worldwide.

The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) has demonstrated that a low-carbon future is within reach, with huge benefits at a very modest cost. In the United States, for example, cutting emissions by 80% by 2050 is not only feasible; it would require added outlays of only around 1% of GDP per year. And the benefits – including a safer climate, smarter infrastructure, better vehicles, and cleaner air – would be massive.

Pathways to a low-carbon future focus on three main actions: improving energy efficiency, producing electricity from low-carbon energy sources (such as solar and wind energy), and switching from petroleum to low-carbon energy for powering vehicles (such as electric or fuel-cell vehicles) and heating buildings. These are clear and achievable goals, and the public sector should play a major role in advancing them.

Politicians need to end subsidies for coal, oil, and gas, and start taxing emissions from their use. Moreover, they must meet the need for new power lines to carry low-carbon solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power from remote areas (and offshore platforms) to population centers.

But meeting these requirements presupposes advances in technologies that will enable low-carbon energy systems to compete with the alternatives. That is where the Apollo Programme comes in, with its bold goal of reducing the cost of renewable energy to below that of coal, oil, and gas....

Patrick Byrom
20-11-2015, 12:37 PM
Climate Policies Kill Through Fuel Poverty By E. Calvin Beisner, 19 Nov. 2015
Deepak Lal, one of the world’s leading development economists, wrote in his book Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:

The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. …
So in countries where most people don't have reliable access to clean water or sewage, everything can be fixed with more coal :)


The starkest measure of that is probably the increase in excess winter deaths (EWDs) caused by fuel poverty. This is a problem that has arisen around Europe over the last decade or so. Policies to reduce global warming by mandatory substitution of more expensive wind and solar energy for less expensive energy generated from coal and natural gas have caused home heating costs to rise substantially, resulting in a rapid increase in fuel poverty — defined as needing to spend 10 percent or more of household income on home heating. This in turn has led to an increase in EWDs.
For such a serious problem, it's surprising that no actual numbers are listed. Perhaps it's not really that serious a problem.

Ian Murray
20-11-2015, 07:16 PM
Paris 2015: Australia's quiet climate commitment to decarbonise the economy (http://www.theage.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-2015-australias-quiet-climate-commitment-to-decarbonise-the-economy-20151119-gl2vy3.html?utm_source=Today&utm_campaign=25c1cc674a-Today_20_November_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_673b6b002d-25c1cc674a-303698669)
The Age
19.11.15

The Turnbull government has quietly committed Australia to support decarbonising the world economy as one of the goals for this month's global climate summit in Paris, a move that has drawn applause.

With little fanfare, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull agreed on the sidelines of the G20 gathering with European leaders in Turkey this week that the language of the Paris agreement should agree on a long-term goal to ensure temperatures keep within an increase of 2 degrees on pre-industrial levels....

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2015, 01:55 AM
So in countries where most people don't have reliable access to clean water or sewage, everything can be fixed with more coal :)
More coal-generated power via Rankine Cycle steam engines, which can be over 40% efficient. Far better than Greenies restricting them to dung-fired home heating.


For such a serious problem, it's surprising that no actual numbers are listed. Perhaps it's not really that serious a problem.
Of course it's not a serious problem for Greenies: it's a sacrifice that must be made for Gaia. In reality:


Winter death toll 'to exceed 40,000' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11382808/Winter-death-toll-to-exceed-40000.html)
Campaigners say the figures are a "tragedy" and that more should be done to help vulnerable elderly people
By Victoria Ward, Telegraph (UK), 1 Feb 2015

The cold weather death toll this winter is expected to top 40,000, the highest number for 15 years.
The figures were described as a “tragedy for the elderly” by campaigners who warned that not enough was being done to protect pensioners from unnecessary deaths in cold weather.
Malcolm Booth, chief executive of the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners, said: “Excess winter deaths look like rising above the exceptional 2008-09 total and potentially reaching above 40,000 - and that is a disaster for the elderly in Britain.

Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Department of Health’s chief medical officer, said severe weather could “substantially add to the average winter death toll.”
She wrote in Public Health England’s Cold Weather Plan for England 2014-15: “Excess deaths are not just deaths of those who would have died anyway in the next few weeks or months due to illness or old age.
“There is strong evidence some of these deaths are indeed “extra” and are related to cold temperatures, living in cold homes as well as infectious diseases such as influenza.”

Age UK has warned that one person could die every seven minutes this winter and called on the government to improve energy efficiency in a bid to end fuel poverty.

So-called renewable energy, except hydro, is much more expensive so less affordable. It also indicates that a little global warming could be a good thing in alleviating the winter cold and thus the EWDs.

Ian Murray
22-11-2015, 08:21 AM
More coal-generated power via Rankine Cycle steam engines, which can be over 40% efficient. Far better than Greenies restricting them to dung-fired home heating.
Coal-fired multi-megawatt power stations, with their air pollution problems and large-scale grid distribution costs, have suited developed countries but do not suit developing countries. They can't afford the capital costs and ongoing coal supply costs, and are much better served by cheaper renewables.


Of course it's not a serious problem for Greenies: it's a sacrifice that must be made for Gaia. In reality:

[INDENT]Winter death toll 'to exceed 40,000' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11382808/Winter-death-toll-to-exceed-40000.html)
Campaigners say the figures are a "tragedy" and that more should be done to help vulnerable elderly people
By Victoria Ward, Telegraph (UK), 1 Feb 2015
The tabloids may beat it up, but the present spike in British winter deaths among the elderly is attributed to circulating influenza and cold snaps (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403556/Weekly_report_mortality_week_7.pdf), and poor efficacy of the current flu vaccine (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31164634). A less strident explanation can be found here (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31518899).

Patrick Byrom
22-11-2015, 08:38 PM
More coal-generated power via Rankine Cycle steam engines, which can be over 40% efficient. Far better than Greenies restricting them to dung-fired home heating.I'm not clear on how that helps to provides clean water and sewage.


Of course it's not a serious problem for Greenies: it's a sacrifice that must be made for Gaia. In reality: ...
Your article doesn't mention renewables as a problem.


So-called renewable energy, except hydro, is much more expensive so less affordable. It also indicates that a little global warming could be a good thing in alleviating the winter cold and thus the EWDs.I'm glad you agree with President Obama that warming should be restricted to no more than 2C. :)

But unfortunately global warming can't be concentrated in one location, so the warming that alleviates winter cold in Europe also increases summer temperatures in Australia, which causes other problems.

Capablanca-Fan
23-11-2015, 08:24 AM
Coal-fired multi-megawatt power stations, with their air pollution problems and large-scale grid distribution costs, have suited developed countries but do not suit developing countries. They can't afford the capital costs and ongoing coal supply costs, and are much better served by cheaper renewables.
The devloped countries were once developing countries, and became developed largely because of coal-fired Rankine Cycle steam engines enabling multi-megawatt power stations. China and India know this, which is why they are building the same.


The tabloids may beat it up, but the present spike in British winter deaths among the elderly is attributed to circulating influenza and cold snaps (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403556/Weekly_report_mortality_week_7.pdf), and poor efficacy of the current flu vaccine (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31164634). A less strident explanation can be found here (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31518899).
Evading the real problem of energy poverty. Obviously if the price is increased thanks to the higher cost of so-called renewables, then that will make power less affordable.

Ian Murray
23-11-2015, 04:08 PM
The devloped countries were once developing countries, and became developed largely because of coal-fired Rankine Cycle steam engines enabling multi-megawatt power stations. China and India know this, which is why they are building the same.

Technology is bypassing the need for developing countries to follow in the footsteps of the first world, e.g. the developed countries introduced telecommunications via poles and wires. China and rural Africa and Asia have leapfrogged this step, going straight to wireless telephony and internet. Similarly it is possible, and makes eminently more sense, for energy to be delivered to areas without poles and wires by low-cost community generators. Obviously coal and oil are unsuitable, unlike solar, wind and locally-produced biomass.

China's INDC to COP21 in Paris forecasts peak emissions by 2030 then reduction. In fact coal has already peaked (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/fall-in-chinas-coal-use-here-to-stay-leading-expert-says-20151006-gk2dbq.html), while China leads the world in renewables investment and has embarked on a $US257 billion five-year clean air campaign.

India has ambitious plans (https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-will-india-no-longer-buy-australian-coal-46256) to finish thermal coal imports inside a few years and ramp up local production and renewables, especially for the 300 million Indians without grid power.


Evading the real problem of energy poverty. Obviously if the price is increased thanks to the higher cost of so-called renewables, then that will make power less affordable.
Get with the program. Renewables do not cost more so there is no increased cost. Coats are now at par, and renewables are coming down while fossils are not, as Citi economists explain:

ENERGY DARWINISM II Why a Low Carbon Future Doesn’t Have to Cost the Earth (https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps/ReportSeries.action?recordId=41)

2993

2994

Ian Murray
23-11-2015, 09:27 PM
Historic opportunity to end poverty will be lost if we don’t tackle climate change (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/23/historic-opportunity-end-poverty-will-be-lost-if-we-dont-tackle-climate-change)
Jim Yong Kim
World Bank President
23.11.15

We can be the first generation to halt poverty, but only if we take ambitious international action against rising temperatures that could devastate the poorest

Over the past 15 years – and contrary to popular belief – the world has made tremendous progress in reducing global poverty. One billion fewer people live in extreme poverty today than in 2000. This year, the rate of extreme global poverty is expected to fall below 10%, dropping into single digits for the first time in history. Inclusive economic growth, especially in China and India, has driven this success.

This kind of economic growth, which increases the income of the poorest 40%, is critical to reaching our global goal of ending poverty by 2030.

We are the first generation in history that can end poverty, but we will lose this opportunity if we do not tackle climate change, which will affect all of our lives and could devastate the poorest. It may push more than 100 million people into poverty in the next 15 years, according to a new World Bank Group report.

Extreme weather conditions are already wreaking havoc across the world. This year’s El Niño is expected to be one of the strongest yet, affecting billions of people in South and North America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Orange farmers in Florida, coffee growers in Indonesia, and tea harvesters in Kenya are among those who could see their crops damaged. The last time El Niño was this severe, in 1997-98, floods, fires, droughts and other disasters killed 30,000 people, displaced at least 24 million in China, India, Honduras and the Dominican Republic, and caused an estimated $100bn (£66bn) in damage.

Changing weather patterns will also increase the spread of disease carriers and infectious diseases like malaria, which is projected to strike about 214 million people in 2015. Almost 90% of these cases will be in sub-Saharan Africa. Rising global temperatures could put 150 million more people at risk and have a significant impact on productivity, undermining inclusive growth.

The poor will suffer the most....

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2015, 05:25 AM
Whatever happened to Michael Mann’s defamation suit? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/02/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit/)
By Jonathan H. Adler, Volokh Conspiracy, Washington Post, 2 December 2015


The last time we checked in on the case, three of the defendants (all save Steyn) were seeking to appeal (https://popehat.com/2014/05/02/d-c-court-of-appeals-agrees-to-hear-merits-of-anti-slapp-appeal-in-michael-manns-defamation-case/) the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP (anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit motion. Oral argument on this question before the D.C. Court of Appeals took place more than a year ago, and there’s still no word. Most other cases heard around that time have been decided, suggesting the court may be having some difficulty — perhaps because some of the judges are conflicted or the panel is split. This would be unfortunate because, in my view, the primary issues should be clear. Even folks who share Mann’s view of climate science (and his dim view of climate skeptics) recognize the danger of his suit (see, e.g., Dan Farber’s post at Legal Planet (http://legal-planet.org/2013/09/16/lies-damned-lies-and-climate-denial/)). In addition, a wealth of amici (http://dcslapplaw.com/2014/11/12/temperatures-rise-in-mann-libel-suit/) not particularly sympathetic to CEI or National Review ideologically nonetheless support their legal position.

It is also worth noting that this is not the only case implicating D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law (http://dcslapplaw.com/2015/03/11/the-waiting-is-the-hardest-part/) that has been sitting around, suggesting that the judges may be having a difficult time on this aspect of the case. In any event, one would think it would not take over a year to sort out these questions. Indeed, the extent to which this litigation has been drawn out makes a mockery of the D.C. anti-SLAPP law, which was intended to accelerate the resolution of speech-related suits so as to reduce their potential effect of chilling protected expression.

Jonathan H. Adler teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at the Case Western University School of Law, where he is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation.

Ian Murray
09-12-2015, 05:08 PM
Exposed: Academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding (https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/)
Energydesk Greenpeace
8.12.15

A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests.

Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, reporters from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries.

The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding....

The investigation also found:

US coal giant Peabody Energy also paid tens of thousands of dollars to an academic who produced coal-friendly research and provided testimony at state and federal climate hearings, the amount of which was never revealed.
The Donors Trust, an organisation that has been described as the “dark money ATM” of the US conservative movement, confirmed in a taped conversation with an undercover reporter that it could anonymously channel money from a fictional Middle Eastern oil and gas company to US climate sceptic organisations.
Princeton professor William Happer laid out details of an unofficial peer review process run by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK climate sceptic think tank, and said he could ask to put an oil-funded report through a similar review process, after admitting that it would struggle to be published in an academic journal.
A recent report by the GWPF that had been through the same unofficial peer review process, was promoted as “thoroughly peer-reviewed” by influential columnist Matt Ridley - a senior figure in the organisation.

The findings echo the case of Willie Soon, who was the subject of an investigation published in the New York Times earlier this year. The investigation revealed that Soon had accepted donations from fossil fuel companies and anonymous donors in return for producing climate-sceptic scientific papers. He described his studies as “deliverables” and failed to declare who paid for the research....

Patrick Byrom
10-12-2015, 05:42 PM
Finally! The LNP supports an emissions trading scheme (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-un-climate-conference-2015-australian-government-suddenly-backs-carbon-markets-20151209-gljue4.html):

Eyebrows were raised after the Turnbull government shifted its stance overnight when Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop signed up to a New Zealand-led declaration at the Paris climate summit backing the use of international carbon markets in tackling climate change.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2015, 01:44 AM
Mark Steyn rebukes Democrats in climate hearing: 'You're effectively enforcing a state ideology'. And it will do nothing practical to help the alleged problems, such as flooding Miami beaches. He points out that only weak ideas need protection from competition.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTM13sI2BFQ

Rincewind
11-12-2015, 08:57 AM
I hope that was meant to be funny.

Ian Murray
14-12-2015, 01:56 PM
The road from Copenhagen (http://insidestory.org.au/the-road-from-copenhagen)

How did we get from there to here? In Paris Giles Parkinson looks at how the momentum built for climate action
Inside Story
14.12.15

After decades of resistance from fossil fuel interests, twenty-one years of frustrating negotiations, two years of intense diplomacy by the French, and two weeks of concentrated talks, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius was poised to tell the world that a deal – if not to save the planet, but at least to prevent its worst impacts – had been done.

...And so, at 7.30pm local time on Saturday 12 December, Fabius brought down the gavel, signalling the beginning of the end of the fossil era. The gesture created a moment’s pause, and then an outpouring of celebrations on the conference floor and in nearby corridors. In the boardroom of Big Coal, the groan might have been audible.

The deal secured by 196 nations ... goes beyond what anyone could have imagined six months ago, or even a fortnight ago when 150 government leaders turned up to the first day of talks in the biggest gathering of leaders ever seen.

The Paris Agreement calls for a target to keep average global warming to “well below” 2°C, and includes an aspirational target of 1.5°C – targets that mean that fossil fuels will need to be removed from the world’s energy systems by around 2050. To get there, the world is going to have to quickly scale up its actions. The Paris Agreement calls for a stocktake in 2018, followed by new pledges, and for this process to be repeated every five years until the target is met....

Ian Murray
15-12-2015, 08:07 PM
Paris Agreement: Top CEOs react
Big business predicts 'Paris effect' will help drive low carbon transition (http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2439055/paris-agreement-top-ceos-react)

BusinessGreen
14.12.15

In the hours after the adoption of the Paris Agreement reaction, business leaders from around the world rushed to hail an historic deal that will help fundamentally transform how they operate.

BusinessGreen rounds up the best reaction from some of the world's most high profile CEO's and top executives....

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2015, 01:05 AM
Paterson: Thank god the Paris meeting was a failure
A global legally binding climate agreement would be bad for Australia and bad for the developing world - it's a good thing one wasn't signed in Paris. The IPA's James Paterson explained why on Sky News on Monday 14 December 2015.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7hKw7zZI1w

Ian Murray
18-12-2015, 07:43 AM
Paterson: Thank god the Paris meeting was a failure
A global legally binding climate agreement would be bad for Australia and bad for the developing world - it's a good thing one wasn't signed in Paris. The IPA's James Paterson explained why on Sky News on Monday 14 December 2015.

Paterson didn't explain, but misled. He cited the shonky view of Bjorn Lomborg, who has no science qualifications (other than political science), ignoring the findings of real climate scientists. And he infers that runaway climate change would be good for Australia and the developing world. Thankfully the 196 nations which signed on to the Paris Agreement think differently, and are legally bound (after ratification) by the agreement but not their individual pledges.

Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations)
The Guardian
14.12.15


...Paris produced an agreement hailed as “historic, durable and ambitious”. Developed and developing countries alike are required to limit their emissions to relatively safe levels, of 2C with an aspiration of 1.5C, with regular reviews to ensure these commitments can be increased in line with scientific advice. Finance will be provided to poor nations to help them cut emissions and cope with the effects of extreme weather. Countries affected by climate-related disasters will gain urgent aid.

Like any international compromise, it is not perfect: the caps on emissions are still too loose, likely to lead to warming of 2.7 to 3C above pre-industrial levels, breaching the 2C threshold that scientists say is the limit of safety, beyond which the effects – droughts, floods, heatwaves and sea level rises – are likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Poor countries are also concerned that the money provided to them will not be nearly enough to protect them. Not all of the agreement is legally binding, so future governments of the signatory countries could yet renege on their commitments....

What Australians voted for at the last election has no bearing on what action Australians now want on climate change:

Two-thirds want more climate action: poll
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/two-thirds-want-more-climate-action-poll/news-story/9f6592acd24ea20f415a7f46ccdacc26

More than half of the Australian population – 52% – now say global warming is ‘a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’. This is an increase of 16 percentage points since 2012.
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/2015-polling-climate-change

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2015, 08:41 AM
Paterson didn't explain, but misled. He cited the shonky view of Bjorn Lomborg, who has no science qualifications (other than political science),
But alGore is a real expert; he made Inconvenient Truth, don't you know?

Note also, Lomborg accepts AGW, and thinks it needs to be addressed, but thinks that the currently proposed solutions will induce poverty, while better directed solutions will do far more for humanity. Conversely, your ilk is OK with many Europeans dying of cold in winter because the cost of "renewables" has caused energy poverty, so they can't afford to heat their homes. See this video presentation from 30 November 2015:

Is man-made climate change our biggest problem? Are the wildfires, droughts and hurricanes we see on the news an omen of even worse things to come? The United Nations and many political leaders think so and want to spend trillions of tax dollars to reverse the warming trend. Are they right? Will the enormous cost justify the gain? Economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains the key issues and reaches some sobering conclusions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgm3QOWt6Tc

Patrick Byrom
18-12-2015, 05:31 PM
But alGore is a real expert; he made Inconvenient Truth, don't you know?Gore accepts the advice of scientists, unlike Lomborg. As this article explains (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/23/australia-paying-4-million-for-bjrn-lomborgs-flawed-methods-that-downgrade-climate-change):

When Lomborg talks about climate change, he has a set of rehearsed lines saying he accepts that climate change is real, its caused by humans and that it’s a problem. But when Lomborg does venture beyond his standard talking points into climate science commentary, he routinely infuriates genuine climate scientists. In my view, this is for good reason.



Note also, Lomborg accepts AGW, and thinks it needs to be addressed, but thinks that the currently proposed solutions will induce poverty, while better directed solutions will do far more for humanity. Conversely, your ilk is OK with many Europeans dying of cold in winter because the cost of "renewables" has caused energy poverty, so they can't afford to heat their homes....That's not the view of the UK energy regulator Ofgem (http://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-do-renewable-and-energy-efficiency-policies-add-to-energy-bills):

Energy regulator Ofgem estimated at the end of 2012 that environmental and social levies added about £107 to consumer bills – making up eight per cent of an average 2012 annual bill.
An extra $A4 per week seems unlikely to condemn anyone to fuel poverty - and the extra cost is not only from renewables, of course.

Desmond
18-12-2015, 06:08 PM
Meanwhile 2015 is on track to eclipse 2014 as the hottest year on record.

A new global temperature forecast from the UK's Met Office says that 2016 is likely to be even warmer than 2015.

This year has already been provisionally declared the warmest on record thanks to a combination of global warming and a strong El Nino.

The Met Office believes that temperatures in 2016 could be 1.1C above pre-industrial levels.
...

Ian Murray
19-12-2015, 12:55 PM
Lomborg accepts AGW, and thinks it needs to be addressed, but thinks that the currently proposed solutions will induce poverty, while better directed solutions will do far more for humanity.

His idea of better directed solutions is more R&D, when nothing works without stopping GHGs. See below for comment on his fiction that planned mitigation measures will only reduce global temperature by 0.1°F by 2100!


Conversely, your ilk is OK with many Europeans dying of cold in winter because the cost of "renewables" has caused energy poverty, so they can't afford to heat their homes.

Over the seven-year period 2008-14 European household electricity prices (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6849826/8-27052015-AP-EN.pdf) rose 30% and gas prices 35% In the ten years to June 2013 Australian household prices (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/ EnergyPrices) in real terms increased by 72% and 54% respectively


See this video presentation from 30 November 2015:

What a Gish Gallop of fractured factoids and picked cherries - where to start?

1. Wildfires have decreased by 15% since 1950.
The number of fires may have decrerased, but fire sizes have increased and fire seasons have lengthened.
http://wildfiretoday.com/2011/04/26/average-size-of-wildfires-1960-2010/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150728100043.htm

2. Droughts are increasing in some regions but decreasing in others.
"Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The
contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will likely increase, although
there may be regional exceptions. Climate change is adding extra heat to the climate system and on land much of
that heat goes into drying. A natural drought should therefore set in quicker, become more intense, and may last
longer. Droughts may be more extensive as a result. Indeed the major time that human-induced warming effects
accumulate on land is during drought because the “air conditioning effects” of water are absent. Climate change may
not manufacture droughts, but it could exacerbate them and it will likely expand their domain in the subtropical dry
zone." Trenberth et al 2014 Global warming and changes in drought, Nature Climate Change, 4, 17-22,
doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2067 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.pdf/Drought_ClimCh_v7-ss.pdf.

3. Cost of climate policies in European Union alone estimated at $250 billion per year.
Even if accurate, that's 1.3% of GDP, easily affordable when compared to the costs of inaction. And then he
extrapolates the annual costs till 2020 out to total cost to 2100, when the 2020 targets have already been achieved.

4. Even under the most optimistic scenario the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 only 2,2% of
world's energy will come from wind and solar, with 80% still from fossil fuels.
Where does he dream up this stuff? The month before this video was published, IEA released its 2015 Renewable Energy Medium Term Market Report (https://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2015/october/renewables-to-lead-world-power-market- growth-to-2020.html):

"Renewables to lead world power market growth to 2020

As costs fall and emerging economies drive growth, IEA report sees major opportunities – but policy uncertainties
remain. Renewable energy will represent the largest single source of electricity growth over the next five years,
driven by falling costs and aggressive expansion in emerging economies, the IEA said Friday in an annual market
report. Pointing to the great promise renewables hold for affordably mitigating climate change and enhancing energy
security, the report warns governments to reduce policy uncertainties that are acting as brakes on greater
deployment.

“Renewables are poised to seize the crucial top spot in global power supply growth, but this is hardly time for
complacency,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol as he released the IEA’s Medium-Term Renewable Energy
Market Report 2015 (MTRMR) at the G20 Energy Ministers Meeting. “Governments must remove the question
marks over renewables if these technologies are to achieve their full potential, and put our energy system on a more
secure, sustainable path.”

Renewable electricity additions over the next five years will top 700 gigawatts (GW) – more than twice Japan’s
current installed power capacity. They will account for almost two-thirds of net additions to global power capacity –
that is, the amount of new capacity that is added, minus scheduled retirements of existing power plants. Non-hydro
sources such as wind and solar photovoltaic panels (solar PV) will represent nearly half of the total global power
capacity increase.

The report sees the share of renewable energy in global power generation rising to over 26% by 2020 from 22% in
2013 – a remarkable shift in a very limited period of time. By 2020, the amount of global electricity generation coming
from renewable energy will be higher than today’s combined electricity demand of China, India and Brazil.

The report says the geography of deployment will increasingly shift to emerging economies and developing
countries, which will make up two-thirds of the renewable electricity expansion to 2020. China alone will account for
nearly 40% of total renewable power capacity growth and requires almost one-third of new investment to 2020.

Declining costs drive growth

Renewable generation costs have declined in many parts of the world due to sustained technology progress,
improved financing conditions and expansion of deployment to newer markets with better resources. Announced
prices for long-term generation contracts at reduced levels are emerging in areas as diverse as Brazil, India, the
Middle East, South Africa and the United States. As such, some countries and regions now have the potential to
leapfrog to a development paradigm mainly based on increasingly affordable renewable power. This is especially
true in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“Affordable renewables are set to dominate the emerging power systems of the world,” Dr. Birol said. “With excellent
hydro, solar and wind resources, improving cost-effectiveness and policy momentum, renewables can play a critical
role in supporting economic growth and energy access in sub-Saharan Africa, meeting almost two-thirds of the
region’s new demand needs over the next five years.”

NB Renewables greater than 26% of world net energy generation by 2020 (not 2040). Nearly half of net additions to
capacity will be from non-hydro, e.g. wind and solar.

5. Renewables are still inefficient because they require subsidies of more that $120 billion a year even in 2040
The European Commission reported 2012 EU28 subsidies (http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/report-eu-renewable-energy-first-recipient-state-aid-309137) as €14.7bn solar, €10.1bn onshore wind, €8.3bn
biomass, €5.2bn hydro, €10.1bn coal, €7bn nuclear, €5.2bn natural gas.

However direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels (http://www.euronews.com/2015/08/04/fossil-fuel-subsidies-rising-in-eu-despite-pledges-to-phase-them-out/) in Europe rose to €342bn in 2015, even though European
subsidies are among the lowest of the G20.

But, as the IEA report says, "High levels of incentives are no longer necessary for solar PV and onshore wind, but
their economic attractiveness still strongly depends on the regulatory framework and market design"

6. Benefits will reduce temperatures by an immeasurable 0.1°F by 2100
This now-notorious finding is arrived at by distorting the Paris climate pledges totally beyond recognition.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/09/3720613/lomborg-misleads-paris-climate-pledges/

Ian Murray
22-12-2015, 10:09 AM
Further to Lomborg's claim that the number of wildfires has decreased:

...the incidence of large wildfires in western forests increased in the mid-1980s [hereafter, “wildfires” refers to large-fire events (>400 ha) within forested areas only]. Subsequently, wildfire frequency was nearly four times the average of 1970 to 1986, and the total area burned by these fires was more than six and a half times its previous level. Interannual variability in wildfire frequency is strongly associated with regional spring and summer temperature...
Westerling et al 2006, Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity, Science 18 August 2006: Vol. 313 no. 5789 pp. 940-943 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2015, 01:45 AM
Gore accepts the advice of scientists, unlike Lomborg. As this article explains (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/apr/23/australia-paying-4-million-for-bjrn-lomborgs-flawed-methods-that-downgrade-climate-change):

When Lomborg talks about climate change, he has a set of rehearsed lines saying he accepts that climate change is real, its caused by humans and that it’s a problem. But when Lomborg does venture beyond his standard talking points into climate science commentary, he routinely infuriates genuine climate scientists. In my view, this is for good reason.

So why should an article by a leftist "freelance climate and environment journalist" have any credibility?


That's not the view of the UK energy regulator Ofgem (http://www.carbonbrief.org/how-much-do-renewable-and-energy-efficiency-policies-add-to-energy-bills):

Energy regulator Ofgem estimated at the end of 2012 that environmental and social levies added about £107 to consumer bills – making up eight per cent of an average 2012 annual bill.
An extra $A4 per week seems unlikely to condemn anyone to fuel poverty - and the extra cost is not only from renewables, of course.
Of course, a government regulatory agency must try to justify its own existence and taxpayer funding, while this article whinges about the private funding for Lomborg's think tank. Yet it can't escape the fact that its policies are driving up the cost of fuel, and it's poor people who can least afford the extra £107.

Patrick Byrom
23-12-2015, 12:16 PM
So why should an article by a leftist "freelance climate and environment journalist" have any credibility?Because he presents evidence to support his case - which you've ignored :)


Of course, a government regulatory agency must try to justify its own existence and taxpayer funding, while this article whinges about the private funding for Lomborg's think tank. Yet it can't escape the fact that its policies are driving up the cost of fuel, and it's poor people who can least afford the extra £107.I'm not sure what your point is in the first sentence.

It's obvious that the extra cost of fuel due to the levies (assuming poor people actually pay them) is only a small fraction of the total cost, so by itself it is not likely to condemn anyone to fuel poverty. And fuel for most poor people would be subsidised anyway.

Ian Murray
29-12-2015, 09:05 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger Stumps Climate Change Deniers With One Pro-Life Question (http://samuel-warde.com/2015/12/arnold-schwarzenegger-stumps-climate-change-deniers-with-one-pro-life-question/)
Liberals Unite
8.12.15

“There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.

I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.

I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?

I just hope that you’ll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.”

Ian Murray
09-01-2016, 04:30 PM
Donald Trump fined for pollution from one of his private jets (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/08/donald-trump-fined-for-pollution-from-one-of-his-private-jets)

The Guardian
9.1.16

A parliamentary petition backed by 500,000 people has so far failed to bar Donald Trump from the UK, but the controversial US presidential candidate and climate change sceptic now faces a new deterrent: a fine for the carbon pollution from one of his enormous private jets.

The Bahrain Royal family, 21st Century Fox America, the company chaired by Rupert Murdoch, and British construction vehicle manufacturers JCB have also been asked to pay up for flights to and from the UK.

The Environment Agency, which is responsible for enforcing the European Union’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) in the UK, has issued over £750,000 in fines to a total of 25 operators for “failure to surrender sufficient allowances to cover annual reportable emissions”.

The ETS requires polluters to surrender a carbon permit for every tonne of carbon pollution emitted, or pay a €100 (£75) per tonne fine. Permits are given to many air operators for free but can be bought if needed for about €8 currently....

Desmond
11-01-2016, 11:33 PM
Animation: What's really warming the world (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

Ian Murray
12-01-2016, 06:00 PM
Animation: What's really warming the world (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

They don't like the message, they shoot the messenger

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2016, 08:20 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger Stumps Climate Change Deniers With One Pro-Life Question (http://samuel-warde.com/2015/12/arnold-schwarzenegger-stumps-climate-change-deniers-with-one-pro-life-question/)
Liberals Unite
8.12.15

“There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.

I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.

I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?

I just hope that you’ll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.”

Oh of course, the eminent scientist Professor Schwarzenegger. What does he think powers the electric car? How about instead of a closed door to concentrate the fumes in an enclosed space, he asks them to touch the batteries of each car.

Rincewind
21-01-2016, 09:25 AM
How about instead of a closed door to concentrate the fumes in an enclosed space, he asks them to touch the batteries of each car.

False analogy since everyone is impacted by the exhaust of fossil fuel powered vehicles but no one is exposed to the battery terminals of electric cars.

Ian Murray
22-01-2016, 03:05 PM
False analogy since everyone is impacted by the exhaust of fossil fuel powered vehicles but no one is exposed to the battery terminals of electric cars.

And electric vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. In fact they don't have tailpipes.

Ian Murray
02-02-2016, 09:14 PM
Why The Renewables Revolution Is Now Unstoppable (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/01/3743082/renewables-revolution/)
ThinkProgress
1.2.16

Once upon a time, people imagined that replacing fossil fuels with renewables like solar and wind would jeopardize the electric grid’s reliability. Then along came some major countries who showed that it didn’t, and that there really are no limits to renewable integration.

The result was explained last year in a Bloomberg Business piece aptly headlined, “Germany Proves Life With Less Fossil Fuel Getting Easier”: “Germany experiences just 15 minutes a year of outages, compared with 68 minutes in France and more than four hours in Poland.”...

Desmond
03-03-2016, 07:34 PM
UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2016: +0.83 deg. C (new record)
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2016-0-83-deg-c-new-record/)March 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2016 is +0.83 deg. C, up almost 0.3 deg C from the January value of +0.54 deg. C (click for full size version), which is a new record for the warmest monthly anomaly since satellite monitoring began in late 1978.
...

Ian Murray
06-03-2016, 06:35 PM
Australia Turns Its Back on Climate Science (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/opinion/australia-turns-its-back-on-climate-science.html?_r=0)
New York Times
4.3.16

For decades, Australia has run the most advanced and comprehensive atmosphere and ocean monitoring programs in the Southern Hemisphere, providing critical information not only for a nation that is already the driest on earth and fast getting drier, but also for a world in urgent need of such data to search for ways to cope with climate change.

Last month, to the dismay of climate scientists around the world, Australia’s federally financed science agency — the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, or Csiro — announced plans to shift its focus to commercially viable projects and cut or reassign 350 researchers. The decision, as more than 3,000 climate scientists have declared in an open letter to the Australian government, demonstrates a deplorable misunderstanding of the importance of basic research into what is arguably the greatest challenge facing the planet....

Desmond
14-03-2016, 12:44 PM
'True shocker': February spike in global temperatures stuns scientists
(http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/true-shocker-spike-in-global-temperatures-stuns-scientists-20160313-gni10t.html)
Global temperatures leapt in February, lifting warming from pre-industrial levels to beyond 1.5 degrees, and stoking concerns about a "climate emergency".

According to NASA analysis, average temperatures last month were 1.35 degrees above the norm for the 1951-1980 period.

They smashed the previous biggest departure from the average - set only in the previous month - by 0.21 degrees.

"This is really quite stunning ... it's completely unprecedented," said Stefan Rahmstorf, from Germany's Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research and a visiting professorial fellow at the University of NSW, noting the NASA data as reported by the Wunderground blog.

http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gni83w/febrec.PNG

Ian Murray
04-04-2016, 07:36 AM
John D. Rockefeller would be turning in his grave. The heirs of the cofounder of Standard Oil, the origin of ExxonMobil, have announced that the family trust is divesting from its fossil fuel interests, and in particular is shedding its ExxonMobil holdings immediately due to the company's "morally reprehensible conduct" in denying climate change publicly while internally preparing to withstand climate change.


The Rockefeller Family Fund is proud to announce its intent to divest from fossil fuels. The process will be completed as quickly as possible, as we work around the complications of modern finance, which is increasingly dominated by alternative investments and hedge funds.

While the global community works to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, it makes little sense—financially or ethically—to continue holding investments in these companies. There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons. The science and intent enunciated by the Paris agreement cannot be more clear: far from finding additional sources of fossil fuels, we must keep most of the already discovered reserves in the ground if there is any hope for human and natural ecosystems to survive and thrive in the decades ahead.

We would be remiss if we failed to focus on what we believe to be the morally reprehensible conduct on the part of ExxonMobil. Evidence appears to suggest that the company worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change’s march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change’s destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities as the Arctic’s ice receded. Appropriate authorities will determine if the company violated any laws, but as a matter of good governance, we cannot be associated with a company exhibiting such apparent contempt for the public interest.

To operationalize this decision, the Board has instructed its advisors, effective immediately, to eliminate holdings of ExxonMobil, and all coal, and tar sands-based companies outside the portions of the portfolio managed by third parties, and to keep exposures for these three categories of investment below 1 percent across the entire portfolio. The Family Fund’s Finance Committee will soon be entering the second phase of its divestment work, which will entail seeking suitable alternatives to certain commingled funds now held. The field of Socially Responsible Investing is dynamic and growing and we are confident that a variety of options will soon emerge for mid-sized endowments such as ours.

Needless to say, the Rockefeller family has had a long and profitable history investing in the oil industry, including ExxonMobil. These are not decisions, therefore, that have been taken lightly or without much consideration of their import. But history moves on, as it must. Indeed, it is past time for all people of good will to do everything in their collective power to make our new path one that recognizes the deep interdependence between humanity’s future and the health of our natural systems.

http://www.rffund.org/divestment

Ian Murray
15-04-2016, 07:30 AM
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels)
Bloomberg
6.4.16

Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."...

Government subsidies have helped wind and solar get a foothold in global power markets, but economies of scale are the true driver of falling prices: The cost of solar power has fallen to 1/150th of its level in the 1970s, while the total amount of installed solar has soared 115,000-fold. ...

The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: It’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. What's more, the price of batteries to store solar power when the sun isn't shining is falling in a similarly stunning arc.

Just since 2000, the amount of global electricity produced by solar power has doubled seven times over. Even wind power, which was already established, doubled four times over the same period. For the first time, the two forms of renewable energy are beginning to compete head-to-head on price and annual investment. ...

Desmond
18-04-2016, 07:46 PM
The New World: March 2016 Is the Sixth Temperature Record-Breaking Month in a Row (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/04/16/march_2016_was_the_hottest_march_on_record.html)

October. November. December. January. February. And now March.

For the sixth month in a row, we’ve had a month that has broken the global high temperature record. And not just broken it, but shattered it, blasting through it like the previous record wasn’t even there.

According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, March 2016 was the hottest March on record, going back 136 years. It was a staggering 1.28°C above average across the planet.* The previous March record, from 2010, was 0.92° above average. This year took a huge jump over that.

Welcome to the new normal, and our new world.
...

Desmond
22-04-2016, 07:40 AM
jJNkd5g6oxI

sRS1ptPOF54

zIe6EefVjTw

Ian Murray
25-04-2016, 08:44 PM
What a brilliant idea! Why hasn't someone in Australia thought of this?

There's a cheap, proven fix to the world's biggest problem (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html)
CNN
19.4.16

Yoram Bauman learned about the idea that would change his life, and the course of the world, as a nerdy undergraduate at Reed College.
The economics professor's pitch was so simple he couldn't shake it.

We should make bad stuff more expensive.
And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper.

"I remember thinking that it was such an intellectually beautiful idea," he told me.

It is beautiful. And, as it turns out, this old theory, which dates back at least to the 1920s and an economist named Arthur Pigou, is essential to fixing one of the world's biggest problems.Bauman, who now is a PhD economist and stand-up comedian (more on that later; and, yes, he does jokes on the Laffer curve), is the force behind a proposal on the ballot this fall in Washington state that would turn this old, elegant concept into what could be the country's smartest climate change policy.

It's thought to be the first time a proposal like this has gone before U.S. voters.

Washington's Initiative-732 would make a bad thing -- pollution -- more expensive by putting a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide created by cars, power plants and the like.

More importantly, doing so would throw economic muscle behind clean energy, shorter commutes, cleaner air and smarter cities. It would use the market, not regulations, to choose winners and losers in the clean tech race. It would help Washington state, in the apt words of the initiative's promoters, fulfill its moral responsibility to leave a livable planet for future generations. And it plans do so without wrecking the economy or growing government.

That's because Bauman's carbon-tax proposal aims to be "revenue neutral," meaning all of the money the state collects from the tax on carbon will be returned to the people and businesses as tax breaks. So this shouldn't be seen as an additional tax. It's a different tax -- a pollution tax.
It helps account for the very real social costs of burning carbon.

The fee is levied on each ton of CO2-equivalent gases that are emitted. So the tax would show up at the gas pump and also on electric bills for businesses and homes. To avoid the tax, businesses and people gradually would shift to cleaner-energy sources that don't pollute.
Because of the accompanying tax breaks, many families would save money.

The concept has broad support from intellectuals on the right and left. Economists, environmentalists, climate scientists -- even oil execs at Exxon Mobil -- back the theory.....

Ian Murray
07-05-2016, 09:30 PM
Fort McMurray and the Fires of Climate Chang (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/fort-mcmurray-and-the-fires-of-climate-change)e
The New Yorker
5.5.16

...Fort McMurray is burning. A forest fire that began to the southwest of the town on Sunday has forced the entire population—almost ninety thousand people—to evacuate. On Wednesday, Alberta’s provincial government declared a state of emergency. By yesterday, more than fifteen hundred buildings had been destroyed and the blaze had spread through an area covering more than three hundred square miles. It was burning so hot that that it was easily able to jump major rivers. One Canadian official described the fire as “catastrophic.” Another called it a “multi-headed monster.”...

...it’s clear why the blaze, once under way, raged out of control so quickly. Alberta experienced an unusually dry and warm winter. Precipitation was low, about half of the norm, and what snow there was melted early. April was exceptionally mild, with temperatures regularly in the seventies; two days ago, the thermometer hit ninety, which is about thirty degrees higher than the region’s normal May maximum. “You hate to use the ​cliché, but it really was kind of a perfect storm,” Mike Wotton, a research scientist with the Canadian Forest Service, told the CBC....

Though it’s tough to pin any particular disaster on climate change, in the case of Fort McMurray the link is pretty compelling. In Canada, and also in the United States and much of the rest of the world, higher temperatures have been extending the wildfire season. Last year, wildfires consumed ten million acres in the U.S., which was the largest area of any year on record. All of the top five years occurred in the past decade. In some areas, “we now have year-round fire seasons,” Matt Jolly, a research ecologist for the United States Forest Service, recently told the Times.

“You can say it couldn’t get worse,” Jolly added, but based on its own projections, the forest service expects that it will get worse. According to a Forest Service report published last April, “Climate change has led to fire seasons that are now on average 78 days longer than in 1970.” Over the past three decades, the area destroyed each year by forest fires has doubled, and the service’s scientists project that it’s likely to “double again by midcentury.”...

Desmond
31-05-2016, 05:39 PM
Interview: Professor Terry Hughes, Centre for Coral Reef Studies (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4472312.htm)
Lateline 30 May 2016

John Barron speaks with Terry Hughes from James Cook University in Townsville and asks him about a new survey he was involved with that revealed the full extent of damage to the Great Barrier Reef by coral bleaching.

...

JOHN BARRON: Those are quite remarkable and frankly frightening statistics - 35 per cent of coral in some region killed by this bleaching event. 95 per cent affected. What's actually causing this bleaching?

TERRY HUGHES: ... we're in the middle of a massive coral bleaching event which is caused by high surface temperatures due to global warming. This is the third time we've had such a bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef. The first was in 1998, the second in 2002 and now we have number three, which is by far the most severe. So, these are recurring events that are causing massive amounts of loss of corals due to global warming.

JOHN BARRON: And what is happening within the corals itself to cause the bleaching? What's actually killing it? What's going on inside them?

TERRY HUGHES: The corals are dying from heat stress. So the three events that we've seen so far since 1998, each of them has a very different footprint. So this one is very much a northern affair. The other two were in different parts of the reef. And in each of the three cases, where the bleaching occurred can be explained very precisely by where the water was hottest for longest. So the link between warm water temperatures, global warming and coral bleaching is very, very clear.

JOHN BARRON: And what sort of temperature change are we talking? How many degrees above the long-term average are we seeing in this latest event?

TERRY HUGHES: Well the long-term average globally has risen by just over one degree, so obviously we're well on our way to the 1.5 or two degree guardrail that people talked about at COP 21 in Paris. I didn't expect to see a bleaching event as severe as this for at least another 25 years, so it has come as a huge surprise and even a shock to see the level of damage that's been caused this year. If you think about it, for many, many years up to 1998, we saw lots of El Nino events recurring every five or six years, but no bleaching. Since 1998, we now have three of these events in just 18 years. So the elephant in the room for better stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef is global warming and climate change, so while it's good to see both sides of politics talking about improvements to coral reef management, neither of them is really dealing with the key - core issue of facing the Barrier Reef, and that is these recurring bleaching events due to global emissions of greenhouse gases.
...

Ian Murray
12-07-2016, 08:49 PM
China poised to ban new coal-fired power stations (http://www.afr.com/news/china-poised-to-ban-new-coalfired-power-stations-20160711-gq3izc)
AFR
11.7.16

China's move to ban construction of new coal-fired power stations will accelerate its move away from the once dominant energy source, which is losing out on price to wind, solar and hydro generation.

Amid weak economic growth and tepid demand for electricity, Beijing is expected to "suspend" all new thermal power plants until the start of 2018.

The ban is set to be unveiled as part of its 13th Five Year Plan for the energy sector, which is due to be made public shortly according to the state media.

"Once wind, solar and hydro [power plants] are built they will always be cheaper than coal," said Tim Buckley, a director at the Sydney-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

In each of the last five years China has installed more renewable energy capacity than any other country. This was done in the belief power demand would grow at almost the same pace as the overall economy....

Kaitlin
12-07-2016, 09:12 PM
I suspect that Chinese Government policy isn't influenced very much by Big Business Lobby groups.... which in a way makes it more democratic then most so called Democracies.

Rincewind
12-07-2016, 09:47 PM
I suspect that Chinese Government policy isn't influenced very much by Big Business Lobby groups.... which in a way makes it more democratic then most so called Democracies.

+1

A bit like how 80% of Americans want some action on gun control like fixing background check loopholes or preventing sales to people on the no-fly list but legislation never ever passes because the legislators are beholden to their doners more then they are to their constituents.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2016, 07:19 AM
I suspect that Chinese Government policy isn't influenced very much by Big Business Lobby groups.... which in a way makes it more democratic then most so called Democracies.

Not serious. One thing Big Business doesn't have is the coercive power of government, since in a free market, they must persuade people to buy their goods and services—unless government gets in bed with it, aka crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist government has always been about coercion. So in both cases, it's the government that's the problem, not business.

Desmond
13-07-2016, 06:13 PM
We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times (http://www.skepticalscience.com/broke-hottest-year-record-9-straight-times.html)

2014 and 2015 each set the record for hottest calendar year since we began measuring surface temperatures over 150 years ago, and 2016 is almost certain to break the record once again. It will be without precedent: the first time that we’ve seen three consecutive record-breaking hot years.

But it’s just happenstance that the calendar year begins in January, and so it’s also informative to compare all yearlong periods. In doing so, it becomes clear that we’re living in astonishingly hot times.

June 2015 through May 2016 was the hottest 12-month period on record. That was also true of May 2015 through April 2016, and the 12 months ending in March 2016. In fact, it’s true for every 12 months going all the way back to the period ending in September 2015, according to global surface temperature data compiled by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way. We just set the record for hottest year in each of the past 9 months.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnHhJRiUMAQsie9.jpg
Running 12-month average global surface temperature using data compiled by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

...

Ian Murray
13-07-2016, 06:30 PM
Oponents of renewable energy have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that wind energy causes "wind turbine syndrome (https://theconversation.com/wind-turbine-syndrome-farm-hosts-tell-very-different-story-18241)", an affliction medical science has been unable to corroborate.

But there is no doubt that coal mining causes coal miners' pneumoconiosis, "black lung (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-12/queensland-coal-mining-industry-slammed-in-black-lung-review/7589918)", which is still prevalent in the industry. There have been an estimated 10,000 deaths (http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/black-lung-disease-levels-letter_n_5824470) in the US in the past ten years.

Desmond
15-09-2016, 06:23 PM
http://www.glennmurray.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Plot-idea.jpg

Damodevo
16-09-2016, 10:43 PM
We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times (http://www.skepticalscience.com/broke-hottest-year-record-9-straight-times.html)

2014 and 2015 each set the record for hottest calendar year since we began measuring surface temperatures over 150 years ago, and 2016 is almost certain to break the record once again. It will be without precedent: the first time that we’ve seen three consecutive record-breaking hot years.

But it’s just happenstance that the calendar year begins in January, and so it’s also informative to compare all yearlong periods. In doing so, it becomes clear that we’re living in astonishingly hot times.

June 2015 through May 2016 was the hottest 12-month period on record. That was also true of May 2015 through April 2016, and the 12 months ending in March 2016. In fact, it’s true for every 12 months going all the way back to the period ending in September 2015, according to global surface temperature data compiled by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way. We just set the record for hottest year in each of the past 9 months.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnHhJRiUMAQsie9.jpg
Running 12-month average global surface temperature using data compiled by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

...

Funny how the NASA 1999 data supplemented with satellite data show vastly less warming over the same period. Especially for the last few years.

3225

Patrick Byrom
17-09-2016, 02:07 AM
Funny how the NASA 1999 data supplemented with satellite data show vastly less warming over the same period. Especially for the last few years.
Maybe they do, but you can't combine the two data sets like that - they're not measuring the same thing. Nor is it safe to assume that the satellite data is more reliable, give the many corrections that have been made to it.

Tony Dowden
17-09-2016, 09:50 AM
Just wondering about this thread as it is trundled along down the years. Are there any actual climate change nay-sayers out there? Everyone here now realises that a considerable chuck of global warming/climate change is anthropogenic, right?

Desmond
18-09-2016, 10:42 AM
Just wondering about this thread as it is trundled along down the years. Are there any actual climate change nay-sayers out there? Everyone here now realises that a considerable chuck of global warming/climate change is anthropogenic, right?Ask Jono.

MichaelBaron
21-09-2016, 11:26 AM
Just wondering about this thread as it is trundled along down the years. Are there any actual climate change nay-sayers out there? Everyone here now realises that a considerable chuck of global warming/climate change is anthropogenic, right?

But do we have accurate information on the weather around the world 200 years ago or so? If not, then how can we have evidence of any climate change (irrespectively of whether it is worming or not). What is 100 years in a ''life of a planent''.

Desmond
21-09-2016, 05:09 PM
But do we have accurate information on the weather around the world 200 years ago or so? Yes, using climate reconstruction methods (https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+reconstruction+methods&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0xODz8p_PAhUG7R4KHfq_D8kQgQMIHzAA).

Tony Dowden
22-09-2016, 03:11 PM
But do we have accurate information on the weather around the world 200 years ago or so? If not, then how can we have evidence of any climate change (irrespectively of whether it is worming or not). What is 100 years in a ''life of a planent''.
It looks like you answered my question! And to answer yours: the various records of temp, CO2 and other relevant greenhouse gasses since WW2 or even more recently, say 1970, should be more than sufficient to establish trends and support appropriate hypotheses.

Actually, the graph in #3481 is pretty good evidence all by itself. Well, it would be to a neutral and scientifically-trained observer - if such a person existed!

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2016, 12:55 PM
Canada’s green agenda is having Soviet-style repercussions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/as-a-gay-man-im-horrified-that-christian-bakers-are-being-forced/)
Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, 24 Oct 2016

It’s hard to think of a greater public policy failure in recent Canadian political history than the rise of energy poverty.

Ontario premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, via their 2009 Green Energy Act and other poor decisions, have pushed many of the people they govern into dire financial straits thanks to their activist agendas.

“They live as if it’s Cold War Russia,” Miranda from Toronto told me during a phone conversation about her parent’s energy woes. “They use a pellet stove and propane heating. They put construction-style plastic on the windows and extra insulation.”

“They’re considering using food banks this winter,” she said. “I work in international development in third world countries and I’m starting to see the stuff here that I’m seeing there.”

I’m wrapping up a 10-part series on all the hardships faced by regular Ontarians due to the runaway energy costs ratepayers in Canada’s most populous province are facing. The saddest stories involve dumpster diving for food, people spending their days in shopping malls to keep cool in summer, local businesses shutting down, people selling off their children’s RRSPs to pay the bills and so on.

But even the commonplace stories of retirees and low-income workers opting to go with little or no heat in winter is eerily reminiscent of tales out of Soviet Russia, to Miranda’s point.

It’s well known Ontario has so much energy that we sell it to other jurisdictions at a loss. And yet I’ve heard from Ontarians who will use food banks this winter as they redirect their income to pay for hydro.

It’s a scandal. What rubs salt in the wound is that it’s not as if there’s any guarantee all of these green schemes are going to pay off.

It would be one thing if all we had to do is live like this for a short period and then triumphantly rejoice that our collective efforts saved the world.

But there’s no evidence that if you hit people with increased hydro rates and carbon prices of X amount, it will reduce emissions by Y amount, which will heal the earth by Z amount.

But it is true is that if you hit people who are just getting by with all these added fees, then they damn well are going to suffer.

Patrick Byrom
26-10-2016, 01:39 PM
Canada’s green agenda is having Soviet-style repercussions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/as-a-gay-man-im-horrified-that-christian-bakers-are-being-forced/)
Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, 24 Oct 2016:"...But there’s no evidence that if you hit people with increased hydro rates and carbon prices of X amount, it will reduce emissions by Y amount, which will heal the earth by Z amount. …"Complete rubbish, of course - there is plenty of evidence for both of these statements. The first one is basic economics, while the second is basic physics (although the aim of reducing emissions isn't to "heal the earth", but to prevent further damage). The article doesn't even provide any evidence that energy poverty is being caused by renewables!

Ian Murray
27-10-2016, 07:33 AM
...The contribution of renewable power and the Green Energy Act (GEA) to cost increases has – despite media reports – been minor up to now. The analysis contained in this report suggests that, depending on assumptions, the GEA will contribute about 60% to the price increase between 2010 and 2015 arising from transmission, customer and distribution and electricity price charges, but the GEA cost increase will be less than 25% of the overall cost in 2015.

What Is Happening to Ontario Electricity Prices? (http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/publications/files/What%20is%20Happening%20to%20Ontario%20Electricity %20Prices%20March%207%202012_FINAL.pdf)
Donald N. Dewees
Department of Economics,
University of Toronto
March 2012

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2016, 03:19 PM
Complete rubbish, of course - there is plenty of evidence for both of these statements. The first one is basic economics, while the second is basic physics (although the aim of reducing emissions isn't to "heal the earth", but to prevent further damage). The article doesn't even provide any evidence that energy poverty is being caused by renewables!

Basic economics shows that expensive energy sources, i.e. all ‘renewables’ except hydro, cause more hardships than cheap ones. Blame your idol Obamov for the “heal the earth” nonsense.

Desmond
27-10-2016, 06:49 PM
More likely that the dirty energy sources don't have their real costs associated, i.e. subsidies they get and pollution they don't pay for.

Ian Murray
28-10-2016, 08:16 AM
Basic economics shows that expensive energy sources, i.e. all ‘renewables’ except hydro, cause more hardships than cheap ones. Blame your idol Obamov for the “heal the earth” nonsense.

You're way out of date. Taking into account construction, operation and maintenance, and fuel costs, renewable energy sources are now cheaper than fossil fuel sources and getting cheaper (and would be cheaper still if pollution and health costs were factored in).


Comparing the costs of renewable and conventional energy sources (http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/)

...Onshore wind has the lowest average levelized cost in this analysis at $59 per megawatt-hour, and utility-scale photovoltaic plants weren’t far behind at $79. By comparison, the lowest cost conventional technologies were gas combined cycle technologies, averaging $74 per megawatt-hour, and coal plants, averaging $109. These numbers are the average of Lazard’s low- and high-end estimates (see their study for more about their cost calculations).

Looking across the 16 technology types, the 10 alternative technologies cost an average $147 per megawatt-hour, $18 less than the conventional approaches. “Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies,” Lazard wrote, “are cost-competitive with conventional generational technologies under some scenarios.”

By dividing the costs among capital, fuel, and operations and maintenance (O&M), you can see some dramatic differences among the technologies. Many renewable technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, may not be cheap to build, but they have no fuel costs once they’re up and running, and generally have lower O&M costs as well.

Wind and solar costs falling

The levelized cost of some wind and solar technologies has plummeted in recent years. The graphic below shows that the average cost of onshore wind has fallen from $135 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $59 in 2014. That’s a 56 percent drop in five years. The cost of utility-scale photovoltaic technology has plunged from $359 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $79 in 2014, a 78 percent decline. Lazard attributes these falling costs to “material declines in the pricing of system components (e.g., panels, inverters, racking, turbines, etc.), and dramatic improvements in efficiency, among other factors.”...

Ian Murray
28-10-2016, 10:01 AM
Renewables just passed coal as the largest source of new electricity worldwide

IEA raises its five-year renewable growth forecast as 2015 marks record year (http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-its-five-year-renewable-growth-forecast-as-2015-marks-record-year.html)
25.10.16

The International Energy Agency said today that it was significantly increasing its five-year growth forecast for renewables thanks to strong policy support in key countries and sharp cost reductions. Renewables have surpassed coal last year to become the largest source of installed power capacity in the world.

The latest edition of the IEA’s Medium-Term Renewable Market Report now sees renewables growing 13% more between 2015 and 2021 than it did in last year’s forecast, due mostly to stronger policy backing in the United States, China, India and Mexico. Over the forecast period, costs are expected to drop by a quarter in solar PV and 15 percent for onshore wind.

Last year marked a turning point for renewables. Led by wind and solar, renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world, reaching a record 153 Gigawatt (GW), 15% more than the previous year. Most of these gains were driven by record-level wind additions of 66 GW and solar PV additions of 49 GW.

About half a million solar panels were installed every day around the world last year. In China, which accounted for about half the wind additions and 40% of all renewable capacity increases, two wind turbines were installed every hour in 2015.

“We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the center of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.

**There are many factors behind this remarkable achievement: more competition, enhanced policy support in key markets, and technology improvements. While climate change mitigation is a powerful driver for renewables, it is not the only one. In many countries, cutting deadly air pollution and diversifying energy supplies to improve energy security play an equally strong role in growing low-carbon energy sources, especially in emerging Asia....

Kaitlin
28-10-2016, 06:00 PM
Spain can power 26,000,000 homes with wind power

Ian Murray
28-10-2016, 08:07 PM
Spain can power 26,000,000 homes with wind power

29 million daily - http://futurism.com/spain-is-making-major-moves-toward-100-percent-renewable-energy/

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2016, 02:01 AM
You're way out of date. Taking into account construction, operation and maintenance, and fuel costs, renewable energy sources are now cheaper than fossil fuel sources and getting cheaper (and would be cheaper still if pollution and health costs were factored in).


Comparing the costs of renewable and conventional energy sources (http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/)

...Onshore wind has the lowest average levelized cost in this analysis at $59 per megawatt-hour, and utility-scale photovoltaic plants weren’t far behind at $79. By comparison, the lowest cost conventional technologies were gas combined cycle technologies, averaging $74 per megawatt-hour, and coal plants, averaging $109. These numbers are the average of Lazard’s low- and high-end estimates (see their study for more about their cost calculations).

Looking across the 16 technology types, the 10 alternative technologies cost an average $147 per megawatt-hour, $18 less than the conventional approaches. “Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies,” Lazard wrote, “are cost-competitive with conventional generational technologies under some scenarios.”

By dividing the costs among capital, fuel, and operations and maintenance (O&M), you can see some dramatic differences among the technologies. Many renewable technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, may not be cheap to build, but they have no fuel costs once they’re up and running, and generally have lower O&M costs as well.

Wind and solar costs falling

The levelized cost of some wind and solar technologies has plummeted in recent years. The graphic below shows that the average cost of onshore wind has fallen from $135 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $59 in 2014. That’s a 56 percent drop in five years. The cost of utility-scale photovoltaic technology has plunged from $359 per megawatt-hour in 2009 to $79 in 2014, a 78 percent decline. Lazard attributes these falling costs to “material declines in the pricing of system components (e.g., panels, inverters, racking, turbines, etc.), and dramatic improvements in efficiency, among other factors.”...



The site, with an overt anti–fossil-fuel bias, also pointed out:


A variety of considerations—aside from cost—determine when, where, or how a technology is used. Although wind and solar are now cost-competitive and offer many health and environmental advantages over fossil fuels, these are still considered intermittent sources because the sun isn’t always shining and the wind isn’t always blowing). As a result, wind and solar are unable to entirely replace the services that certain conventional “baseload’” sources provide to the system. That said, utilities and power operators are discovering a multitude of new ways that low-carbon technologies can offer more value to the power grid across the board.

Transmission is another important issue, especially for power sources that are limited to certain areas, but it can also allow power plants to serve faraway customers.

This matters, because the levelized capacity cost overlooks the need for backup for when these renewables are not operating. As pointed out in Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/):


The levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology. However, some technologies, such as a conventional combined cycle turbine, that may look relatively expensive at its maximum capacity factor may be the most economic option when evaluated at a lower capacity factor associated with an intermediate load rather than base load facility.[4]

Simple combustion turbines (conventional or advanced technology) are typically used for peak load, and are thus evaluated at a 30 percent capacity factor. Intermittent renewable resources, e.g. wind and solar, are not operator controlled, but dependent on the weather or the sun shining. Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent on forces outside of the operator’s control, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies although the average annual capacity factor may be similar. Because intermittent technologies do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized costs shown below.


The same site on another page, Why You Should be Wary of IEA’s Renewable Forecast (27 Oct 2016) (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/wary-ieas-renewable-forecast/) points out:


According to the IEA, renewables accounted for more than half of the world’s additional electricity capacity last year. But, what IEA fails to tell you is that renewable energy produces less electricity per unit of capacity than other forms of electricity generation such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear power. Thus, while government policies are supporting its growth in capacity, other forms of generation are contributing far greater to powering the global electricity grid.

Further, the capacity that China, India, Africa, and other Asian countries will add from nuclear power, coal, and natural gas will have much higher capacity factors than wind and solar power and thereby generate far more electricity per unit of capacity than wind and solar power.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), new nuclear power plants can achieve capacity factors of 90 percent, new coal-fired plants can achieve capacity factors of 85 percent and new natural gas-fired plants can achieve capacity factors of 87 percent. That compares to capacity factors for wind and solar that are a quarter to half that amount–new wind turbines are expected to achieve maximum capacity factors of only 42 percent and solar PV of only 26 percent. That means while countries may be building wind and solar plants, they have to add double to triple the capacity to achieve the same amount of power as nuclear, coal, or natural gas plants.[iv]

In addition, according to the EIA, even with the lucrative subsidies that the United States government provides for solar power, it is still not cost competitive with natural gas plants entering service in 2022.

If we must have renewable energy, then the thermodynamically very efficient domestic and industrial solar water heating would cut down a major use of electricity. Bladeless turbines (https://www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/) would remove much of the danger to birds and bats.