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

Patrick Byrom
22-11-2016, 09:03 PM
The weather in the Arctic is going crazy - it's winter, but the ice is melting: (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/11/21/arctic_sea_ice_is_declining_when_it_should_be_grow ing.html)

Except … it didn’t. It started to, but then in early October the {ice} growth just stopped. A couple of weeks later it started to rise again, but stalled a second time in late October. In the weeks since then the amount of ice has actually fallen a bit. We are now at record low ice for this time of year, and have been for weeks.
Mind you, it’s winter up there. The Sun shines at most a few hours a day at the southern edge of the Arctic Circle right now. Yet temperatures in the Arctic are soaring; in mid-November it was an average of a staggering 22° Celsius, or 40° Fahrenheit, above normal.
Holy cripes. What the hell is going on? The obvious answer is: global warming. Like I said, as time goes on, average temperatures go up, and amount of ice decreases.
Luckily global warming is all a Chinese conspiracy - according to US President-elect (and non-scientist) Donald Trump :wall: :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2016, 06:17 AM
Whatever happened to Michael Mann’s defamation suit? (2016 edition) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/25/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit-2016-edition/?wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1)
By Jonathan H. Adler, Volokh Conspiracy, 25 November 2016

As I’ve noted before (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/02/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit/?utm_term=.861c35d28b0c), I think this should be a relatively easy case. However offensive or intemperate the posts at issue, they should be recognized as protected speech. To hold otherwise would be to confuse hyperbolic rhetoric for actionable defamation (https://popehat.com/2012/10/23/michael-mann-sues-nro-mark-steyn-the-competitive-enterprise-institute-and-rand-simberg/). Moreover, insofar as the statements at issue reflected the defendants’ sincere belief that Mann manipulated his data to exaggerate the threat of climate change and that PSU’s cursory investigation into his conduct was insufficient, they do not demonstrate the degree of “actual malice” or “reckless disregard” for the truth necessary for a defamation claim, a point recognized even by folks who share Mann’s general views on climate science (such as UCal Berkeley’s Daniel Farber (http://legal-planet.org/2013/09/16/lies-damned-lies-and-climate-denial/)). Under Mann’s theory, George Zimmerman could sue anyone who claimed he “got away with murder” after killing Trayvon Martin. (Ditto equivalent claims about O.J. Simpson, Timothy Loehmann, etc.). It’s no wonder that so many media groups and others filed amicus briefs on the defendants’ behalf (http://dcslapplaw.com/2014/11/12/temperatures-rise-in-mann-libel-suit/).

Although this case arises out of a dispute over climate change, that’s not what the case is about. Climate change is a serious problem (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/14/what-does-it-take-to-convince-libertarians-and-conservatives-that-climate-change-is-a-problem/?utm_term=.60b95410d2da), and one that policymakers need to do more to address (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/a-conservatives-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/). But legitimate concern about climate change should not be a pretense for chilling protected speech, whether by independent advocacy groups, opinion publications or others. Environmental concern is no reason to abandon constitutional principle or to dampen freedom of speech.

Ian Murray
26-11-2016, 09:09 AM
Whatever happened to Michael Mann’s defamation suit? (2016 edition) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/25/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit-2016-edition/?wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1)
By Jonathan H. Adler, Volokh Conspiracy, 25 November 2016

The suit continues its way through the courts, as the defendants' stalling motions are progressively dismissed. As Mann's scientific work was publicly described as fraudulent, he has the right to defend his reputation by legal recourse.

Lawyers Grow Impatient in Climate-Change Scientist's Libel Fight (http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202759149700/Lawyers-Grow-Impatient-in-ClimateChange-Scientists-Libel-Fight?slreturn=20161025165637)

Small Win for Mann in The War on Climate Science (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/13/1538051/-Small-Win-for-Mann-in-The-War-on-Climate-Science)

Patrick Byrom
26-11-2016, 02:18 PM
Capablanca-Fan left out an important qualifier from that article:

DISCLOSURE: As I’ve noted in prior posts on this case, I am a contributing editor at National Review Online, which means I have a fancier byline when I submit articles to the publication and occasionally contribute to The Corner and Bench Memos. It is not a salaried position. I also worked at CEI from 1991 to 2000 — many years before the events at issue in this litigation.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2016, 02:53 PM
Capablanca-Fan left out an important qualifier from that article:

DISCLOSURE: As I’ve noted in prior posts on this case, I am a contributing editor at National Review Online, which means I have a fancier byline when I submit articles to the publication and occasionally contribute to The Corner and Bench Memos. It is not a salaried position. I also worked at CEI from 1991 to 2000 — many years before the events at issue in this litigation.

Don't be silly. I quoted enough of the article, including his belief in warm-mongering.

Patrick Byrom
14-12-2016, 10:04 PM
This is disturbing news (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/scientists-backing-up-climate-data-over-trump-fears/8119234):

Scientists in the United States are making copies of federal climate and environmental data over fears it could be erased under Donald Trump's administration. The mass action — being coordinated by the University of Pennsylvania's Program in the Environmental Humanities (PPEH Lab) — has been dubbed a "data rescue" and has brought together academics from across the country and in neighbouring Canada. It aims to safeguard data "vulnerable under an administration which denies the fact of ongoing climate change" by storing it on an independent server.

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2016, 10:14 PM
Only vaguely related to climate change but even the Wayback Machine (archive.org) folks are expressing concerns about the legal durability of their data post-Trump and seeking financial assistance to permanently preserve it in Canada!

Ian Murray
15-12-2016, 07:14 AM
Aside from the culture, environment and cost, is Adani a good investment? (http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/aside-from-the-culture-environment-and-cost-is-adani-a-good-investment-20161213-gta0nq.html)
SMH
14.12.16

The Australian public is the sole investor in Adani's coal export plans.

Adani is an Indian conglomerate that wants to build the largest thermal coal mine in Australia, a rail line of almost 400 kilometres connecting it to the coast, and a coal export terminal in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The coal would be shipped out through the reef, giving it a perfect view of the bleaching and mortality that has been decimating our valuable natural icon recently before being burned in power stations overseas, only to further contribute to climate change and ocean acidification, considered the greatest long-term risks to the reef.

Given that the reef sustains 60,000 jobs and provides $6 billion per year of economic benefit to Australia, investors may want to consider conflicts of interest before moving ahead.

Some other niggling environmental risks investors might want to consider is the drainage of 12 billion litres per year of water from the Great Artesian Basin and the impacts of coal dust on people's health along the transport corridor, along with particulate matter from the power stations as the coal is burned.

We'd also want to be content with supporting a mine that has not received free, prior and informed consent from traditional owners, potentially making this a major human rights issue.

But enough of the existential threats posed to culture, people, sites of natural World Heritage and the climate.

Let's look at the numbers. Last week's proposal by the Australian government of a $1 billion loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund means as investors we need to understand the business case....

ER
15-12-2016, 08:27 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/electricity-bills-to-rise-by-78-dollars-from-mid-next-year/8118012


Electricity bills to rise by $78 from mid next year, Australian Energy Market Commission says

More to come, the more you sing the more you pay!

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2016, 03:48 AM
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? (https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/do-97-climate-scientists-really-agree)
Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, 11 July 2016

An anti-vaccine person approaches you and says, “97 percent of doctors say that the side effects of vaccines are real?”

What would you say in response?

You’d probably say, “Yeah but the benefits far outweigh the side effects.”

By saying that “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real” without mentioning any of the benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine activist is trying to get you to look at the potential dangers of vaccines out of context.

When fossil fuel opponents say “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real,” they are doing the same. Yes, using fossil fuels for energy has a side effect—increasing the amount of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere. Okay. But what about the upside? In the case of fossil fuel that upside is enormous: the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that makes modern life possible, and at a scale no other energy source can match.

So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”—whether it’s a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation—using the same term in different, contradictory ways.

If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right?

But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw

Rincewind
26-12-2016, 07:37 AM
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust (https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm)


Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions. Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects. After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades. For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

Patrick Byrom
26-12-2016, 02:35 PM
…So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”—whether it’s a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. .…Of course it doesn't. The aim of this statement is to convince people like Trump - who thinks it's a Chinese conspiracy - that AGW is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists.


… If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right? But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels. .…Explaining how bad AGW will be is the next step - which "fossil fuel opponents" are constantly doing, of course. But anyone can research this for themselves, as the IPCC publishes regular reports summarising the state of scientific knowledge.

It's sad to see a 'Christian' University engaging in such blatant deception.

Capablanca-Fan
26-12-2016, 05:13 PM
Of course it doesn't. The aim of this statement is to convince people like Trump - who thinks it's a Chinese conspiracy - that AGW is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists.
But how serious is the warming?


Explaining how bad AGW will be is the next step - which "fossil fuel opponents" are constantly doing, of course.
Do they agree that it's so bad that we have to make fuel far more expensive (while they jet set around the world saying so?).


It's sad to see a 'Christian' University engaging in such blatant deception.
What Christian university, and what do you care anyway?

Desmond
26-12-2016, 06:21 PM
But how serious is the warming? Google Scholar: Species under threat from climate change (https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=species+under+threat+from+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia4ruptpHRAhVFpJQKHceOB9wQgQMIFzAA)- about 403,000 hits for a start.

Damodevo
27-12-2016, 11:48 AM
That claim is so elastic it would even include many skeptics and anyone who thinks human beings may have contributed any tiny amount to the degree of warming. That main claim from Cook 2013 et. al. is deliberately fraudulent:


Only (http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/a-climate-falsehood-you-can-check-for.html) Level 1 corresponds to "the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." (emphasis mine) Hence when John Cook attributed that view to 97% on the basis of his Cook et. al. (2013) he was misrepresenting 1.6% as 97%. Adding up his categories 5-7, the levels of rejecting of AGW, we find that more papers explicitly or implicitly rejected the claim that human action was responsible for half or more of warming than accepted it. According to Cook's own data.

Patrick Byrom
27-12-2016, 12:36 PM
That claim is so elastic it would even include many skeptics and anyone who thinks human beings may have contributed any tiny amount to the degree of warming. That main claim from Cook 2013 et. al. is deliberately fraudulent:So where is the refutation paper from skeptics? This seems to be a common pattern among rejecters - they attack individual papers, like those from Cook and Mann, but never do any original research to disprove them.

Patrick Byrom
27-12-2016, 02:09 PM
But how serious is the warming?The more carbon dioxide is added, the greater the temperature increase.


Do they agree that it's so bad that we have to make fuel far more expensive (while they jet set around the world saying so?).Solar and wind energy are free, so replacing coal actually reduces the cost of electricity.


What Christian university, and what do you care anyway?My mistake - I thought PraegerU was intended to be an online Christian university, but it's just a propaganda website.

Desmond
27-12-2016, 02:27 PM
That claim is so elastic it would even include many skeptics and anyone who thinks human beings may have contributed any tiny amount to the degree of warming. That main claim from Cook 2013 et. al. is deliberately fraudulent:
Ah Damo welcome back.
Did you work out that the globe is warming yet?

Ian Murray
27-12-2016, 04:44 PM
So where is the refutation paper from skeptics? This seems to be a common pattern among rejecters - they attack individual papers, like those from Cook and Mann, but never do any original research to disprove them.

And where are the protests from climate scientists that their work is being misrepresented?

ER
27-12-2016, 05:55 PM
And where are the protests from climate scientists that their work is being misrepresented?

lol at least this guy tried!!! :P :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/epa-official-who-pretended-to-work-for-cia-sentenced-to-32-months/2013/12/18/176d6c6c-6805-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html?utm_term=.438dd35c5257

Ian Murray
27-12-2016, 09:40 PM
Can the world fight climate change in the era of Trump? Obama’s science adviser thinks so. (https://thinkprogress.org/conversation-with-obama-chief-science-adviser-c8ce9c18b16e#.wbb3ho3c7)

...First of all, the issue of addressing the climate challenge should not be a partisan issue. It’s about the economy, public health and well-being, national security — these are not fundamentally partisan issues, so one has to hope that that will increasingly be recognized.

The second thing I’ll say is that a lot of the progress is being driven by forces that are not fundamentally policies of the federal government. I think the two biggest drivers of progress on climate change around the world today are that the symptoms of climate change, the damages from climate change, are becoming ever more apparent. And the opportunities to do something are also growing — in substantial part because clean energy is getting cheaper. That’s going to be extremely important moving forward, regardless of what government policies do or don’t materialize in the United States....

Damodevo
28-12-2016, 01:36 AM
And where are the protests from climate scientists that their work is being misrepresented?

Craig Idso


That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming

Nicola Scafetta


Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun

Nir Shaviv


Nope... it is not an accurate representation.

Nils-Axel Morner


Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.

Willie Soon:


I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.

Alan Carlin:


No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.

ER
28-12-2016, 07:54 AM
(...) Solar and wind energy are free, so replacing coal actually reduces the cost of electricity. (...)


Cool story bro!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/victorian-power-and-gas-prices-to-go-up/8082384

Rincewind
28-12-2016, 10:28 AM
Craig Idso
Nicola Scafetta
Nir Shaviv
Nils-Axel Morner
Willie Soon:
Alan Carlin:

Six out of nearly 12,000 abstracts that were analysed. No problem.

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2016, 10:38 AM
Six out of nearly 12,000 abstracts that were analysed. No problem.

He gave you a small sample. So how many of the 12,000 abstracts say not only that man has caused global warming, or "climate change", but also that it will be catastrophic unless mankind drastically reduces fossil fuel usage (except private jets by leftist AGW-shilling celebrities), aided by far more intrusive government regulation?

Rincewind
28-12-2016, 10:40 AM
He gave you a small sample. So how many of the 12,000 abstracts say not only that man has caused global warming, or "climate change", but also that it will be catastrophic unless mankind drastically reduces fossil fuel usage (except private jets by leftist AGW-shilling celebrities), aided by far more intrusive government regulation?

The point of my original post was not to spruke Cook 2013 but rather demonstrates that several meta-studies found the same result. It requires a particularly stubborn form of denialism to discredit it based on six dissensions.

Desmond
28-12-2016, 10:54 AM
Cool story bro!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-01/victorian-power-and-gas-prices-to-go-up/8082384

Pretty amazing the degree of selfishness, if people are happy to wreck the planet to save themselves 300 bucks a year.

Sorry grandkids, we could have done something but preferred to buy a netflix + Stan subscription.

ER
28-12-2016, 11:40 AM
Pretty amazing the degree of selfishness, if people are happy to wreck the planet to save themselves 300 bucks a year.

Sorry grandkids, we could have done something but preferred to buy a netflix + Stan subscription.

Too melodramatic, wrongly quoted and rather a case of barking at the wrong tree

My response was to


(...) Solar and wind energy are free, so replacing coal actually reduces the cost of electricity. (...)

Emphasis mine!

Desmond
28-12-2016, 12:04 PM
Too melodramatic, wrongly quoted and rather a case of barking at the wrong tree

My response was to



Emphasis mine!I don't see how the article addresses that at all.

ER
28-12-2016, 07:41 PM
I don't see how the article addresses that at all.

The article clearly refers to the Hazelwood power station closure directly connected
with the electricity bill hike in 2017


Last month Premier Daniel Andrews predicted domestic electricity bills were likely to be 4 to 8 per cent higher
as a result of Hazelwood's closure, based on government-commissioned analysis.

for further reading

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/hazelwood-power-station-closure-could-affect-power-prices/7994424

Desmond
28-12-2016, 09:40 PM
The article clearly refers to the Hazelwood power station closure directly connected
with the electricity bill hike in 2017



for further reading

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/hazelwood-power-station-closure-could-affect-power-prices/7994424

But where is the renewable that replaces it? You'd need to show a replacement renewable station with a comparable capacity at increased cost to join the dots you are attempting to.

Ian Murray
29-12-2016, 10:01 AM
But where is the renewable that replaces it? You'd need to show a replacement renewable station with a comparable capacity at increased cost to join the dots you are attempting to.

The oversupply of power generated in Victoria of late has increased competition and forced prices down. With the closure of Hazelwood, the downward pressure on prices will relax, and prices will rise. However under the Victorian RET renewables will provide 25% of generation by 2025 and 40% by 2030, exceeding Hazelwood's output anyway. Victoria will then have an oversupply of cheaper wind and solar power to export or sell to its own consumers.

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2016, 01:02 PM
But where is the renewable that replaces it? You'd need to show a replacement renewable station with a comparable capacity at increased cost to join the dots you are attempting to.Exactly. The significant word in my post was "replacing". If a homeowner replaces electricity from a coal-burning power station with solar panels on their roof, then the homeowner's electricity costs are obviously reduced, because the solar energy costs nothing. And the same argument applies once Victoria replaces coal with solar power. But while there's no replacement, costs will probably increase.

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2016, 01:10 PM
He gave you a small sample.How do you know it's a sample? It could be the entire population of complaints. Perhaps Damodevo will tell us how exactly how many scientists (out of 12 000) complained that Cook misrepresented them?


So how many of the 12,000 abstracts say not only that man has caused global warming, or "climate change", but also that it will be catastrophic unless mankind drastically reduces fossil fuel usage (except private jets by leftist AGW-shilling celebrities), aided by far more intrusive government regulation?Which wasn't the point of the study. The point was to convince rejectors such as Trump, Cruz and yourself that the majority of scientists agree that AGW is real. Actually, that's probably impossible - you're still denying that Breitbart publishes anti-Semitism even after I gave you a link! But it has helped to convince the general population.

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2016, 01:33 PM
Which wasn't the point of the study. The point was to convince rejectors such as Trump, Cruz and yourself that the majority of scientists agree that AGW is real.
What do they agree with in terms of how much and what we should do about it.


Actually, that's probably impossible - you're still denying that Breitbart publishes anti-Semitism even after I gave you a link!
Because the link was inconclusive, and you just have an obsession with seeing anti-Semitism where there isn't any—and condoning anti-Semitism where it is, in the attacks on Israel.


But it has helped to convince the general population.

Yet they voted for Trump.

Patrick Byrom
30-12-2016, 03:36 PM
What do they agree with in terms of how much and what we should do about it.Cook's survey didn't ask that question.


Yet they voted for Trump.The majority of voters didn't!

Capablanca-Fan
05-01-2017, 02:30 PM
The "Craziness" of the Climate Science Echo Chamber (http://www.steynonline.com/7661/the-craziness-of-the-climate-science-echo-chamber)
by Mark Steyn
Mann vs Free Speech
4 January 2017

I spent much of Wednesday guest-hosting America's Number One radio show. You can find a few moments from today's show here - including a reference to the story of most personal interest to me, the news that the distinguished climate scientist Judith Curry had decided to resign from her position at Georgia Tech:


The superficial reason is that I want to do other things...

The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.

Dr Curry elaborates:


A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

By "career suicide", Dr Curry means that, if you dissent from the Big Climate orthodoxy, thug enforcers like Dr Michael E Mann will take the hockey stick to you until there's nothing left.

Judith Curry is the co-editor of The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences and the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans and a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee - as opposed to running around falsely claiming to be a Nobel Laureate and playing Jessica Alba's personal climatologist on a James Cameron crockumentary. [She was Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN).]

Rincewind
05-01-2017, 03:47 PM
Hard to take Mark Steyn seriously after he edited a classic piece of denialism under the self-parodying title of "Climate Change the Facts".

Patrick Byrom
05-01-2017, 05:44 PM
Hard to take Mark Steyn seriously after he edited a classic piece of denialism under the self-parodying title of "Climate Change the Facts".It's hard to take Curry seriously either since no evidence is provided for her charges.

Steyn hasn't been having a good fortnight. Mann's defamation case against him is now free to proceed, after the DC Court of Appeals threw out the SLAPP case against it.

Ian Murray
07-01-2017, 01:47 PM
Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html)
This article was first published by Scientific American on 25 October 2010

...Climate skeptics have seized on Curry's statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry. ...

Stripped of incendiary words, the central issue that concerns Curry also happens to be the key problem in translating climate science into climate policy. The public at large wants to know whether or not climate is warming, by how much and when, and they want to know how bad the effects are going to be. But the answers scientists give in papers and at conferences come couched in a seemingly vague language of confidence intervals and probabilities. The politically charged nature of the issue seems to have made some scientists reluctant to even mention anything to the public about "uncertainty" for fear that the likes of Oklahoma's Senator James "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Inhofe and other politically motivated skeptics will continue to use the word as a blunt instrument against the whole enterprise of climate science—that because the scientists do not know everything, they know nothing.

The uncertainty lies in both the data about past climate and the models that project future climate. Curry asserts that scientists haven't adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don't even know with precision what's arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2—that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors.

Things get worse, she argues, when you try to add in those feedbacks to project likely temperature increases over the next century, because the feedbacks are rife with uncertainty as well: "There's a whole host of unknown unknowns that we don't even know how to quantify but that should be factored into our confidence level." One example she cites is the "hockey stick" chart showing that current temperatures are the warmest in hundreds of years. If you are going to say that this year or that decade is the hottest, you had better have a good idea of what temperatures have actually been over those hundreds of years—and Curry, along with many skeptics, does not think we have as good a handle on that as the scientific community believes.

Many climate scientists find these complaints unfair. They say the IPCC has been upfront about uncertainties all along—that the reports explicitly cite areas where knowledge is lacking. It would be scientifically irresponsible to give flat answers to questions such as "How much will it warm?" or "How much will sea level rise?" Instead the experts give ranges and confidence intervals and the like. More important, other scientists part ways with Curry over how significant those uncertainties are to the final calculation. Yes, the most basic number in climate science is not known with absolute precision, agreed Stanford University's Stephen H. Schneider in a conversation shortly before he died in July. But it is only uncertain by a few percent, which simply is not enough to skew the projections significantly....

Desmond
10-02-2017, 06:37 AM
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise-1024x707.png

Kaitlin
11-02-2017, 04:57 AM
It's HOT :confused:

Ian Murray
11-02-2017, 09:19 AM
It's HOT :confused:

Get used to it. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever gets better.

Ian Murray
13-02-2017, 04:24 PM
The free market at work. Electricity suppliers keep gas generators closed down to maximise wholesale prices during peak demand at the risk of load shedding and blackouts, while solar and wind fill the gap.

Record solar, wind “save” NSW consumers as coal, gas went missing (http://reneweconomy.com.au/record-solar-wind-save-nsw-consumers-as-coal-gas-went-missing-79390/)
REneweconomy
13.2.17

...It is now clear that solar (rooftop and large scale) was contributing more than 1GW to the grid during much of the day, and around 500MW in the late afternoon on Friday when the Australian Energy Market Operator had flagged the possibility of rolling blackouts.

The strong performance of wind and solar came despite the loss of more than 1GW of capacity of coal fired power and the sudden withdrawal of two of the biggest gas fired generators on Friday afternoon – at the height of the heatwave and supply-demand crisis....

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2017, 11:20 AM
Trump should deregulate renewable energy instead of subsidizing it (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-should-deregulate-renewable-energy-instead-of-subsidizing-it/article/2615629)
By JONATHAN NELSON, Washington Examiner, 23 Feb 17

Thanks to decreases in costs of solar technology, solar-based electricity is now cheaper than grid electricity in many parts of the country. Investment in solar technology makes sense for many businesses and wealthy homeowners, but for the average American, who moves more than 11 times in their lifetime, or the third who rent housing, an expensive long-term investment is not going to work.

A new technology known as plug-and-play solar systems may change the game. People can install them in a backyard with no training. These systems are affordable and portable, which is ideal for transient or renting individuals, and they tie into the electrical grid. They do not produce enough energy for an entire household, but the systems can greatly cut down on energy costs.

Unfortunately, government regulations at all levels of government are holding back the market for these innovative systems. These regulations take the form of price controls, licensing, zoning laws and other rules, all of which can be different at each level of government.

Since most regulations were instituted before modern inverters, which allow produced electricity to safely feed back to the grid, local utilities are responsible for interpreting them. As these companies have an incentive to retain their monopoly on energy generation, the legal barriers to generating energy from another source are often very high. Some utility companies have banned distributed power generation, like the plug-and-play systems, altogether.

Rincewind
27-02-2017, 11:51 AM
Thanks to decreases in costs of solar technology, solar-based electricity is now cheaper than grid electricity in many parts of the country. Investment in solar technology makes sense for many businesses and wealthy homeowners, but for the average American, who moves more than 11 times in their lifetime, or the third who rent housing, an expensive long-term investment is not going to work.

Moving 11 times is not a disqualifying factor it depends a lot on the pattern of those 11 moves. Most people move regularly when they enter the market but then settle down in the one place for a decade or more. If you are living somewhere for at least 5 years and definitely by 10 years it makes sense to install a PV solar system.

BTW the decreases in cost are largely due to government subsidy programs generating a market which took hold and later found ways to drive down prices.

Ian Murray
27-02-2017, 02:33 PM
Trump should deregulate renewable energy instead of subsidizing it (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-should-deregulate-renewable-energy-instead-of-subsidizing-it/article/2615629)

...utilities are responsible for interpreting them. As these companies have an incentive to retain their monopoly on energy generation, the legal barriers to generating energy from another source are often very high.


Exactly! Meanwhile Turnbull and his redneck rump blame renewables for power blackouts, rather than the gouging by the grid owners.

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2017, 05:06 AM
Exactly! Meanwhile Turnbull and his redneck rump blame renewables for power blackouts, rather than the gouging by the grid owners.

Come off it: it's the government's fault with both subsidies to cronies and regulatory barriers to competition.

Desmond
28-02-2017, 07:24 AM
A new technology known as plug-and-play solar systems may change the game. People can install them in a backyard with no training. These systems are affordable and portable, which is ideal for transient or renting individuals, and they tie into the electrical grid. They do not produce enough energy for an entire household, but the systems can greatly cut down on energy costs.

Sounds like a great idea but what is a backyard?

Ian Murray
28-02-2017, 07:39 AM
Come off it: it's the government's fault with both subsidies to cronies and regulatory barriers to competition.

Greedy energy industry, too clever by half, kicks an own goal (http://reneweconomy.com.au/greedy-energy-industry-too-clever-by-half-kicks-an-own-goal-91210/)

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2017, 04:34 PM
California solar power plants ignite birds mid-flight
A Bay Area company is being urged to make changes to its state-of-the-art solar plant since thousands of birds have been burned to death by its panels. Ben Tracy reports.
CBS News, 20 Aug 2014


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E

Ian Murray
28-02-2017, 05:17 PM
California solar power plants ignite birds mid-flight
A Bay Area company is being urged to make changes to its state-of-the-art solar plant since thousands of birds have been burned to death by its panels. Ben Tracy reports.
CBS News, 20 Aug 2014

One Weird Trick Prevents Bird Deaths At Solar Towers (https://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/16/one-weird-trick-prevents-bird-deaths-solar-towers/)

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2017, 12:24 AM
One Weird Trick Prevents Bird Deaths At Solar Towers (https://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/16/one-weird-trick-prevents-bird-deaths-solar-towers/)

Interesting.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2017, 12:25 AM
Like It Or Not, Coal Is Still King (http://ipa.org.au/news/3618/like-it-or-not,-coal-is-still-king)
Brett Hogan, The Spectator Australia, 23 March 2017

On Wednesday, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and CoalSwarm released the 2017 edition of Boom and Bust: Tracking the Global Coal Plant Pipeline, a publication that helpfully tallies up all of the coal-fired power stations in development over the globe.

Predictably, the report got a strong run in the Guardian under the headline "Coal in Freefall as New Power Plants Dive by Two-Thirds" with its authors claiming that a reduction in the rate of growth showed that the shift away from fossil fuels was ‘unstoppable.'

However contrary to Greenpeace spin and The Guardian's gullibility, the report shows that ten times the amount of world coal-fired power stations were under construction in January 2017 (a total of 273 gigawatts) than were retired over the previous twelve months (27 gigawatts). Hundreds more are also in the planning and pre-construction stages.

Examination of the source documents on the related website also reveals that a total of 62 countries are planning or building a combined 841 gigawatts of new coal-fired power stations.

To put this into a domestic perspective, Australia's total coal-fired capacity is currently around 26 gigawatts.

The report clearly demonstrates that while governments around Australia dither about the best way to keep the lights on and prices low, other countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are still putting money into new coal-fired power plants while also pursuing renewable opportunities.

Based on the 77 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity that was completed in the year 2016 alone, if the Greens were successful in closing all of Australia's coal-fired power stations tomorrow, the rest of the world would make up for it in four months then keep on going.

If the Australian public really does support renewables, and renewables are already cheaper than alternatives, then reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's 1975 declaration that "no Western nation has to build a wall round itself to keep its people in" why does the federal parliament have to keep a law to compel electricity retailers to buy that product?

With its abundance of natural resources, Australia should have the lowest cost and most reliable energy in the world, for households and for businesses.

The federal government should be the guardian of competition in the energy sphere, allowing the private sector to figure out which sources of energy and which technologies will satisfy the most customers at the best price.

To this end, all available fuels including uranium, gas and coal should be on the table and any state or federal laws, rules or practices that prevent this should be repealed.

New technologies that burn less black or brown coal for the same reliable power output or that process nuclear waste into electricity are a better long-term option than the diesel generators the Weatherill Government has secured to prevent summer blackouts before next year's state election or the Turnbull Government's water-dependent ‘Snowy 2 idea.'

The rest of the world is getting on with it, and so should we.

Patrick Byrom
24-03-2017, 01:02 AM
Like It Or Not, Coal Is Still King (http://ipa.org.au/news/3618/like-it-or-not,-coal-is-still-king)
Brett Hogan, The Spectator Australia, 23 March 2017

If the Australian public really does support renewables, and renewables are already cheaper than alternatives, then reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's 1975 declaration that "no Western nation has to build a wall round itself to keep its people in" why does the federal parliament have to keep a law to compel electricity retailers to buy that product?...Firstly, all fossil fuel subsidies need to be removed, so that renewables can compete equally. Then fossil fuels need to be taxed to cover the damage caused by greenhouse gases.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2017, 01:45 AM
Firstly, all fossil fuel subsidies need to be removed, so that renewables can compete equally. Then fossil fuels need to be taxed to cover the damage caused by greenhouse gases.
Agree about the first. Second probably not, but might be the least bad solution to appease the greenie globull warm-mongers.

Ian Murray
30-03-2017, 03:10 PM
ExxonMobil knows where its best interests lie

Exxon urges Trump to keep US in Paris climate accord (https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c)
Financial Times
28.3.17

ExxonMobil, the largest American oil group, has written to the Trump administration urging it to keep the US in the Paris climate accord agreed at the end of 2015.

In a letter to President Donald Trump’s special assistant for international energy and the environment, Exxon argues that the Paris accord is “an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change”...

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2017, 11:57 PM
ExxonMobil knows where its best interests lie

Exxon urges Trump to keep US in Paris climate accord (https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c)
Financial Times
28.3.17

ExxonMobil, the largest American oil group, has written to the Trump administration urging it to keep the US in the Paris climate accord agreed at the end of 2015.

In a letter to President Donald Trump’s special assistant for international energy and the environment, Exxon argues that the Paris accord is “an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change”...
Interesting you should bring up these crony capitalists.

Why Does ExxonMobil Want the U.S. to Stay in the Paris Climate Accord? (http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/03/why-does-exxonmobil-want-the-u-s-to-stay-in-the-paris-climate-accord/)
E. Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance, 29 March 2017

The Financial Times reports that ExxonMobil “has written to the Trump administration urging it to keep the US in the Paris climate accord ….”

Why? The main reason is that staying in the Paris accord offers “the opportunity to support greater use of natural gas, which creates lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal when burnt for power generation.”

But of course we only need to reduce CO2 emissions if harms arising from them outweigh benefits and benefits of reducing them outweigh harms. But neither of these is the case.

So what’s the real reason ExxonMobil and, as FT notes, “[s]everal other large international oil companies, particularly in Europe, have also backed action to address climate change”? It’s clearly not about climate.

FT answers the question in the same sentence: it “could benefit them by boosting demand for gas.”

I.e., this is simple special-interest pleading on the part of the oil companies—nothing new. They don’t want competition from coal for providing the electricity that the developing world desperately needs to lift and keep its people out of poverty.

Which means that the best policy for the world’s poor, the policy that will most help them rise out of poverty, is for governments to get out of the business of picking winners and losers in the energy field (as in all others) and let free-market competition decide.

Oh, by the way—who was it that was supposed to be “in the pocket of Big Oil”?

Capablanca-Fan
31-03-2017, 11:59 PM
Aboriginal Leader Warren Mundine Tells Australians to Grow Up and Go Nuclear (https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/02/aboriginal-leader-warren-mundine-tells-australians-to-grow-up-and-go-nuclear/)
2 March 2017

… if man-made CO2 emissions really were destroying the planet, then sensible governments would have moved to build nuclear power plants from the moment the Chicken Littles started wailing about the heavens collapsing.

The French generate over 75% of their sparks using nukes – and have used nuclear power – without any serious incident – for over 50 years: the first plant kicked off in 1962.

Nuclear power is the only stand-alone thermal power source that is base-load and which does not emit CO2 emissions when generating power. And it’s a whole lot safer than wind power, with its with million strong fleet of bat-chomping, bird slicing, blade-chucking, pyrotechnic, sonic-torture devices.

The wind industry has been flapping about for not much more than 20 years (producing a trickle of unreliable power, even today) and has killed more than 160 people; nuclear power has been a serious contender for over 50 years and (in a single accident at a military facility, Chernobyl) killed 56, most of whom were fire or rescue workers (see our post here). Despite the frenzied reaction to the Fukushima incident – a result of damage caused when a monster tsunami knocked out the power plant’s power supply – not one single soul was lost during the incident or in the 5 years since.

Then there is the, not so minor, matter of the safety provided to families, the aged and the infirm who rely upon air-conditioners to keep them from boiling in summer or freezing in winter; and, in particular, those on life support (whether at home or in hospital) for whom power is truly a matter of life and death.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2017, 12:02 AM
Why are we cold on the idea of nuclear fission? (https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/30/nuclear-power-the-grown-ups-option-for-australias-unfolding-power-crisis/)
Adam Creighton, The Australian, 20 March 2017

Any financial adviser worth their commission will tell clients not to eschew entire asset classes. Diversify, they’ll insist. You can never predict the future, and even confident forecasts often prove wrong.
The same principles should apply to energy security. But when it comes to Australia’s power supply debate and our nuclear options in that mix — silence.

As of last year, 30 countries operated 450 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 60 nuclear plants were under construction in 15 countries, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. That includes 20 in China and the giant Hinkley nuclear station that’s been commissioned by the UK government.

Yet Australia, with up to 40 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves, lacks one, beyond the small medical facility at Lucas Heights.

South Australia’s blackouts have rightly shifted attention on to Australia’s dysfunctional National Electricity Market, and the absurd prospect of the second-largest LNG exporter in the world facing a domestic gas shortage from next year.
But the interminable slanging over coal and gas on the one hand, and solar and wind on the other, takes place with no mention of our vast uranium reserves.

Even a recent report from South Australia’s 2016 royal commission into nuclear power hasn’t excited much debate. “The Commission did not find that nuclear power is ‘too expensive’ to be viable or that it is ‘yesterday’s technology’. Rather, it found that a nuclear power plant of currently available size at current costs of construction would not be viable in the South Australian market under current market rules,” it reported. South Australia has had either the highest or second-highest average wholesale electricity prices — and the most volatile — for the past nine years, which has hurt the state’s stricken economy.

Cost aside, nuclear power offers a vastly superior path to a low-carbon emission future than solar and wind power because it’s 100 per cent reliable. It’s black coal without any emissions, and with more location flexibility to boot.

Nuclear power would give Australia the opportunity to develop an expertise it doesn’t have. It’s odd for the country with so much uranium to contract out expertise to manage, use and understand it to other countries. The knowledge acquired could have beneficial spill-overs for Australia’s defence manufacturing industries as well.

The politics should not be insurmountable either. In France, local politicians have long competed to have the next nuclear reactor built in their region because of the jobs and commerce they inevitably foster. The UAE’s reactor under construction employs about 17,000 workers — five times more than the construction of Australia’s next submarines.

Nuclear power is not a short-term solution to Australia’s self-imposed energy crisis. But longer term it could be the stone that hits many birds at once — cutting long-term carbon emissions, bolstering high-income STEM jobs, boosting South Australia’s economy, enhancing Australia’s national security and diversifying our energy supply. It could even give the Prime Minister a meaningful “nation-building” goal.

Rincewind
01-04-2017, 12:11 AM
The issue of safely disposing of the waste material remains without a satisfactory solution. On top of this Australia's power requirements are not so great that they cannot be met by bringing more renewable sources on line.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2017, 07:21 AM
The issue of safely disposing of the waste material remains without a satisfactory solution.
Really? Why have so many other countries had nuclear power for decades without loss of life?


On top of this Australia's power requirements are not so great that they cannot be met by bringing more renewable sources on line.
At what cost and reliability?

Ian Murray
01-04-2017, 08:32 AM
Really? Why have so many other countries had nuclear power for decades without loss of life?

A few decades is meaningless. Nuclear waste remains a threat to health, human and wildlife, and to the environment for up to 250,000 years. Protecting 7000 future generations of humans is a problem with no clear solution.

Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source? (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/)

Nuclear waste: keep out for 100,000 years
(https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c)

It is noteworthy that the average coal-fired power station produces 400,000 tons of waste ash each year.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2017, 10:27 AM
When has nuclear waste caused any harm?

Meanwhile, you don't seem to mind South Australia's blackouts, thanks to its leftard/greenie rulers and their ‘renewables’ obsession.

Rincewind
01-04-2017, 11:16 AM
Really? Why have so many other countries had nuclear power for decades without loss of life?

Chernobyl comes to mind when it comes to loss of life. Even without loss of life radiation poisoning and the mitigation actions necessary to overcome that as well as environmental damage has been incurred by most countries with a nuclear power program.


At what cost and reliability?

It's cheap and reliable and don't not leave a radioactive waste problem for your greatgrandchildren to deal with.

Rincewind
01-04-2017, 11:16 AM
When has nuclear waste caused any harm?

Ask your great grand children.

ER
01-04-2017, 11:42 AM
Meanwhile, you don't seem to mind South Australia's blackouts, thanks to its leftard/greenie rulers and their ‘renewables’ obsession.

Let alone the electricity price hike they caused! (nearly eight times those of other states on Christmas Day as 'soaring temperatures increased demand').

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/south-australia-electricity-price-spikes-in-christmas-heatwave/news-story/f2daff361807c325d1cd260df707228c

for the benefit of those of you who do not subscribe to the Australian here are three extracts

3406

3404

and

3405

by selecting a part of the above and do a search on it, I believe you can get the whole article by Andrew White.

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2017, 12:16 PM
Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself before Congress (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude)
JULIE KELLY, National Review, 30 March 2017

The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment.

But astonishingly, Mann was not talking about those scientists: He was talking about himself. In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag.

It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully. It was quite a spectacle. Mann was joined on the panel by Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Jr. — three scientists who have actually endured the kind of political witch-hunts Mann referred to. Rather than present data or debate the science, Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science.

Mann’s rhetoric became so inflamed that he was finally upbraided by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. “From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science,” Rohrabacher said to Mann. “Call people ‘deniers’ all you want, use any kind of name you want . . . when we talk about Mr. Lysenko, that’s the kind of thing they did to the scientists in Russia. Try to call people names and beat them into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic.”

Mann’s name-calling prompted Representative Darin LaHood (R., Ill.) to bring up his defamation lawsuit against National Review. After getting confirmation from Curry and Pielke that they had been subjected to attacks by Mann — Pielke said he couldn’t “keep up with all of Dr. Mann’s epithets” — LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: “You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that and yet we have a suit that’s been filed based on those exact same things. There’s a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you’re engaged in that in this public forum.”

Patrick Byrom
01-04-2017, 02:15 PM
Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself before Congress (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude)
JULIE KELLY, National Review, 30 March 2017

The gist of Mann’s anecdote was that scientists who challenge the ruling government’s diktat on any given scientific issue are demonized and punished while innocent bystanders suffer. In the here and now, this would seemingly apply to the minority of scientists brave enough to question the reigning dogma of climate science. After all, these are the folks who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials, personally and professionally attacked by their peers, and even driven out of their academic positions due to the harassment.
Who are these scientists who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials and driven out of their positions? And why are there no actual quotes from Mann himself in your post, so that we can judge him for ourselves?

Patrick Byrom
01-04-2017, 03:52 PM
Let alone the electricity price hike they caused! (nearly eight times those of other states on Christmas Day as 'soaring temperatures increased demand'). ...
There are different views on that (http://theconversation.com/south-australias-electricity-price-woes-are-more-due-to-gas-than-wind-62824):

Competition from wind generators protects consumers from high wholesale prices for much of the time. But when the wind is not blowing, consumers are exposed to the full effects of an uncompetitive market. That is what has happened to customers in SA this month. It is absurd to say that SA electricity prices would be lower if there were less wind generation. On the contrary, consumers would be exposed to high prices in an uncompetitive market for more of the time, and thus face higher average prices, not lower ones.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2017, 07:07 AM
There are different views on that (http://theconversation.com/south-australias-electricity-price-woes-are-more-due-to-gas-than-wind-62824):

Competition from wind generators protects consumers from high wholesale prices for much of the time. But when the wind is not blowing, consumers are exposed to the full effects of an uncompetitive market. That is what has happened to customers in SA this month. It is absurd to say that SA electricity prices would be lower if there were less wind generation. On the contrary, consumers would be exposed to high prices in an uncompetitive market for more of the time, and thus face higher average prices, not lower ones.


Special pleading going on there to explain away the power blackouts. Fossil fuel and hydro are reliable and steady, and the greenie nonsense has led to less reliable power supply, as the recent events show.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2017, 07:33 AM
Chernobyl comes to mind when it comes to loss of life.
Yes, and that's the only example you have, from a repressive and murderous communist regime, and even that resulted in about 50 deaths. Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone. But there are there are 449 nuclear power reactors in operation operating in 31 countries.


Even without loss of life radiation poisoning and the mitigation actions necessary to overcome that as well as environmental damage has been incurred by most countries with a nuclear power program.
Compared to what? According to Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2016 (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf), there were 164 accidents per year 2012–2016. There have been 170 fatalities. Also "1.4 million bird fatalities per annum are estimated if the US reaches its 20% target for wind generation."

Almost 100 died building the Hoover Dam alone (and hydro is a good source where available; NZ is majority hydro, and is increasing wind turbines because the lower North Island is in the path of the Roaring forties).


It's cheap and reliable and don't not leave a radioactive waste problem for your greatgrandchildren to deal with.
By the time of your grandchildren, a lot of the waste would have decayed. Nuclear technologist Kirk Sorensen explains:


The two "fission products" that result are highly radioactive but decay towards stability very quickly. There are about 80 different sequences of decay that fission products can follow, and roughly a quarter reach a completely non-radioactive state within a day. Within a month, about three-quarters are stable, and within a year about 80%. But in the first few hours after a nuclear reactor shuts down these fission products are producing significant amounts of heat and unlike fission, this heat generation can't be turned off. It has to run its course to completion. Therefore, managing what is called "decay heat" is one of the most important aspects of operating a nuclear reactor safely. To remove the heat, today's reactors have an abundance of safety systems, all of which have the same mission—keep removing decay heat from the nuclear fuel.

Rincewind
02-04-2017, 08:59 AM
Yes, and that's the only example you have, from a repressive and murderous communist regime, and even that resulted in about 50 deaths. Three Mile Island didn't kill anyone. But there are there are 449 nuclear power reactors in operation operating in 31 countries.

BTW Chernobyl had 56 direct deaths and it is estimated that an additional 4,000 deaths due to secondary cancers.

But regardless of exact numbers you are not comparing apples with apples. There have been many many other deaths at nuclear reactors only they are not resulting from nuclear reactor failure and therefore classed as ordinary industrial accidents. So you are comparing deaths from nuclear incidents compared with total industrial accidents from all other power sources in the energy industry. Such a dishonest way to frame an argument. I thought Christians were supposed to be honest so I guess you're right I don;t know much about what it means to be a Christian.


Compared to what? According to Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2016 (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf), there were 164 accidents per year 2012–2016. There have been 170 fatalities. Also "1.4 million bird fatalities per annum are estimated if the US reaches its 20% target for wind generation."

Dishonestly comparing industrial accidents with reactor failures.


Almost 100 died building the Hoover Dam alone (and hydro is a good source where available; NZ is majority hydro, and is increasing wind turbines because the lower North Island is in the path of the Roaring forties).

More dishonesty.


By the time of your grandchildren, a lot of the waste would have decayed. Nuclear technologist Kirk Sorensen explains:


The two "fission products" that result are highly radioactive but decay towards stability very quickly. There are about 80 different sequences of decay that fission products can follow, and roughly a quarter reach a completely non-radioactive state within a day. Within a month, about three-quarters are stable, and within a year about 80%. But in the first few hours after a nuclear reactor shuts down these fission products are producing significant amounts of heat and unlike fission, this heat generation can't be turned off. It has to run its course to completion. Therefore, managing what is called "decay heat" is one of the most important aspects of operating a nuclear reactor safely. To remove the heat, today's reactors have an abundance of safety systems, all of which have the same mission—keep removing decay heat from the nuclear fuel.

Yawn. The fact that most (probably 97%) of the nuclear waste is comparatively safe within 100 years does not change that fact that there is a nuclear waste issue with the High Level Waste (perhaps around 3% of the total waste). The HLW is very dangerous from a ecological point of view and also presents a security risk and remain so for thousands of years and so present a risk not only to your great grandchildren but also to their great grand children.

The only methods that are being used are interim solutions and will require an ongoing investment to keep them secure. The only feasible long-term solution is deep geological sequestration and it is difficult to assess the safety of such methods since we know the earth's crust is not always as stable as we assume it to be.

Patrick Byrom
02-04-2017, 01:31 PM
Special pleading going on there to explain away the power blackouts. Fossil fuel and hydro are reliable and steady, and the greenie nonsense has led to less reliable power supply, as the recent events show.So what is the article ignoring - I assume you know what "special pleading" means?

The major blackout in SA was caused by severe damage to the transmission lines, not a failure by wind power. So I would like to see evidence that solar and/or wind power (especially combined with battery storage) makes power supply less reliable.

Patrick Byrom
02-04-2017, 03:33 PM
Who are these scientists who have been threatened by top law-enforcement officials and driven out of their positions? And why are there no actual quotes from Mann himself in your post, so that we can judge him for ourselves?Mann is quoted here (http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/29/smith-journal-science-not-objective/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiAiNWNjZDY0M2QtNzE2ZS00NDQ5 LWJhZWYtMDNmNzgyOTY3ODI4In0%3D), and all his statements seem very reasonable. Especially considering that he is the only witness representing the mainstream view of climate science. And that the Republican Chairman rejects, without any evidence, the respected US journal Science.

Ian Murray
10-04-2017, 04:23 PM
Despite the politics, good news on climate (http://insidestory.org.au/despite-the-politics-good-news-on-climate)
John Quiggin
Professor of Economics
University of Queensland
5.4.17

...The good news is that it’s almost certainly too late for Trump and Turnbull to derail the progress that’s being made towards a decarbonised and sustainable global economy. They are engaged in gesture politics designed to appeal to culture warriors on the right, not a serious strategy to revive coal and nuclear power....

Patrick Byrom
11-04-2017, 05:23 PM
Firstly, all fossil fuel subsidies need to be removed, so that renewables can compete equally. Then fossil fuels need to be taxed to cover the damage caused by greenhouse gases.An example of the sort of subsidy that fossil fuels receive (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/11/adani-carmichael-mine-needs-1bn-public-funding-barnaby-joyce):
"The Adani Carmichael coalmine needs $1bn of government funds for a rail line because it is “a tipping point issue” to get the mine going, Barnaby Joyce has said."

Ian Murray
12-04-2017, 08:16 AM
Record new renewable power capacity added worldwide at lower cost
(https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170406121627.htm)
Date: April 6, 2017
Source: UN Environment
Summary:
As clean technology costs continue to fall, the world added record levels of renewable energy capacity in 2016, at an investment level 23 percent lower than 2015, new UN-backed research shows.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2017, 01:09 AM
A paper in Nature documents that terrestrial plant production on the planet has increased about 30% during the last century.

What globull warm-mongers call "carbon pollution" (sic) is actually a vital plant nutrient, and they (and we) would benefit from more CO2. Indeed the deserts are greening due to the CO2 (many plants need less water when there is more CO2)

So for the globull warm-mongers would like to see atmospheric CO2 levels decrease to pre-industrial levels: which 30% of animals and humans would you like to starve?

Campbell, J.E. et al., Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7648/full/nature22030.html), Nature 544:84–87, 6 April 2017 | doi:10.1038/nature22030


Growth in terrestrial gross primary production (GPP)—the amount of carbon dioxide that is ‘fixed’ into organic material through the photosynthesis of land plants—may provide a negative feedback for climate change. It remains uncertain, however, to what extent biogeochemical processes can suppress global GPP growth. As a consequence, modelling estimates of terrestrial carbon storage, and of feedbacks between the carbon cycle and climate, remain poorly constrained. Here we present a global, measurement-based estimate of GPP growth during the twentieth century that is based on long-term atmospheric carbonyl sulfide (COS) records, derived from ice-core, firn and ambient air samples. We interpret these records using a model that simulates changes in COS concentration according to changes in its sources and sinks—including a large sink that is related to GPP. We find that the observation-based COS record is most consistent with simulations of climate and the carbon cycle that assume large GPP growth during the twentieth century (31% ± 5% growth; mean ± 95% confidence interval). Although this COS analysis does not directly constrain models of future GPP growth, it does provide a global-scale benchmark for historical carbon-cycle simulations.

Ian Murray
15-04-2017, 07:52 AM
A paper in Nature documents that terrestrial plant production on the planet has increased about 30% during the last century.

What globull warm-mongers call "carbon pollution" (sic) is actually a vital plant nutrient, and they (and we) would benefit from more CO2. Indeed the deserts are greening due to the CO2 (many plants need less water when there is more CO2)
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.


So for the globull warm-mongers would like to see atmospheric CO2 levels decrease to pre-industrial levels: which 30% of animals and humans would you like to starve?
Returning atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels is totally impossible. No-one else would be foolish enough to mention it.


Campbell, J.E. Berry, J.A. et al., Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7648/full/nature22030.html), Nature 544:84–87, 6 April 2017 | doi:10.1038/nature22030

To quote Joe Berry of Stanford, co-author of this paper:


"The phenomenon of plants pulling carbon dioxide out of the air has been included in climate change models for many years, but it has always been difficult to know whether the strength of this effect is being modeled in a realistic way. Our new results affirm that the range of models used in the last IPCC assessment did, in fact, include realistic estimates of the sensitivity of global photosynthesis to CO2."

"It may be tempting to interpret these results as evidence that Earth's dynamics are responding in a way that will naturally stabilize CO2 concentrations and climate,
But the real message is that the increase in photosynthesis has not been large enough to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels. Nature's brakes are not up to the job. So now it's up to us to figure out how to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170405131012.htm

Kaitlin
15-04-2017, 08:01 AM
Returning atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels is totally impossible. No-one else would be foolish enough to mention it.


"The phenomenon of plants pulling carbon dioxide out of the air has been included in climate change models for many years, but it has always been difficult to know whether the strength of this effect is being modeled in a realistic way. Our new results affirm that the range of models used in the last IPCC assessment did, in fact, include realistic estimates of the sensitivity of global photosynthesis to CO2."

"It may be tempting to interpret these results as evidence that Earth's dynamics are responding in a way that will naturally stabilize CO2 concentrations and climate,
But the real message is that the increase in photosynthesis has not been large enough to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels. Nature's brakes are not up to the job. So now it's up to us to figure out how to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170405131012.htm

Ah.... you didn't add in, like most politically correct people are prone to do, "making all the animals extinct". This will tip the balance in favor of the plants.

This has already been implemented but not one is game to include it in the modelling.

Patrick Byrom
15-04-2017, 02:54 PM
...Indeed the deserts are greening due to the CO2 (many plants need less water when there is more CO2)
So for the globull warm-mongers would like to see atmospheric CO2 levels decrease to pre-industrial levels: which 30% of animals and humans would you like to starve?...
Both of these claims are so ridiculous that I had to check the date - but April Fool's Day was two weeks ago!

A 30% increase in plant growth does not mean a 30% increase in animal food (not all plants are edible), and no amount of extra carbon dioxide will compensate for lack of water.

Kaitlin
15-04-2017, 08:13 PM
If there more oxygen in the atmosphere and less CO2 won't that mean there will be more water ?

Ian Murray
16-04-2017, 08:49 AM
If there more oxygen in the atmosphere and less CO2 won't that mean there will be more water ?

The photosynthesis process in plants consumes water, rather than creating it.

Desmond
16-04-2017, 10:55 AM
If there more oxygen in the atmosphere and less CO2 won't that mean there will be more water ?

There isn't less CO2 in the air, there is more. Due to anthropogenic influences. We can measure this directly.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2017, 12:30 PM
A diesel in the shed (https://cairnsnews.org/2017/04/15/a-diesel-in-the-shed/)
Cairns News, 15 April 2017

In just one life-time, candles and kerosene were replaced by diesel, which was then replaced by clean silent ever-ready electricity.

Today, after Aussies have enjoyed decades of abundant reliable cheap electricity from coal, green energy gambling has taken Australia back to the era which kept a diesel in the shed.

Tasmania is the greenest state in Australia. It once had a vibrant economy that created mines, saw-mills, farms, orchards, oil and metal refineries, dams, hydro-power and railways. It is now a green no-go land. Greens have stopped new hydro developments, opposed mining, crippled the timber industry, prevented new wood-chip developments and will probably celebrate when their last refinery closes.

Tasmanians get their electricity mainly from hydro assets created long ago by their more productive ancestors. But recently a long drought caused a shortage of Tasmanian hydro-energy – they became reliant for up to 40% of their electricity needs on the Bass-link undersea cable bringing electricity from reliable coal-fired stations in Victoria and NSW. However the overloaded Bass Link cable failed, and an old gas-powered station was brought back into service (importing gas from Victoria) to keep the lights on. Subsequently their politicians hurriedly put 150 diesel generators in their shed (costing A$11 million per month).

South Australia is the next greenest state in Australia, hosting about 35% of Australia’s wind turbines. These were force-fed into existence by mandatory green energy targets and tax benefits. In a burst of green destruction they also closed their gas-fired power stations and demolished their coal-fired station. However wind power failed recently and a storm tore down their life-line bringing reliable coal power from Victoria. Now Premier Weatherill is planning to install up to 200 megawatts of diesel generators in his shed. Many residents are following his lead.

As some wag said: Question: “What did South Australians have before candles?” Answer: “Electricity”.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2017, 01:15 PM
SA Power: FOI documents reveal more than 14,000 vaccines destroyed in 2016 blackout (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-15/more-than-14000-vaccines-destroyed-in-sa-2016-blackout/8445612)
ABC, 16 April 2017

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire secured the documents and said the vaccines, worth about $400,000, were distributed by SA Health as part of the National Immunisation Program.

"The [Health] Minister needs to come out today and explain why SA Health did not have a back up plan to protect 14,000 vaccines necessary for the wellbeing of South Australians," he said.

He said the vaccines for illnesses such as whooping cough and influenza were lost when a fridge exceeded temperatures outside the recommended range.

Patrick Byrom
16-04-2017, 02:42 PM
SA Power: FOI documents reveal more than 14,000 vaccines destroyed in 2016 blackout (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-15/more-than-14000-vaccines-destroyed-in-sa-2016-blackout/8445612)
ABC, 16 April 2017…What has a blackout caused by a massive storm got to do with climate change - apart from such storms becoming more frequent as the Earth warms, of course? And where is the reference to the Greens in the article?

Patrick Byrom
16-04-2017, 02:55 PM
A diesel in the shed (https://cairnsnews.org/2017/04/15/a-diesel-in-the-shed/)
Cairns News, 15 April 2017
…However wind power failed recently and a storm tore down their life-line bringing reliable coal power from Victoria..…More fake news from Capablanca-Fan! The storm also tore down transmission lines - it's hard to transmit electricity without them.

Kaitlin
16-04-2017, 09:28 PM
What about the solar electricity instalation in the USA that is so hot it cooks birds as they fly over it ?

Ian Murray
17-04-2017, 08:28 AM
What about the solar electricity instalation in the USA that is so hot it cooks birds as they fly over it ?

Science has replaced the scaremongering:

Solar Towers Don't Seem to Be the Bird Destroyers Once Thought (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/reassessing-bird-deaths-from-solar-power-towers)

Ian Murray
18-04-2017, 08:45 AM
A diesel in the shed (https://cairnsnews.org/2017/04/15/a-diesel-in-the-shed/)
Cairns News, 15 April 2017

In just one life-time, candles and kerosene were replaced by diesel, which was then replaced by clean silent ever-ready electricity.

Today, after Aussies have enjoyed decades of abundant reliable cheap electricity from coal, green energy gambling has taken Australia back to the era which kept a diesel in the shed....

Dream on. Purely on economic grounds, the existing coal-fired power stations are the end of an era.

New coal plants wouldn’t be clean, and would cost billions in taxpayer subsidies (https://theconversation.com/new-coal-plants-wouldnt-be-clean-and-would-cost-billions-in-taxpayer-subsidies-72362)
The Conversation
2.2.17


Following a campaign by the coal industry, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued for new coal-fired power stations in Australia. But these plants would be more expensive than renewables and carry a huge liability through the carbon emissions they produce.

Major Australian energy companies have ruled out building new coal plants. The Australian Energy Council sees them as “uninvestable”. Banks and investment funds would not touch them with a barge pole. Only government subsidies could do it....

No more coal-fired power stations will be built in Australia, Queensland provider CS Energy says (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-16/coal-power-generator-says-new-plants-not-viable/8277210)
ABC 7.30
16.2.17


One of Australia's major electricity generators, CS Energy, has dismissed Malcolm Turnbull's call for the construction of new coal-fired power stations.

"It would surprise me greatly if there were ever any more coal-fired technology built in Australia," chief executive Martin Moore told 7.30.

He said his state government-owned company has "no intention" of building new, more efficient coal-fired plants....

Kaitlin
18-04-2017, 11:47 AM
Coal Power Stations only have a life span of 40 years anywho...

Ian Murray
18-04-2017, 12:50 PM
Coal Power Stations only have a life span of 40 years anywho...

At around $2 billion and four years to build, that's $50 million per year plus bank loan interest, if a lender can be found. Then the cost of ~20,000t of coal per day and the cost of emissions and ash disposal. Wind and solar stack up pretty well in comparison.

Ian Murray
18-04-2017, 01:11 PM
If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong (https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/)

"One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. A Google search for "global warming gravy train" pulls out over 50,000 results ...

It's tempting to respond with indignation; after all, researchers generally are doing something they love without a focus on compensation. But, more significantly, the accusation simply makes no sense on any level..."

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2017, 01:14 AM
At around $2 billion and four years to build, that's $50 million per year plus bank loan interest, if a lender can be found. Then the cost of ~20,000t of coal per day and the cost of emissions and ash disposal. Wind and solar stack up pretty well in comparison.

So coal subsidies bad, solar and wind subsidies good? I think all subsidies are bad. But that also means, don't shut any working plants and cause energy shortages!

Patrick Byrom
19-04-2017, 02:55 PM
So coal subsidies bad, solar and wind subsidies good? I think all subsidies are bad. But that also means, don't shut any working plants and cause energy shortages!That's strange, I don't recall any posts by you on this thread attacking fossil fuel subsidies, despite numerous ones attacking subsidies for renewable energy :)

But I believe that the ALP policy is to remove all subsidies - once an ETS is in place to price the damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions from coal and oil.

Ian Murray
19-04-2017, 05:00 PM
That's strange, I don't recall any posts by you on this thread attacking fossil fuel subsidies, despite numerous ones attacking subsidies for renewable energy :)

Credit where due - CF has stated his opposition to all subsidies more than once.

The introductory subsidies to kick start renewables take-up have largely served their purpose, and are now being wound back.
SA solar customers first to lose out as states wind up subsidy deal, NSW and Victoria to follow (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-03/sa-solar-customers-lose-subsidy-scheme/7897276)
The sale of surplus PV power to the grid now receives a price much lower than its resale price.

The Rudd government for a short time offered an $8000 grant for rooftop PV installations. Long gone - now installations receive Renewable Energy Certificates which can be used to discount the purchase price (my last REC was worth $2646).

As far as I am aware, there are no moves to phase out decades-old fossil fuel subsidies (like the diesel fuel rebate, worth around $6 billion a year).

Desmond
22-04-2017, 07:02 AM
There isn't less CO2 in the air, there is more. Due to anthropogenic influences. We can measure this directly.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/we-just-breached-the-410-parts-per-million-threshold-21372

Carbon dioxide level passes 410 ppm for the first time in millions of years.

Ian Murray
23-04-2017, 09:12 AM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/we-just-breached-the-410-parts-per-million-threshold-21372

Carbon dioxide level passes 410 ppm for the first time in millions of years.

No surprise, we know it's increasing, but still scary stuff. Particularly during the northern spring, when global vegetation growth is at its peak, absorbing maximum CO2 from the atmosphere.

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2017, 02:41 PM
Thank You, Internal-Combustion Engine, for Cleaning up the Environment (https://fee.org/articles/thank-you-internal-combustion-engine-for-cleaning-up-the-environment/)
Dwight R. Lee, FEE, 1 October 2007

The internal-combustion engine began improving the environment, however, long before global warming became a concern. Consider the fact that in 1900 a large percentage of the available horsepower really was horse power, or mule power, or ox power. As the power of the internal-combustion engine began to be substituted for animal power in the early 1900s, we began to substitute the emissions coming out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks for those coming out of the tailpipes of animals. The result was that the environment started becoming far cleaner and healthier.

Consider horse manure’s effect on the environment and health of New Yorkers in 1900. Robert Fogel, a Nobel Prize-winning economic historian, writes:


We complain a lot about air pollution today, but there were 200,000 horses in New York City, at the beginning of the 20th century defecating everywhere. And when you walked around in New York City, you were breathing pulverized horse manure—a much worse pollutant, than the exhausts of automobiles. Indeed in the United States, the automobile was considered the solution to the horse problem because pulverized horse manure carried a lot of deadly pathogens.

No serious person denies that photochemical smog from gas-powered vehicles is a health risk. It would be silly to do so. It would be even sillier, however, to deny Fogel’s observation that the air and water pollution from horse manure was a far greater health risk than the pollution from cars and trucks.

Another environmental benefit that internal combustion seldom receives credit for is that it eliminated the need to grow food for millions of farm animals. It has been estimated that in 1910 about 25 percent of U.S. acreage devoted to growing crops was being used to grow food for the farm animals that were soon replaced by motorized farm equipment. Much of that land is now forestland, with the number of trees absorbing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide much greater than it would have been without the internal combustion engine.

Based on the animal waste and the diseases that have been eliminated by the internal-combustion engine, plus the additional forestland it has made possible, environmentalists should be celebrating motorized vehicles on Earth Day instead of destroying them with sledgehammers. And the reason for celebrating internal combustion is even stronger now that we have evidence that by eliminating all those barnyard animals, the engine has also eliminated vast amounts of methane from animal flatulence—a gas with far more greenhouse potency than the carbon dioxide produced by gasoline engines.

The internal-combustion engine is certainly not pollution free—as is always the case, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Before criticizing anything for being costly, however, one should always ask the question—compared to what? When this question is taken seriously, the environmental record of the internal-combustion engine is impressive by virtue of its being far less polluting than the animals it replaced. Furthermore, gasoline-powered engines are less polluting today than they were a few years ago, and they will be less polluting in a few years than they are today. And the less intrusive government is with yet more commands and controls in response to every problem, real or imagined, the sooner an even-less-polluting power technology will replace internal combustion. Until then, let’s give the internal-combustion engine the respect it deserves for its contribution to a cleaner and healthier environment.

Patrick Byrom
23-04-2017, 03:00 PM
Thank You, Internal-Combustion Engine, for Cleaning up the Environment (https://fee.org/articles/thank-you-internal-combustion-engine-for-cleaning-up-the-environment/) Dwight R. Lee, FEE, 1 October 2007
…Furthermore, gasoline-powered engines are less polluting today than they were a few years ago, and they will be less polluting in a few years than they are today. ...Because of government regulations!

Ian Murray
23-04-2017, 06:55 PM
Thank You, Internal-Combustion Engine, for Cleaning up the Environment (https://fee.org/articles/thank-you-internal-combustion-engine-for-cleaning-up-the-environment/)
Dwight R. Lee, FEE, 1 October 2007

gasoline-powered engines are less polluting today than they were a few years ago, and they will be less polluting in a few years than they are today. And the less intrusive government is with yet more commands and controls in response to every problem, real or imagined, the sooner an even-less-polluting power technology will replace internal combustion.

The EPA-mandated emission controls led to the addition of the catalytic converter to the IC engine, despite the protests of the auto industry.

ER
23-04-2017, 07:22 PM
I saw this add on SBS!


https://youtu.be/IKp8W1jBuHw

Ian Murray
24-04-2017, 03:12 PM
I saw this add on SBS!...

I like the bit where coal now "reduces emissions by 40%". That's assuming viable carbon capture and storage, which remains economically elusive after years of trying. Of course The Trump assures us that the US has "clean coal, really clean coal", so we could all be in for a surprise.

In the meantime Peabody, the world's largest privately owned coal miner, has seen its market capitalisation slashed by $15 billion, from $17bn to $2bn. -

Ian Murray
24-04-2017, 04:27 PM
The Most Insane Claims From The Climate Conspiracy Manual Just Sent To Thousands Of Teachers (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/04/the-most-insane-claims-from-the-climate-conspiracy-manual-just-sent-to-thousands-of-teachers/)
Gizmodo
12.4.17

The Heartland Institute, America's leading peddler of climate change denialism, is back with a new instalment in its ongoing misinformation campaign. According to InsideClimate, the Koch brothers-backed think tank recently mailed a second edition of its report on the "unsettled" science of global warming to thousands of American science teachers — much to the horror of educators nationwide...

Ian Murray
27-04-2017, 07:27 AM
Businesses urge president to remain in Paris Agreement (https://www.c2es.org/international/business-support-paris-agreement)

Major companies across the economy are urging President Trump to keep the United States in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

In a letter to the president [from BP • DUPONT • GENERAL MILLS • GOOGLE • INTEL • MICROSOFT • NATIONAL GRID •
NOVARTIS CORPORATION • PG&E • SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC • SHELL • UNILEVER • WALMART], more than a dozen companies say continued U.S. participation in the agreement would help them manage rising climate risks and compete in growing global clean energy markets....

Exxon urges Trump to keep US in Paris climate accord (https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c)

ExxonMobil, the largest American oil group, has written to the Trump administration urging it to keep the US in the Paris climate accord agreed at the end of 2015.

In a letter to President Donald Trump’s special assistant for international energy and the environment, Exxon argues that the Paris accord is “an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change”. ...

Ian Murray
28-04-2017, 08:50 AM
For a horrible glimpse into Australia's dark future, look to Trump's views on coal (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/28/for-a-horrible-glimpse-into-australias-dark-future-look-to-trumps-views-on-coal?)
The Guardian
28.4.17

Every big step in the process of decarbonisation is marred by unshakeable ideological allegiances. This is the frustrating and tragic clockwork of climate action: there are always echoes of a plan, but they’re buried underneath political posturing.

Renewable energy has broad bipartisan support. The shutdown of coal is a different story. There are no popular solutions for the ugly end of climate action. Can we thread a needle through the ever-shifting ethical challenges of surgically removing a technology that still forms a major part of our society?

The recent shutdown of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station isn’t Australia’s first coal closure, but the event activated the denial of coal’s inevitable demise in those tasked with forward thinking. This pattern of denial is a haunting forecast of what we’ll see when the closure of coal intensifies in Australia....

Ian Murray
30-04-2017, 12:32 PM
Bravo Westpac

Westpac's new climate change policy is bad news for Adani's Carmichael mine in Queensland (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-28/westpac-adds-coal-to-its-lending-black-list/8479600)
ABC News
28.4.17

Westpac has effectively ruled out financing Adani Group's controversial, giant coal mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin under a new climate change policy.

The bank's "new climate change position statement and action plan" restricts lending to projects which use "the highest quality coal in advanced power generation technologies"....

Ian Murray
02-05-2017, 01:48 PM
West Virginia’s biggest utility just told the governor burning more coal is “not going to happen” (http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/20170422/appalachian-power-president-says-company-is-looking-toward-renewables)

When Chris Beam, the new president of Appalachian Power, talks about economic development, he brings a message that may not be very popular among the coal-focused political leadership in West Virginia.

Giant businesses Appalachian would like to lure to the state as its future power customers — the Amazons and Googles of the world — make it very clear that when they are scouting locations for facilities like new data centers, they have to go somewhere that can guarantee them a power supply that is generated from 100 percent renewable sources...

ER
02-05-2017, 05:08 PM
The Most Insane Claims From The Climate Conspiracy Manual Just Sent To Thousands Of Teachers (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/04/the-most-insane-claims-from-the-climate-conspiracy-manual-just-sent-to-thousands-of-teachers/)
Gizmodo
12.4.17

The Heartland Institute, America's leading peddler of climate change denialism, is back with a new instalment in its ongoing misinformation campaign. According to InsideClimate, the Koch brothers-backed think tank recently mailed a second edition of its report on the "unsettled" science of global warming to thousands of American science teachers — much to the horror of educators nationwide...

well they have to be informed about some other points of view apart from the silly greenie ranting!


... but the event activated the denial of coal’s inevitable demise

I love your optimism but none actually has ever died of dreaming! Carry on! :D

Desmond
03-05-2017, 07:45 AM
Interesting that on another thread Jono is arguing about a 3% variation in celestial matters being indistinguishable from perfect, yet here 97% of scientists does not constitute a consensus. Perhaps it's a perfect consensus. :lol:

Rincewind
03-05-2017, 08:51 AM
Interesting that on another thread Jono is arguing about a 3% variation in celestial matters being indistinguishable from perfect, yet here 97% of scientists does not constitute a consensus. Perhaps it's a perfect consensus. :lol:

He is trying in vain to argue that the deviation is 0.3% rather than 3% but that is a just a measure of convenience for him. It is largely irrelevant to the discussion since he is trying to claim that "perfect" means "up to whatever level inaccuracy that might later be necessary to accommodate". :lol:

Ian Murray
03-05-2017, 08:54 AM
well they have to be informed about some other points of view apart from the silly greenie ranting!

Science is not a point of view. Science doesn't care what you believe

ER
03-05-2017, 09:59 AM
Science is not a point of view. Science doesn't care what you believe

so in regards, for instance. to anthropocentric global warming there aren't conflicting scientific points of view, right?

Rincewind
03-05-2017, 10:15 AM
so in regards, for instance. to anthropocentric global warming there aren't conflicting scientific points of view, right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE

Ian Murray
03-05-2017, 02:06 PM
so in regards, for instance. to anthropocentric global warming there aren't conflicting scientific points of view, right?

Surveys of the published works of scientists actively engaged in climate science overwhelmingly agree that current global warming is being caused by human activity, notably burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. Few of those who disagree are active climate scientists.


Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century’ (Qin et al 2014,p 17). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position...

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

Ian Murray
03-05-2017, 06:46 PM
...I love your optimism but none actually has ever died of dreaming! Carry on! :D

New solar will be cheaper than old coal by 2032 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/new-solar-will-cheaper-old-coal-2032/?)


"It’s no secret that solar PV is now the cheapest form of new-build utility-scale power generation around, but according to global research group Bloomberg New Energy Finance, we’re not far from the point when it will also be cheaper that incumbent fossil fuel generators.

Kobad Bhavnagri, BNEF’s head of research in Australia, said that prices like 2.69 US cents/kWh had ensured that solar PV was now the cheapest source of new generation in the world, and even in Australia which he said had “finally become an efficient utility-scale PV market.”

But the problem for big solar remained that “new plant still have to compete with old,” which at the moment, puts incumbent coal ahead of the game – in Australia and many other parts of the world.

But not for long. Bhavnagri says that the cost reductions of solar PV are no becoming “so significant” that BNEF can foresee a time when new solar will become cheaper than operating, existing coal.

“So, new solar is right now hands down easily cheaper than building a new coal-fired power station, and will shortly be cheaper than building a new gas-fired power station,” he said.

“However… renewables and new plant have to compete with the old. And the economics of the old, and the fact that they only have to compete on their operating costs, has blocked out competition from the new.

“However, by 2032, solar will get so cheap that it will become cheaper to build a new large-scale solar farm than it will be to burn coal. And that is a tipping point for the energy system.”

Bhavnagri says that between now and 2040, “and really for the foreseeable future,” the vast majority of Australia’s new generation capacity will be renewable....."

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2017, 01:16 AM
Looming energy crisis scandalous policy failure, says John Howard (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/looming-energy-crisis-scandalous-policy-failure-says-john-howard/news-story/29431d96fd7aca54dbfbb3e7288e280f?nk=dbd3ae857f8588 4ac40f090b9e7cc36b-1494515646)
ANDREW BURRELL, WA Chief Reporter, Australian, 11 May 2017

John Howard has described Australia’s looming energy crisis as a “scandalous policy failure of the first order” and declared that the renewable energy target should never have been lifted above 2 per cent.

“It will be a policy scandal of the first order if those sorts of restrictions and the absolutely overzealous growth of renewable energy targets ... leads to massive increases in the cost of energy in different parts of the country,” he said.

Mr Howard said the challenge of affordable and sustainable energy had barely been mentioned in the post-budget discussion this week.

He said Australia had significant reserves of uranium, coal and natural gas and the potential energy crisis in the eastern states was “a serious condemnation of our political process”.

Mr Howard said the renewable energy target was 2 per cent when he left office in 2007 and should have remained at that level. The national target is now 23.5 per cent by 2030.

Patrick Byrom
12-05-2017, 02:21 AM
John Howard has described Australia’s looming energy crisis as a “scandalous policy failure of the first order” and declared that the renewable energy target should never have been lifted above 2 per cent.What looming energy crisis?


He said Australia had significant reserves of uranium, coal and natural gas and the potential energy crisis in the eastern states was “a serious condemnation of our political process”.So what did he do to develop those uranium reserves when he was actually PM?

Ian Murray
30-05-2017, 09:08 PM
https://youtu.be/VdHZ82dtLrE

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2017, 01:54 AM
Overpopulation Hoax (https://patriotpost.us/opinion/49335)
Walter E. Williams, 1 June 2017

In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. He predicted that mankind’s birthrate would outstrip our ability to grow food and would lead to mass starvation. Malthus' wrong predictions did not deter Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich from making a similar prediction. In his 1968 best-seller, “The Population Bomb”, which has sold more than 2 million copies, Ehrlich warned: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” This hoax resulted in billions of dollars being spent to fight overpopulation.

The overpopulation hoax has led to horrible population control programs. The United Nations Population Fund has helped governments deny women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Overpopulation concerns led China to enact a brutal one-child policy. Forced sterilization is a method of population control in some countries. Nearly a quarter-million Peruvian women were sterilized. Our government, through the U.N. Population Fund, is involved in “population moderation” programs around the world, including in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources. The fact of business is that humans are what the late Julian L. Simon called the ultimate resource.

The greatest threat to mankind’s prosperity is government, not population growth. For example, Zimbabwe was agriculturally rich but, with government interference, was reduced to the brink of mass starvation. Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

Today’s poverty has little to do with overpopulation. The most commonly held characteristics of non-poor countries are greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law and an economic system closer to capitalism than to communism. That’s the recipe for prosperity.

Ian Murray
02-06-2017, 09:59 AM
Overpopulation Hoax (https://patriotpost.us/opinion/49335)
Walter E. Williams, 1 June 2017

...The greatest threat to mankind’s prosperity is government, not population growth....

The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is climate change, the topic of this thread (not population).

ER
02-06-2017, 10:03 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-withdrawing-us-paris-climate-agreement/story?id=47767077

What are we doing now? are we staying in this thing?

Patrick Byrom
02-06-2017, 10:23 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-withdrawing-us-paris-climate-agreement/story?id=47767077

What are we doing now? are we staying in this thing?The government and opposition are both committed to the agreement. I don't see why the withdrawal of the US (joining Nicaragua and Syria as the only absentees!) would change that.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2017, 12:32 PM
Trump Defends the Constitution and the Economy by Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448201/paris-agreement-trump-right-pull-out)
DAVID FRENCH [himself not a Trump voter], 1 June 2017

Obama had no authority to bind America to an enduring international accord.

Consider it a campaign promise rightly kept. Trump this afternoon announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate-change accords, and if he holds to his decision, he’ll do the American people a great service. Simply put, before any president attempts to bind the United States to an enduring multinational accord, it’s his duty to convince the American people — through constitutional processes — that the agreement is in the best interests of the United States. Barack Obama failed to do this in 2015. Trump is right to reject his actions today.

First, let’s dispense with any notion that climate change is too important to be left to constitutional treaty-making process. If the consequences of climate change will be as catastrophic as alarmists fear, then the constitutional process becomes more important, not less. The constitutional process creates binding obligations that are based in broad consensus. If two-thirds of senators vote to ratify a treaty, then that effectively means that a supermajority of the American people either agree or acquiesce to the nation’s commitment. It provides the basis for national action in response.

It’s important to note that effective treaties bind not just the United States but all the signatories. Nonbinding pacts like the Paris Agreement, by contrast, are easily fractured and easily exploited. By definition, violating “voluntary” arrangements doesn’t breach international law, and the result is an international arrangement that will exist precisely as long as any country believes it remains in their best interests — and no longer. It’s inherently unstable.

In his announcement today, Trump pledged to negotiate a different, better deal for American workers. If and when he does, he should depart from the Obama precedent, remember the Constitution, and submit that agreement for Senate ratification. Then he can perhaps build an enduring consensus. Then he can lead the free world the right way, by following the rule of law and hundreds of years of international legal norms. The calculus is simple. Binding, enduring multinational agreements should exist as treaties, as without a treaty there is no binding, enduring multinational agreement.

Trump has been hit-or-miss on his campaign promises. Just today he wrongly backed away from his commitment to move America’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448182/trump-breaks-campaign-promise-fantasy-middle-east-peace). But leaving the Paris agreement was a big promise made, and as of today it’s a big promise kept.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2017, 12:33 PM
The government and opposition are both committed to the agreement.

Not surprised: the ruling LNP is really Labor-Lite.

Patrick Byrom
02-06-2017, 01:40 PM
Trump Defends the Constitution and the Economy by Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448201/paris-agreement-trump-right-pull-out) DAVID FRENCH [himself not a Trump voter], 1 June 2017 Trump doesn't even believe that treaties are binding - like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, better known as NATO.

Patrick Byrom
02-06-2017, 01:42 PM
Not surprised: the ruling LNP is really Labor-Lite.And they want to be re-elected - opposing the Paris agreement would make that significantly more difficult.

Ian Murray
02-06-2017, 04:30 PM
Article 28 of the Paris Accord provides the exit mechanism:

1.At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party
may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2.Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the
notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3.Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this
Agreement.

The agreement took effect on 4 November 2016 (USA ratified on 3 September), so the US may apply to withdraw on or after 4.11.2019. The withdrawal would take effect one year after the application to withdraw (i.e. not before 4.11.2020), as Trump faces the people for re-election.

Ian Murray
02-06-2017, 05:21 PM
https://www.facebook.com/solarcitizens/videos/1411565985580272/

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2017, 12:58 AM
And they want to be re-elected - opposing the Paris agreement would make that significantly more difficult.

As Abbott showed when he defeated Rudd—against whom Turnbull could make no headway with his me-too agenda—opposing this agreement would make a point of contrast with Labor and do better.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2017, 01:00 AM
Article 28 of the Paris Accord provides the exit mechanism:

Maybe so, but since the US entry was not ratified by the senate as per the US Constitution, the US never entered in the first place, despite Obama's anti-constitutional unilateralism.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2017, 03:31 AM
P.E.I. man wants to know why he pays HST on electricity he generates himself (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-electricity-hst-solar-net-metering-1.4139700)
Solar-powered house not charged for electricity, yet can’t escape the tax
By Kerry Campbell, CBC News, 1 June 2017

Ian Murray
03-06-2017, 08:54 AM
P.E.I. man wants to know why he pays HST on electricity he generates himself (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-electricity-hst-solar-net-metering-1.4139700)
Solar-powered house not charged for electricity, yet can’t escape the tax
By Kerry Campbell, CBC News, 1 June 2017

An example of outmoded taxation and other laws trailing behind the changing times. Off-grid PV powering homes would not have been under consideration when the law was enacted. As the article says, a review is in progress.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2017, 08:56 AM
An example of outmoded taxation and other laws trailing behind the changing times. Off-grid PV powering homes would not have been under consideration when the law was enacted. As the article says, a review is in progress.

That's good. If the government is pushing green energy with one hand, the other hand should not pull it back.

Ian Murray
03-06-2017, 09:02 AM
Maybe so, but since the US entry was not ratified by the senate as per the US Constitution, the US never entered in the first place, despite Obama's anti-constitutional unilateralism.

It's a bit late now to claim Obama's signature was unconstitutional, when the treaty is in force. The US is already abdicating from its global leadership role, moving over to make way for China. Calling foul on the ratification would just look like sour grapes.

Ian Murray
03-06-2017, 09:10 AM
That's good. If the government is pushing green energy with one hand, the other hand should not pull it back.

Absolutely

Patrick Byrom
03-06-2017, 09:13 AM
Maybe so, but since the US entry was not ratified by the senate as per the US Constitution, the US never entered in the first place, despite Obama's anti-constitutional unilateralism.The US did enter the Paris Agreement, but under an executive agreement, rather than through ratification. Even Trump said that the US "will withdraw" from the deal - how can the US withdraw from an arrangement that it never entered?

Patrick Byrom
03-06-2017, 09:16 AM
As Abbott showed when he defeated Rudd—against whom Turnbull could make no headway with his me-too agenda—opposing this agreement would make a point of contrast with Labor and do better.Abbott was only elected because he lied to the Australian people. Once voters realised that, Abbott and his government became extremely unpopular.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2017, 03:26 PM
Coulter Slams Hillary, Obama & Others for Their Hypocrisy on Climate Change (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/02/tucker-carlson-ann-coulter-slam-hillary-obama-others-awesome-hypocrisy-climate-change)
2 June 2017

Ann Coulter joined Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the "awesome hypocrisy" of some of these reactions.

Billionaires Richard Branson, Elon Musk and Bill Gates called Trump's decision dangerous, yet they all own private jets.

Leonardo DiCaprio said leaving the pact "threatens the livability" of our planet, but he flew back and forth to Cannes, France, in a private jet... to accept a climate award.

Hillary Clinton called it a "historic mistake," yet she took a private jet just 20 miles from Martha's Vineyard to Nantucket for a fundraiser.

Meantime, former President Barack Obama has taken more than his fair of private jets and helicopters since leaving the White House, but he still criticized Trump for pulling out of the agreement.

Patrick Byrom
04-06-2017, 03:37 PM
Coulter Slams Hillary, Obama & Others for Their Hypocrisy on Climate Change (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/02/tucker-carlson-ann-coulter-slam-hillary-obama-others-awesome-hypocrisy-climate-change)
2 June 2017...Of course the vast majority of Trump's critics don't have private jets. And even those with them may still have reduced their overall carbon footprint. But of course right-wingers prefer ad hominem attacks, rather than addressing the issues.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2017, 03:46 PM
Of course the vast majority of Trump's critics don't have private jets. And even those with them may still have reduced their overall carbon footprint. But of course right-wingers prefer ad hominem attacks, rather than addressing the issues.
It shows that many of the most vocal alarmists clearly don't believe their own agitprop. It shows that their real agenda is more power and control over the rest of us.

Patrick Byrom
04-06-2017, 04:18 PM
It shows that many of the most vocal alarmists clearly don't believe their own agitprop. ...Only if they haven't taken any action to reduce their overall carbon footprint - I assume you have evidence of this? And it still wouldn't affect their argument that Trump's actions have been bad for the world.

Ian Murray
04-06-2017, 05:49 PM
Coulter Slams Hillary, Obama & Others for Their Hypocrisy on Climate Change (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/02/tucker-carlson-ann-coulter-slam-hillary-obama-others-awesome-hypocrisy-climate-change)
2 June 2017

Ann Coulter joined Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the "awesome hypocrisy" of some of these reactions....

Cherry-pick all you like - Trump and US deniers remain estranged from the rest of the world. Their impact is shrinking daily as US states and cities commit to meeting the Paris goals regardless of Federal intransigence.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2017, 02:33 AM
Cherry-pick all you like - Trump and US deniers remain estranged from the rest of the world.
From a voluntary agreement which Europe probably would not honour, and imposes little obligation on the real leading polluters of India, China, and Russia?


Bjørn Lomborg: The U.S. Was Right to Withdraw From the Paris Climate Accord [Reason Podcast] (http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/bjorn-lomborg-paris-climate-accord)
Nick Gillespie, Reason, 2 June 2017

The two things you need to know about the Paris [climate] agreement are, one, it is not going to do very much to tackle climate [change]...and it is incredibly costly." So says Bjørn Lomborg, the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Make no mistake, the Danish political scientist believes climate change is happening and that human activity is the main cause.

But as Lomborg stressed during an interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, the Paris accord and the earlier Kyoto Protocol are terrible ways to tackle the problem and the United States was right to withdraw from the treaty. If you're interested in protecting the environment and helping the world's poor, says Lomborg, there are cheaper and more-effective ways to reach those goals.


Their impact is shrinking daily as US states and cities commit to meeting the Paris goals regardless of Federal intransigence.
Yes, and there will probably be even more voting with their feet as businesses and people move from high-cost places to low-cost places. The cities concerned were never going to support Trump regardless, so it makes sense for Trump not to appease.

Ian Murray
05-06-2017, 09:38 AM
From a voluntary agreement which Europe probably would not honour, and imposes little obligation on the real leading polluters of India, China, and Russia?

You use 'voluntary' and 'obligation' in the same sentence! Each participating nation sets its own goals, there are no obligations on any party. That's what makes the Accord workable; it would be impossible to coerce the whole world into compliance. Trump is lying or ignorant (probably the latter) about the burden placed on the US; the Accord specifically states that all implementation must be “respectful of national sovereignty, and avoid placing an undue burden on Parties”.


Bjørn Lomborg: The U.S. Was Right to Withdraw From the Paris Climate Accord [Reason Podcast] (http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/bjorn-lomborg-paris-climate-accord)
Nick Gillespie, Reason, 2 June 2017

The two things you need to know about the Paris [climate] agreement are, one, it is not going to do very much to tackle climate [change]...and it is incredibly costly." So says Bjørn Lomborg, ...

Lomborg's distortions of reality have been discredited over and over.

The 2015 Citi GPS report Energy Darwinism II (https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8y D3FY9VbGpK%2Baax) found inaction on climate change would lead to global losses in economic output through 2060 of an estimated $44 trillion. The 2017 IEA / IRENA report Perspectives for the Energy Transition: Investment needs for a low-carbon energy system (http://www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=3828) found that meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement would result in a $19 trillion increase in global economic output through 2050.
Paris Agreement: a Smart Deal to Benefit Every Nation’s Priorities
(https://engage4climate.org/2017/05/09/smart-deal-to-benefit-every-nations-priorities/)

Trump, Lomborg et al are really not smarter than the leaders and their scientific and economic advisers of 193 nations - capitalist, communist, socialist, whatever stripe of government.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2017, 12:05 PM
You use 'voluntary' and 'obligation' in the same sentence! Each participating nation sets its own goals, there are no obligations on any party. That's what makes the Accord workable; it would be impossible to coerce the whole world into compliance. Trump is lying or ignorant (probably the latter) about the burden placed on the US; the Accord specifically states that all implementation must be “respectful of national sovereignty, and avoid placing an undue burden on Parties”.
The problem is, although "voluntary", leftist greenie EPA bureaucrats would use this agreement to impose more controls and costs.


Lomborg's distortions of reality have been discredited over and over.
By whom? More Learjet Leftists and Gulfstream Greenies? By Bill "Save the Planet" Nye?


Trump, Lomborg et al are really not smarter than the leaders and their scientific and economic advisers of 193 nations - capitalist, communist, socialist, whatever stripe of government.
Lomborg believes in AGW and that it is a problem, but doesn't think the Paris agreement would do jack.

MichaelBaron
05-06-2017, 12:22 PM
Facebook Status by my friend Dr Stas Vashevnik yesterday:
Tragic failure of Europe is on display. The elites pontificating about a non problem in expensive Paris-climate junkets while their citizens are bleeding in the street from a real problem starting to resemble a civil war.

Rincewind
05-06-2017, 12:53 PM
Facebook Status by my friend Dr Stas Vashevnik yesterday:
Tragic failure of Europe is on display. The elites pontificating about a non problem in expensive Paris-climate junkets while their citizens are bleeding in the street from a real problem starting to resemble a civil war.

Seems a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose between the two. Climate change is real and will cause major issues. If not addressed now those issues may have no solution in 10 years time. Terrorism and combating IS is also a problem but almost completely independent from the global climate.

Ian Murray
05-06-2017, 03:27 PM
The problem is, although "voluntary", leftist greenie EPA bureaucrats would use this agreement to impose more controls and costs.

Under Pruitt there are no leftist greenie bureaucrats running EPA. The US would have been at liberty to amend its INDCs without snubbing the rest of the world.


By whom? More Learjet Leftists and Gulfstream Greenies? By Bill "Save the Planet" Nye?

By real scientists,e.g.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/open-letter-to-wsj-scientist-response-to-misleading-lomborg.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/21/experts-reject-bjorn-lomborg-centres-view-that-2c-warming-target-not-worth-it
https://theconversation.com/still-no-consensus-for-bjorn-lomborg-the-climate-change-refugee-45423
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/bjorn-lomborg-just-a-scientist-with-a-different-opinion/
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/


Lomborg believes in AGW and that it is a problem, but doesn't think the Paris agreement would do jack.

He's been chucked out of Denmark and Australia, and operates his "Copenhagen Climate Centre" out of a rent-a-box in the US. 193 nations disagree with his opinion on the Paris Accord.

BTW, here's something to allay your pessimism about the European, Chinese and Indian intentions:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/europe/eu-us-climate/index.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/india-solar-wind-renewable-power-electric-cars-leds/

Ian Murray
06-06-2017, 03:32 PM
Donald Trump's Triumph of Stupidity (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html)
Spiegel Online
2.6.17

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other G-7 leaders did all they could to convince Trump to remain part of the Paris Agreement. But he didn't listen. Instead, he evoked deep-seated nationalism and plunged the West into a conflict deeper than any since World War II...

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2017, 12:40 AM
Trump offered to renegotiate, but they dug their heels in (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336008-world-leaders-warn-trump-paris-agreement-cannot-be-renegotiated):


Trump spoke by phone Thursday with Merkel, Macron, Trudeau and Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom, according to the White House.

He “personally explained his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord,” a readout of the calls said, and “thanked all four leaders for holding frank, substantive discussions on this issue during his first months in office.”

Trump also “reassured the leaders that America remains committed to the Transatlantic alliance and to robust efforts to protect the environment.”

“He noted America’s strong record in reducing emissions and leading the development of clean energy technology, and he reiterated that the United States under the Trump Administration, will be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth,” the readout continued.

Trump announced Thursday his decision to pull the United States out of the Paris deal, aiming to end the U.S.’s involvement in a landmark 2015 pact in which nearly every country in the world agreed to begin tackling climate change.

He said the voluntary terms included in the deal by the Obama administration are unfair to the United States and will hurt its energy and business sectors.

Trump vowed to renegotiate the deal, though a White House official said what a renegotiated deal would look like is "up to the president" and provided no details.

So who needs these silly agreements? Kyoto worked oh-so-well, didn't it?

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2017, 12:45 AM
Under Pruitt there are no leftist greenie bureaucrats running EPA.
Wonderful. So no Obamov holdovers?


The US would have been at liberty to amend its INDCs without snubbing the rest of the world.
So why is this agreement even needed then?


By real scientists, e.g.
On the warm-mongering gravy train.


He's been chucked out of Denmark and Australia,
For upsetting the green gravy train. Similarly, Elon Musk is whinging because he sees an end to the subsidies that pad his billions.


and operates his "Copenhagen Climate Centre" out of a rent-a-box in the US.
The usual attacks are that he is a "denier", which is utterly false.


193 nations disagree with his opinion on the Paris Accord.
Who gives a monkey's? In most cases, the nations are not agreeing to anything, just the murderous thug in charge of them.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2017, 12:56 AM
It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448320/hypocrite-democrats-lecture-country-exempt-themselves-resemble-jimmy-swaggart)
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, 6 June 2017
Progressives go the full Jimmy Swaggart

So perhaps what drives proverbially average Americans crazy is not the success and money of others, but the condescension and hypocrisy of what a particular elite says contrasted with how it lives: The disconnect recalls the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart, the televangelist who on Sunday mornings three decades ago used to break into tears as he loudly condemned the sins of the flesh, while he privately indulged his worldly appetites.

Elites, whose lifestyles lead them to burn lots of carbon, rail about the Paris accords to those who get by burning lots less. What is galling is to see how little the elites’ green rhetoric is backed up by their green behavior. Could Hollywood celebrities at least for a year swear off the use of their private jets that emit more carbon emissions in a year than entire small towns in Ohio?

Why do not college professors who are strident activists for climate change agree to limit their intercontinental jet trips to one a year? Could our pundits and politicians who warn Middle America to brace for radical changes in their lifestyles at least agree to live in houses smaller than 2,500 square feet?

How do our elites square the circle of identity politics and big money? The notion that reparatory admissions and hiring are based on race and gender presupposes that past endemic bias has led to oppression that in turn had hit hard the livelihoods of the Other. But what happens when after a half-century of affirmative action, many who receive preferences are richer than those whom they accuse of white privilege? Or is it more ironic than that?

Wealthy white college kids chant about the demon white privilege, going so far as to help demand racially segregated safe spaces, dorms, and, in one case currently in the news, temporary expulsion of white people from campus. They rage against a privilege that they enjoy and that their perceived targets — the unenlightened middle of America — do not. Yet one easy way of ending white privilege, to the extent that it exists, among elite enclaves would be to send one’s children to public high schools rich in diversity.

If one believes that charter schools and vouchers weaken the public-school system, then an effective way to counter such challenges would be to put one’s own children in public classrooms rather than to deny the poor the ability to disconnect from the public schools for the same reasons that so many elites have. One of the most surreal paradoxes of Washington, D.C., is the number of progressives (including the former president of the United States) who put their children in Sidwell-Friends while passionately opposing charter schools and vouchers.

In sum, the progressive Left’s problem is not elitism per se, at least in the sense that it’s now the party of wealthy people, investors, professionals, academics, the media, and celebrities. Rather the rub is the Left’s grating habit of lecturing America on its shortcomings while exempting themselves.

In all their own manifest hypocrisies, Americans take for granted that elites of the Left have become the Jimmy Swaggarts of our age.

Ian Murray
07-06-2017, 08:09 AM
Trump offered to renegotiate, but they dug their heels in (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336008-world-leaders-warn-trump-paris-agreement-cannot-be-renegotiated):

Unbelievable arrogance! Trump suggests the rest of the world go back to the drawing board and come up with an agreement that suits him!

From the same report:


...The leaders of France, Germany and Italy, three key supporters of the climate deal in Europe, responded quickly to Trump’s suggestion that the agreement could be renegotiated with better terms for the U.S.

The deal, they said in a statement, is “a cornerstone in the cooperation between our countries, for effectively and timely tackling climate change.”

It is “irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated,” they added in response to Trump saying he’d “begin negotiations to re-enter — whether the Paris accord, or really, an entirely new transaction — on terms that are fairer to the United States.”...

In a statement, the United Nations said it “regrets the announcement” and said the deal “cannot be renegotiated based on the request of a single party.”

“We are committed to continue working with all governments and partners in their efforts to fast forward climate action at global and national levels,” Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said. ...

Ian Murray
07-06-2017, 10:31 AM
Adani gives itself the green light, but that doesn’t change the economics of coal (https://theconversation.com/adani-gives-itself-the-green-light-but-that-doesnt-change-the-economics-of-coal-78912)
Samantha Hepburn
Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University
7.6.17

...Let’s recap: coal mining is not economically viable within the constraints of a global carbon budget, while renewable energy production is rapidly expanding as the world moves to more sustainable investments. The result is that coal projects could become stranded assets, with price tags that may already exceed what would have been the costs of a timely implementation of climate action. Investors and lending institutions are shifting to sustainable projects that limit the risk of catastrophic environmental damage. ...

The economics of the Adani coal mine simply do not make sense. While there may be limited short-term employment opportunities and royalty gains for the state should the project actually get financed, the longer-term projections are dire.

The thermal coal market is in decline. What’s more, the Carmichael mine will produce low-ranking thermal coal with a high ash content, making it carbon-intensive even by coal’s standards, and bringing with it considerable health risks...

Put simply, coal is not a sustainable resource for energy production.

This climate perspective informs the market. India, for example, cannot be relied upon as a guaranteed market for this low-quality coal. This is particularly evident in the recent unveiling of India’s new power plan, which calls for a dramatic increase in renewable energy production. This will have a deleterious impact on all Australian coal markets, and makes the decision to pursue low-quality coal reserves all the more untenable.

The banks know this. Westpac, ANZ, NAB, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citi, BNP Paribas, Société Générale and Crédit Agricole are among the domestic and international banks that have declined to fund the project, while the Commonwealth Bank has quit as the project’s financial adviser.

This is why the question of financing is so fraught. The major banks understand the fact that longer term, the Adani coal mine has no future. They are also concerned about the financial impact of stranded assets. Westpac, for example, made it very clear earlier this year that it aims to shift lending to sustainable economic models, and would increase lending to this sector to A$25 billion by 2030. It also made it clear that any funding for coal projects would henceforth be limited to existing coal projects with high-quality coal. Other major banks have adopted similar stances....

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2017, 11:49 AM
Unbelievable arrogance! Trump suggests the rest of the world go back to the drawing board and come up with an agreement that suits him!
That suits the country he was elected president of. Americans didn't vote to be bossed around by the Frogs.

Paris Agreement Was Designed to Have a Devastating Impact on the U.S. Economy (http://www.independentsentinel.com/paris-agreement-designed-devastating-impact-u-s-economy/)
By S. Noble, 4 June 2017

The Paris Treaty was meant to turn the U.S. economy into a globally-governed Socialist economy for climate justice’s sake. It was primarily the U.S. that was responsible for developing poor countries throughout the world and it’s not surprising that 195 countries signed on to it.

The draft of the treaty states: “Developed countries shall provide developing countries with long-term, scaled-up, predictable, new and additional finance, technology and capability-building.”

It was a welfare bonanza for banana republics and polluting countries.

The goal of it is to establish a low greenhouse gas emission economy, in other words, a global socialist economy without fossil fuels.

The U.S. was supposed to pay polluters

Under the Paris climate change treaty, China was able to pollute until 2030 and who knows what they would do in 2030 when the people who made the deal are no longer in charge. India and other nations also got to pollute until they become rich. The United States, however, had to immediately follow stringent requirements in every area of the country by 2020. It would be our economy that would go in the tank.

Countries like the U.S. were to be compelled to immediately consider sustainable development in all “policies and measures” and “in all economic sectors.” Under this treaty, globalists could easily control every aspect of our lives.

Ian Murray
07-06-2017, 01:11 PM
That suits the country he was elected president of. Americans didn't vote to be bossed around by the Frogs....

69% of Americans (51% of Republicans) (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/) are in favour of the US remaining in the Paris Accord. You and Trump are outliers.

Patrick Byrom
07-06-2017, 01:16 PM
That suits the country he was elected president of. Americans didn't vote to be bossed around by the Frogs.Most Americans want to remain in the Paris agreement (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/) - including almost half of Trump voters.


Paris Agreement Was Designed to Have a Devastating Impact on the U.S. Economy (http://www.independentsentinel.com/paris-agreement-designed-devastating-impact-u-s-economy/) By S. Noble, 4 June 2017
The Paris Treaty was meant to turn the U.S. economy into a globally-governed Socialist economy for climate justice’s sake. It was primarily the U.S. that was responsible for developing poor countries throughout the world and it’s not surprising that 195 countries signed on to it. ...All a complete load of rubbish. He obviously hasn't read the agreement.

Ian Murray
07-06-2017, 01:22 PM
Paris Agreement Was Designed to Have a Devastating Impact on the U.S. Economy (http://www.independentsentinel.com/paris-agreement-designed-devastating-impact-u-s-economy/)
By S. Noble, 4 June 2017

The Paris Treaty was meant to turn the U.S. economy into a globally-governed Socialist economy for climate justice’s sake. It was primarily the U.S. that was responsible for developing poor countries throughout the world and it’s not surprising that 195 countries signed on to it....

Never let any facts get in the way of a good story. The US contribution to the $100 billion Green Climate Fund was to total $3 billion. $1 billion has been paid - Trump is cancelling the $2 billion balance, what he calls "billions and billions".

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2017, 03:42 AM
Never let any facts get in the way of a good story. The US contribution to the $100 billion Green Climate Fund was to total $3 billion.
With no accountability for the money spent, just like any other useless UN bureaucracy.


$1 billion has been paid—Trump is cancelling the $2 billion balance, what he calls "billions and billions".
2 billion better spent at home, or better, returned to the taxpayers who earned it.

Ian Murray
08-06-2017, 08:32 AM
With no accountability for the money spent, just like any other useless UN bureaucracy.

The rubbish you come out with. Of course the Green Climate Fund has accountability provisions. The World Bank is acting as trustee for the fund, and the board of management operates under guidelines set by and reports annually to the Conference of the Parties (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=14).

The most recent annual report and audited financial statements can be found here (http://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/226888/GCF_B.13_04_ Fifth_Report_of_the_Green_Climate_Fund_to_the_Conf erence_of_the_Parties_to_the_United_Nations_Framew ork_Convention_on_Climate_Change.pdf/5ca9f462-9a3b-41ab-a3c9-d66e78dcaaaf) and here (https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/226888/GCF_B.13_22_-_Audited_financial_statements_of_the_Green_Climate _Fund_for_the_year_ended_31_December_2015.pdf/5574b68a-cbf9-4a01-902d-f69482ede75d).


2 billion better spent at home, or better, returned to the taxpayers who earned it.

$2 billion is 0.011% of the US GDP (2015) of $18036.65 billion. To claim that it would have a "devastating impact on the US economy" is absurd - cf Trump's $54 billion increase in defence spending this year.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2017, 12:30 AM
The rubbish you come out with. Of course the Green Climate Fund has accountability provisions. The World Bank is acting as trustee for the fund, and the board of management operates under guidelines set by and reports annually to the Conference of the Parties (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=14).
People who are not accountable to voters.


$2 billion is 0.011% of the US GDP (2015) of $18036.65 billion.
Still better used in the USA. Dictatorships and polluters should stop regarding the USA as their ATM. That's the real reason they are screeching about the USA pulling out (while refusing any compromise deal).

Ian Murray
09-06-2017, 09:55 AM
People who are not accountable to voters.

How many international funds do you know of which are accountable to voters? The GCF is managed by a 24-member board, 12 from developed countries and 12 from developing countries. The fund is accountable to the 193 governments of the COP.


Still better used in the USA. Dictatorships and polluters should stop regarding the USA as their ATM. That's the real reason they are screeching about the USA pulling out (while refusing any compromise deal).

The US has been the greatest emitter of CO2e per capita over the long haul, so it is eminently fair that she should help developing countries combat climate change which they did not cause. Nevertheless, on a per capita basis (https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19), the US has committed only $3.10 to the GCF. Per capita contributions in US dollars by other developed countries include Australia $7.92, Canada $7.80, Denmark $12.82, Finland $17.82, France $16.03, Germany $12.13, Japan $11.81, Norway $50.56, Sweden $60.54, Switzerland $12.20, UK $19.07. At $3.40, even Spain ranks higher than the US.

There are no legally-binding obligations - USA can remain in the Accord without paying another cent. No compromise is necessary. So why does Trump find that untenable? (I imagine it's because he just doesn't understand multilateral agreements) USA becomes a lame duck either way, freeloading on the economic benefits everyone receives from reining in global climate change.

Ian Murray
10-06-2017, 10:03 AM
Why Trump Pulled the U.S. Out of the Paris Accord (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-06-05/why-trump-pulled-us-out-paris-accord?cid=nlc-twofa-20170608&sp_mid=54238636&sp_rid=aWFuY211cnJheUBvcHR1c25ldC5jb20uYXUS1&spMailingID=54238636&spUserID=MjA4MDk5MDMwNjk4S0&spJobID=1181388224&spReportId=MTE4MTM4ODIyNAS2)
And What the Consequences Will Be
Foreign Affairs Magazine
5.6.17

President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement on June 1 was terribly misguided, and his justification for doing so was misleading and untruthful. As he announced in the Rose Garden that day, “The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers…and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.” The reality is that leaving the accord will neither bring back jobs nor help the taxpayer, but will most certainly hurt the United States and the world....

Truly, Trump’s decision to withdraw the nation from the Paris climate agreement was not based on science or sound economics, but on a confused, misguided, and simply dishonest desire to score some short-term political points with his voters. What he sacrifices in the long term will be immensely more difficult for the country to win back at the ballot box: authority, credibility, and influence. Sadly, former Mexican President Vincente Fox may have summed it up best when he said, “The United States has stopped being the leader of the free world.”

Ian Murray
10-06-2017, 06:01 PM
Revealed: Gautam Adani's coal play in the state facing global-warming hell (http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/adani-how-we-got-conned-by-coal-20170525-gwcw5h.html)
SMH
9.6.17

...Queensland is Australia's largest coal exporter. It has five working coal regions. There are 50 coalmines currently operating and a further 21, including in the Galilee Basin, in the pipeline. As well as the billions spent on coal-related infrastructure, there have been concessions made on water and electricity supplies and substandard bonds for mine rehabilitation. The government has also waved through three LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) facilities on Curtis Island, in the Great Barrier Reef near Gladstone, and approved a rapid, at times shonky, rollout of coal-seam gas wells across the state, and unconventional gas projects, which ignite underground coal seams to generate gas, with sometimes tragic results. The revenue must be huge. But it isn't. Sometimes it's a good innings and sometimes it's a very bad innings. Last year, royalties came in at $1.59 billion, 3 per cent of the state's revenue. To compare, car registrations came in at $1.63 billion. But the state is expecting good things this year; politicians are hoping for around $3 billion. It still doesn't make sense – but it all adds up, and it has to keep adding up. Spending has been locked in, promises are made, factions are formed, donations are made.

"This is," thundered Prime Minister Tony Abbott in 2015, "a project that will create 10,000 jobs." Yes, even after Fahrer's evidence that figure this was a gross overestimate. He may as well have dug a hole and whispered his evidence [the Adani mine and railway would create "on average around 1464 employee years of full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs"] into the ground.

Ian Murray
13-06-2017, 10:09 AM
In Letter, At Least 12 States Will Sue to Block Any Rollback of Emissions Standards (https://futurism.com/in-letter-at-least-12-states-will-sue-to-block-any-rollback-of-emissions-standards/)
Futurism
12.6.17

While the White House and Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, have indicated their plan to roll back vehicle emissions standards set by the Obama administration in 2011, the attorneys general of 12 states and Washington District of Columbia have pledged to sue the EPA if the roll back happens. The states — California, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Oregon, Maine, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland — made their intentions clear in a letter to Pruitt.

Back in 2011, President Obama’s administration made the deal with automakers, who agreed to work on doubling their average fuel efficiency fleet-wide until it reaches 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. The parties also agreed to undergo mid-term evaluations no later than April 2018 to ensure progress was on track. Under former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the evaluations were ahead of schedule, so the administration did not make any adjustments before President Obama left office. ...

Ian Murray
14-06-2017, 03:27 PM
World Coal Production Just Had Its Biggest Drop on Record (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/coal-s-era-starts-to-wane-as-world-shifts-to-cleaner-energy)
Bloomberg
14.6.17

It’s the end of an era for coal.

Production of the fossil fuel dropped by a record amount in 2016, according to BP Plc’s annual review of global energy trends. China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, burned the least coal in six years and use dropped in the U.S to a level last seen in the 1970s, the company’s data show.

Coal, the most polluting fuel that was once the world’s fastest growing energy source, has been a target of countries and companies alike as the world begins to work toward the goals of the Paris climate agreement. Consumption is falling as the world’s biggest energy companies promote cleaner-burning natural gas, China’s economy evolves to focus more on services than heavy manufacturing and renewable energy like wind and solar becomes cheaper.

“The fortunes of coal appear to have taken a decisive break from the past,” BP’s Chief Economist Spencer Dale said at a briefing in London on Tuesday. The most important outcome of this “is carbon emissions, which saw little or no growth for a third consecutive year.” ...

Desmond
17-06-2017, 09:24 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nrWQ4tMBrs

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2017, 05:50 AM
The Beguiling Promise Of John Goodenough's New Battery Technology (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/17/jack-goodenoughs-battery-technologies-keep-getting-better/#7c954e544e62)
James Conca, Forbes, 17 March 2017

Google's Eric Schmidt tweeted this week about a new fast-charging battery technology from John Goodenough, the inventor of the lithium-ion battery, Dr. Maria Braga and his research team in the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of Texas in Austin.

The new design uses a glass electrode instead of a liquid one, sodium instead of lithium, and may have three times as much energy density as lithium-ion batteries.

The fact that these batteries don’t get as hot, charge faster and are cheaper than lithium, are real pluses as well.

But don’t start thinking of this new battery in terms of renewable energy. The issues of electric storage between transportation or hand-held devices and utility-scale electricity storage systems are very, very different.

Utility-scale electricity storage is needed to deal with intermittency in both generation (renewables) and demand (rapid changes in use throughout the commercial day). These don’t have to be small and the most promising utility-scale batteries, including the new vanadium-flow batteries, are very large, have large capacities and are very stable and long-lasting.

But for transportation, and other small volume uses like smart phones, size really matters. These have to be small and dense and the charge has to last a long time to be most useful.

Electricity is the most efficient transportation fuel – 10 kWhs is equivalent to about 40 miles per gallon, yet costs about a buck. Electricity is also the cleanest transportation fuel as long as it is generated from a non-fossil fuel source. But we still have to charge them too often to be convenient for travel over long distances.

Thus, Goodenough’s new solid-state battery cells are ideal for this use. Tripling an electric vehicle’s range from what it is now would put it in the realm of gasoline-powered cars, just what is necessary for the market in these vehicles to really take off.

Additionally, these solid-glass electrolytes can operate at -20°C (-4°F), so this type of battery allows a car to work in subzero degree weather. In fact, this design is the first all-solid-state battery that can operate in cold weather at all.

Ian Murray
20-06-2017, 08:34 AM
The Beguiling Promise Of John Goodenough's New Battery Technology (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/03/17/jack-goodenoughs-battery-technologies-keep-getting-better/#7c954e544e62)
James Conca, Forbes, 17 March 2017

Google's Eric Schmidt tweeted this week about a new fast-charging battery technology …

Science continues to come up with new solutions. The oft-belaboured argument that renewable energy sources are too intermittent to provide baseload power is met by advances in storage options. The technology already exists allowing scalable battery storage, and will keep on getting better and better.

Ian Murray
20-06-2017, 05:32 PM
Kentucky Coal Mining Museum converts to solar power (http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Kentucky-Coal-Mining-Museum-converts-to-solar-power-418430563.html)

Kaitlin
20-06-2017, 06:08 PM
Kentucky Coal Mining Museum converts to solar power (http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Kentucky-Coal-Mining-Museum-converts-to-solar-power-418430563.html)

Probably will mean an extra wait for the chicken :(

Ian Murray
20-06-2017, 08:40 PM
Defying Trump, EU Parliament backs Paris climate goals (https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-climatechange-idUKKBN1951EG)
Reuters
14.6.17

The European Parliament backed curbs on EU states' emissions on Wednesday to share the burden of the bloc's Paris climate goals and forge ahead despite President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the 195-nation pact.

It voted 534 to 88 in favor of binding national targets for slashing greenhouse gas emissions in sectors including transport, agriculture and waste management to achieve the bloc's overall goal of emissions at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030....

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2017, 12:26 AM
Kentucky Coal Mining Museum converts to solar power (http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Kentucky-Coal-Mining-Museum-converts-to-solar-power-418430563.html)

Not for everyone though:

"Sexton said, an average house could be run by 20 panels. That would cost somewhere in between $17,000 and $20,000, but would pay off within five to seven years."

Ian Murray
21-06-2017, 09:27 AM
Not for everyone though:

"Sexton said, an average house could be run by 20 panels. That would cost somewhere in between $17,000 and $20,000, but would pay off within five to seven years."

Until economies of scale kick in. There are 1.6 million solar rooftops in Australia, of ~7.5 million detached or semi-detached homes. $A2000 - $3000 will buy a 20-panel array

Ian Murray
23-06-2017, 11:05 AM
And Australia plans to subsidise the export of coal from Adani's Carmichael Mine to India!

World's biggest coal company closes 37 mines as solar power's influence grows (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coal-india-closes-37-mines-solar-power-sustainable-energy-market-influence-pollution-a7800631.html)
Independent
20.6.17

The largest coal mining company in the world has announced it will close 37 mines because they are no longer economically viable.

Coal India, which produces around 82 per cent of India's coal, said the mines would be decommissioned by March 2018....

Solar, wind and nuclear each supply more electricity than gas and coal

India's solar sector has received heavy international investment, and the plummeting price of solar electricity has increased pressure on fossil fuel companies in the country.

The government has announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 and predicts renewables will generate 57 per cent of its power by 2027 – a pledge far outstripping its commitment in the Paris climate change agreement.

Plans for nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – were scrapped in May, signalling a seismic shift in the India's energy market.

Ian Murray
23-06-2017, 12:14 PM
The Extreme Heat to Come (http://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/2017/06/22/california-today?nlid=72214258)
NYT
22.6.17

How hot has it been lately?
So hot that San Diego County recorded its highest temperature ever — 124 degrees in Ocotillo Wells.
Airlines canceled more than 40 flights in Arizona.
And a woman suffered third-degree burns on her feet after walking barefoot in Death Valley.
Extreme heat is expected to become a bigger part of life in the West.
Climate researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, have created forecasts of how many days of extreme heat — defined as more than 95 degrees — the Los Angeles region could expect if nothing was done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Downtown Los Angeles, for example, now has roughly a week’s worth of extreme heat days a year, said Alex Hall, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at U.C.L.A.
By 2050 that figure could reach roughly 22. By the end of the century: 54.
California lawmakers have made ambitious pledges to fight climate change.
But scientists say that even if they were fully implemented, the heating trend won’t slow any time soon. That’s in part because carbon already in the atmosphere will have impacts for decades to come.
Under a scenario of mitigation roughly akin to the Paris climate accords, downtown Los Angeles would still see more than twice as many extreme heat days than it does now by midcentury, according to the U.C.L.A. forecasts.
“But by the end of the century,” said Dr. Hall, “it’s dramatically different” — less than a third as many extreme heat days compared with the business-as-usual scenario.
Today, The New York Times published a map showing how extreme heat could spread across the world. ...

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2017, 06:32 AM
Yes, Prime Minister Gets it Right: Global Warming is a Sham Front for Political and Financial Ambitions (http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/06/yes-prime-minister-gets-it-right-global-warming-is-a-sham-front-for-political-and-financial-ambitions)
By E. Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance, 23 June 2017

The BBC’s news side is utterly dedicated to spreading global warming alarmism and has even had a policy of refusing to interview fully qualified scientists who question it.

But its entertainment side isn’t quite on board with that. Two years ago the program Yes, Prime Minister aired a devastating critique of climate hysteria in one of its episodes. Here are two key excerpts.

Our friend Joseph Bast at the Heartland Institute calls these videos “simply astonishing, utterly accurate, and devastatingly honest about the politics of the issue.”

“I don’t know how anyone with a pulse can watch them and not laugh out loud at how ludicrous politicians, journalists, and some (not all) scientists appear to be when they pontificate on global warming,” Joe adds.

Ian Murray
28-06-2017, 08:11 AM
Yes, Prime Minister Gets it Right: Global Warming is a Sham Front for Political and Financial Ambitions (http://cornwallalliance.org/2017/06/yes-prime-minister-gets-it-right-global-warming-is-a-sham-front-for-political-and-financial-ambitions)
By E. Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance, 23 June 2017

...But its entertainment side isn’t quite on board with that. Two years ago the program Yes, Prime Minister aired a devastating critique of climate hysteria in one of its episodes....

Which is a lie - shame on a site claiming to be dedicated to the stewardship of creation. The last episode of Yes, Prime Minister was produced in 1986. The series starred Nigel Hawthorne and Paul Eddington, unforgettable characters who bear no resemblance to the pretenders appearing in the videos claimed as original BBC productions (as Capablanca Fan knew perfectly well when foisting this on us, being a fan of the show himself). They have Heartland Institute prints all over them, beating the same old climate-denier drum. Among the latest scientific reports:

Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming)
The Guardian
27.7.16

For those of us who are concerned about global warming, two of the most critical questions we ask are, “how fast is the Earth warming?” and “how much will it warm in the future?”.

The first question can be answered in a number of ways. For instance, we can actually measure the rate of energy increase in the Earth’s system (primarily through measuring changing ocean temperatures). Alternatively, we can measure changes in the net inflow of heat at the top of the atmosphere using satellites. We can also measure the rate of sea-level rise to get an estimate of the warming rate.

Since much of sea-level rise is caused by thermal expansion of water, knowledge of the water-level rise allows us to deduce the warming rate. We can also use climate models (which are sophisticated computer calculations of the Earth’s climate) or our knowledge from Earth’s past (paleoclimatology).

Many studies use combinations of these study methods to attain estimates and typically the estimates are that the planet is warming at a rate of perhaps 0.5 to 1 Watt per square meter of Earth’s surface area. However, there is some discrepancy among the actual numbers.

So assuming we know how much heat is being accumulated by the Earth, how can we predict what the future climate will be? The main tool for this is climate models (although there are other independent ways we can study the future). With climate models, we can play “what-if scenarios” and input either current conditions or hypothetical conditions and watch the Earth’s climate evolve within the simulation.

Two incorrect but nevertheless consistent denial arguments are that the Earth isn’t warming and that climate models are inaccurate. A new study, published by Kevin Trenberth, Lijing Cheng, and others (I was also an author) answers these questions. ...

Cheng, L., Trenberth, K. E., Palmer, M. D., Zhu, J., and Abraham, J. P.: Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 1970–2005 (http://www.ocean-sci.net/12/925/2016/), Ocean Sci., 12, 925-935, doi:10.5194/os-12-925-2016, 2016.

Desmond
28-06-2017, 08:55 AM
I wonder what qualifies Jono's author to comment on climate science:

About*E. Calvin Beisner

Dr. Beisner is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance; former Associate Professor of Historical Theology & Social Ethics, at Knox Theological Seminary, and of Interdisciplinary Studies, at Covenant College; and author of “Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate” and “Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future.”

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2017, 09:07 AM
I wonder what qualifies Jono's author to comment on climate science:

About*E. Calvin Beisner

Dr. Beisner is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance; former Associate Professor of Historical Theology & Social Ethics, at Knox Theological Seminary, and of Interdisciplinary Studies, at Covenant College; and author of “Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate” and “Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future.”

Seems like he has researched the issues extensively.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2017, 09:12 AM
Which is a lie - shame on a site claiming to be dedicated to the stewardship of creation.
It is. It is just not committed to leftist tax-and-control policies, and realize that the globull warm-mongering alarmism has been the leftists' wet dream—a perfect excuse for policies they have always wanted to impose.


The last episode of Yes, Prime Minister was produced in 1986. The series starred Nigel Hawthorne and Paul Eddington, unforgettable characters who bear no resemblance to the pretenders appearing in the videos claimed as original BBC productions (as Capablanca Fan knew perfectly well when foisting this on us, being a fan of the show himself).
This series was written by the same creators as the original, Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. I agree that it's not a patch on the original, but this is not relevant to the issue at hand, and is hardly a "lie".

Desmond
28-06-2017, 11:01 AM
Seems like he has researched the issues extensively.

Didn't realise theology was a climate science discipline. :lol:

Desmond
28-06-2017, 03:16 PM
Further (http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/bio.pdf),


E. Calvin Beisner, an interdisciplinary scholar specializing on the application of Biblical world view, theology, and ethics to economics, environmental stewardship,
political philosophy, public policy, and apologetics, is founder and national spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

So what does all that mean? Let's have a look at the Cornball alliance statement of faith
(http://cornwallalliance.org/about/cornwall-alliance-statement-of-faith/)

WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.


So he's a young earther who thinks the world is only about 6,000 years old and is going to end in rapture pretty soon anyway, so why bother with facts or keeping the air clean.

Rincewind
28-06-2017, 03:23 PM
WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race; and that they were created in His own image, distinct from all other living creatures, and in a state of original righteousness.


How can someone who has biology, geology, history so wrong have any reliability for anything? Any statements they make are more likely to be wrong than right.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2017, 05:46 AM
So he's a young earther who thinks the world is only about 6,000 years old and is going to end in rapture pretty soon anyway, so why bother with facts or keeping the air clean.

A ridiculous caricature, as usual for atheopaths. He is pro-environment, consistent with a view of responsible dominion/stewardship (as per my own co-authored view from 15 years ago (http://creation.com/earth-day-is-christianity-to-blame-for-environment-problems)). But he also notes the point (made independently by Vaclav Klaus, Ph.D. economist and former Czech Republic president for 10 years) that the alarmism has proved just the tickets for leftists who have long needed a good excuse to impose more taxes and regulations, and erode individual freedoms and national sovereignty.

Desmond
29-06-2017, 09:43 AM
A ridiculous caricature, as usual for atheopaths. He is pro-environment, consistent with a view of responsible dominion/stewardship (as per my own co-authored view from 15 years ago (http://creation.com/earth-day-is-christianity-to-blame-for-environment-problems)). But he also notes the point (made independently by Vaclav Klaus, Ph.D. economist and former Czech Republic president for 10 years) that the alarmism has proved just the tickets for leftists who have long needed a good excuse to impose more taxes and regulations, and erode individual freedoms and national sovereignty.Hard to see what a young-earther could usefully have to say on climate, when climate scientists use data analysing millions of years of evidence to inform the subject.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2017, 01:25 PM
Hard to see what a young-earther could usefully have to say on climate, when climate scientists use data analysing millions of years of evidence to inform the subject.

While they dismiss the significance of recent climate changes like the Medieval Warm Period. And we can still note the remarkable coincidence that climate alarmism has prompted exactly the policies that leftists have always wanted.

MichaelBaron
29-06-2017, 01:50 PM
A ridiculous caricature, as usual for atheopaths. He is pro-environment, consistent with a view of responsible dominion/stewardship (as per my own co-authored view from 15 years ago (http://creation.com/earth-day-is-christianity-to-blame-for-environment-problems)). But he also notes the point (made independently by Vaclav Klaus, Ph.D. economist and former Czech Republic president for 10 years) that the alarmism has proved just the tickets for leftists who have long needed a good excuse to impose more taxes and regulations, and erode individual freedoms and national sovereignty.

And it is a typical example how political agenda becomes instrumental in order to manipulate research findings. The trouble is not even the rise of the alarmism but that we have to pay for it and instead of improving our economic climate - we are wasting resources on some kind of nonsense.

Desmond
29-06-2017, 02:57 PM
While they dismiss the significance of recent climate changes like the Medieval Warm Period. They don't dismiss it at all, it has been studied extensively. 91,300 results from google scholar (https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+change+medieval+warm+period&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1), happy reading.

And we can still note the remarkable coincidence that climate alarmism has prompted exactly the policies that leftists have always wanted.
Anyone can moan about policies but the question is why should anyone lend it any weight.

Patrick Byrom
29-06-2017, 03:12 PM
While they dismiss the significance of recent climate changes like the Medieval Warm Period.The MWP was an isolated event, not a worldwide increase in temperature, as is happening now. And even in the regions where it occurred, current temperatures are higher.


And we can still note the remarkable coincidence that climate alarmism has prompted exactly the policies that leftists have always wanted.I didn't realise that "leftists" were strong supporters of nuclear power :)

Ian Murray
29-06-2017, 08:56 PM
And it is a typical example how political agenda becomes instrumental in order to manipulate research findings. The trouble is not even the rise of the alarmism but that we have to pay for it and instead of improving our economic climate - we are wasting resources on some kind of nonsense.

Keeping your heads in the sand and hoping the climate isn't changing will incur far greater costs.


...Curbing global warming pollution will require a substantial investment, but the cost of doing nothing will be far greater. Immediate action can save lives, avoid trillions of dollars of economic damage, and put us on a path to solving one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century....

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf

Patrick Byrom
29-06-2017, 11:26 PM
And it is a typical example how political agenda becomes instrumental in order to manipulate research findings. The trouble is not even the rise of the alarmism but that we have to pay for it and instead of improving our economic climate - we are wasting resources on some kind of nonsense.Can you give an example where research has been manipulated?

MichaelBaron
29-06-2017, 11:51 PM
Can you give an example where research has been manipulated?

How can one talk about climate change if there is no accurate evidence of the weather 500 years ago etc.? Change compared to what? There is no longitudinal data available~

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2017, 03:59 AM
I didn't realise that "leftists" were strong supporters of nuclear power :)
They aren't typically. They prefer the diluted and intermittent "renewables" like solar and wind, which require backup for when the sun doesn't shine or wind doesn't blow, and are expensive.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2017, 04:03 AM
They don't dismiss it at all, it has been studied extensively. 91,300 results from google scholar (https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=climate+change+medieval+warm+period&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1), happy reading.
Thanks. #2 on your list:


Wallace S. Broecker*, Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497), Science 291(5508):1497-1499, 23 Feb 2001 | doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1497

During the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.), the Vikings colonized Greenland. In his Perspective, Broecker discusses whether this warm period was global or regional in extent. He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.


Anyone can moan about policies but the question is why should anyone lend it any weight.
Because for the Left, the climate alarmism is just one of the best crises they never let go to waste in their aim to impose more taxes and regulations.

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 07:48 AM
How can one talk about climate change if there is no accurate evidence of the weather 500 years ago etc.? Change compared to what? There is no longitudinal data available~

Climate change is about climate, not weather. We have accurate records of climate from atmospheric samples going back 800,000 years

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 08:07 AM
They aren't typically. They prefer the diluted and intermittent "renewables" like solar and wind, which require backup for when the sun doesn't shine or wind doesn't blow, and are expensive.

New-build solar farms are far cheaper than new-build coal power stations and are poised to become cheaper than new-build gas generators, and run rings around them on operating costs. Old coal stations are still cheaper, as they only compare their operating costs with solar construction costs. That situation is only temporary - within 15 years new-build solar will be cheaper than old coal, which will be the game-changer. It is no coincidence that construction of new coal plants is in sharp decline. Don't expect to see a new coal plant ever built in Australia again (despite Tony Abbott urging the government to pay for them).

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 08:56 AM
Thanks. #2 on your list:


Wallace S. Broecker*, Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497), Science 291(5508):1497-1499, 23 Feb 2001 | doi:10.1126/science.291.5508.1497

During the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 A.D.), the Vikings colonized Greenland. In his Perspective, Broecker discusses whether this warm period was global or regional in extent. He argues that it is the last in a long series of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic, that it was likely global, and that the present warming should be attributed in part to such an oscillation, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.

While Broecker argued in 2001 that the MWP was likely global, a 2009 study of global climate proxies confirmed that it was a regional anomaly only.


Michael E. Mann, Zhihua Zhang et al, Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf), Science 326 (5957): 1256-1260, 27 Nov 2009 www.sciencemag.org Accessed 30 Jun 2017

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation – Arctic Oscillation.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2017, 10:44 AM
Oh Mann, that litigious fraud. Of course, the MWP undermines his hockey-stick scam.

Anyway, I was following rr's instructions to check out the Google Scholar papers that HE listed, and Broecker was #2.

Desmond
30-06-2017, 11:40 AM
Oh Mann, that litigious fraud. Of course, the MWP undermines his hockey-stick scam.

Anyway, I was following rr's instructions to check out the Google Scholar papers that HE listed, and Broecker was #2.

Yes which would appear to completely debunk your claim that the MWP is dismissed. I notice in the abstract that you liked it points out "upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed". No one is denying that there are natural fluctuations, though in this case you likely are over emphasizing them. The man-made warming also cannot be denied if you look at the evidence.

MichaelBaron
30-06-2017, 12:40 PM
Climate change is about climate, not weather. We have accurate records of climate from atmospheric samples going back 800,000 years

How consistent are those? You only have evidence of particular climate/weather at particular point of time from particular part of the planet. This is just one of the reasons why many scientists (e.g. 31,000 who signed the petition described in this article http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/climate-experts-global-warming-doubts-are-real-science/) doubt global warming.

Anyway, we are living in the age where fighting for and against something has become virtually a ''job'' for many people so they occupy themselves with global warming rather than addressing something real

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 12:43 PM
Oh Mann, that litigious fraud. Of course, the MWP undermines his hockey-stick scam.

Sez you. His CV here (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/)

As for the WWP, try this:
Study Undercuts Idea That 'Medieval Warm Period' Was Global (http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3266)
The Earth Institute
Columbia University
2.12.15

...On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed exceptionally clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world.

“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global,” said lead author Nicolás Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “The concept is Eurocentric—that’s where the best-known observations were made. Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same.” ...

The new study may feed recent suggestions by other researchers that the Medieval Warm Period was in part just an extended phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Modern observations show that the NAO is a generally decadal-scale climate cycle, in which warm winds from the west strengthen and boost temperatures in Europe and Iceland, but simultaneously make southwest Greenland and Baffin Island colder, by sucking in more Arctic air. That makes the two regions seesaw in opposite directions.

Gifford Miller, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Colorado, called the paper “a coup de grace on the Medieval Warm Period.” Miller said it shows “with great clarity of evidence” that “the idea of a consistently warm Medieval period is certainly an oversimplification and of little utility.”...

MichaelBaron
30-06-2017, 12:44 PM
New-build solar farms are far cheaper than new-build coal power stations and are poised to become cheaper than new-build gas generators, and run rings around them on operating costs. Old coal stations are still cheaper, as they only compare their operating costs with solar construction costs. That situation is only temporary - within 15 years new-build solar will be cheaper than old coal, which will be the game-changer. It is no coincidence that construction of new coal plants is in sharp decline. Don't expect to see a new coal plant ever built in Australia again (despite Tony Abbott urging the government to pay for them).


If you believe that something is going to become cheaper and better...then the alternatives available then surely it will be embraced anyway without government subsidies/support. If solar power naturally overtakes alternative sources of power - so be it! I just do not see it as a political issue.

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 12:57 PM
If you believe that something is going to become cheaper and better...then the alternatives available then surely it will be embraced anyway without government subsidies/support. If solar power naturally overtakes alternative sources of power - so be it! I just do not see it as a political issue.

Nor should it be a political issue - technically it's a no-brainer. As evidenced by the Paris Accord, the vast global majority are pledged towards a zero carbon future.

Patrick Byrom
30-06-2017, 02:25 PM
How can one talk about climate change if there is no accurate evidence of the weather 500 years ago etc.? Change compared to what? There is no longitudinal data available~It is possible to reconstruct historical temperatures using proxies. And the temperature changes can be compared to a baseline. I don't understand what you mean by "longitudinal data".

Patrick Byrom
30-06-2017, 02:35 PM
How consistent are those? You only have evidence of particular climate/weather at particular point of time from particular part of the planet. This is just one of the reasons why many scientists (e.g. 31,000 who signed the petition described in this article http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/climate-experts-global-warming-doubts-are-real-science/) doubt global warming.Evidence from specific locations can be combined to give a global picture. And how many of those 'scientists' have relevant qualifications?

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 04:52 PM
...global warming rather than addressing something real

195 national governments believe climate change is real, pledging under the Paris Accord to reduce their emissions to below nominated targets to combat global warming

MichaelBaron
30-06-2017, 04:59 PM
195 national governments believe climate change is real, pledging under the Paris Accord to reduce their emissions to below nominated targets to combat global warming

This is what I call political agenda. Nothing to do with whether the problem is real or not.

Patrick Byrom
30-06-2017, 05:08 PM
This is what I call political agenda. Nothing to do with whether the problem is real or not.We know the problem is real because of the overwhelming scientific evidence. If you want to continue debating the science, feel free to do so.

Or you can stick to your massive conspiracy theory, where almost all scientists and politicians in the world are conspiring together. And somehow the scientific predictions are proving to be correct, even though they're supposedly not based on real science!

Ian Murray
30-06-2017, 07:04 PM
This is what I call political agenda. Nothing to do with whether the problem is real or not.

How about from the world's acadamies of science?


National academies of sciences from around the world have published formal statements and declarations acknowledging the state of climate science, the fact that climate is changing, the compelling evidence that humans are responsible, and the need to debate and implement strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Not a single national science academy disputes or denies the scientific consensus around human-caused climate change. ...

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2017/01/17/joint-statements-on-climate-change-from-national-academies-of-science-around-the-world/

Desmond
30-06-2017, 07:22 PM
How consistent are those? You only have evidence of particular climate/weather at particular point of time from particular part of the planet.
For an introduction you can read all about them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate) and drill into the sources as required.

MichaelBaron
30-06-2017, 08:27 PM
For an introduction you can read all about them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate) and drill into the sources as required.

Wow, so Wiki is not regarded as serious evidence? And how can the Ice Age happened then? :). The part of the ''evidence'' that I doubt is the historic one as all we have of how the temperature was like in the past is assumptions.

From a practical perspective I am particularly entertained by the fact, that while people are debating validity of the global warming claim - money is already being wasted on ''fighting the global warming''. I can think of better ways of spending the $$$.

Patrick Byrom
30-06-2017, 09:09 PM
Wow, so Wiki is not regarded as serious evidence? And how can the Ice Age happened then? :). The part of the ''evidence'' that I doubt is the historic one as all we have of how the temperature was like in the past is assumptions.There is much more detailed evidence here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm) on how temperature proxies work. And I don't understand what the Ice Age has to do with AGW - nobody has ever said that humans are the only cause of climate change.


From a practical perspective I am particularly entertained by the fact, that while people are debating validity of the global warming claim - money is already being wasted on ''fighting the global warming''. I can think of better ways of spending the $$$.Scientists aren't debating the validity of global warming, as has been pointed out to you. Which is why politicians are taking action, of course.

MichaelBaron
01-07-2017, 12:45 AM
There is much more detailed evidence here (https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm) on how temperature proxies work. And I don't understand what the Ice Age has to do with AGW - nobody has ever said that humans are the only cause of climate change.

Scientists aren't debating the validity of global warming, as has been pointed out to you. Which is why politicians are taking action, of course.

I do not think it explains how reconstruction of climate from previous ''Ages'' can be accurate.

Rincewind
01-07-2017, 12:51 AM
I do not think it explains how reconstruction of climate from previous ''Ages'' can be accurate.

That's exactly what it does using a combination of proxies such as ice cores, tree rings etc. When you have a number of different data sources with the same signal you can pre confident it is robust. I'm not sure why you are interested in "Ages" and how far back you think we need to look to prove that the warming of the last 100 years is significant and unusual, but using the proxies described we can get a good picture going back over 1,000 years.

ER
01-07-2017, 01:18 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/29/scott-morrison-threatens-to-cut-states-gst-share-if-they-oppose-fracking?CMP=soc_568

Not so sure if Mr. Morisson's move re GST could be effective or not, but who the hell is that so called "Lock the Gate anti-coal seam gas group?" are they for real? :D

ΒΤW dear climate change please do us a favour and visit our capital this weekend!!! I mean - 6 C give us a break!!!

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/29/12/38/canberra-set-to-shiver-through-coldest-weekend-in-20-years?ocid=9newsfb

Ian Murray
01-07-2017, 09:06 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/29/scott-morrison-threatens-to-cut-states-gst-share-if-they-oppose-fracking?CMP=soc_568

Not so sure if Mr. Morisson's move re GST could be effective or not,

Effective or not? How about constitutional or not? Sec 99 should protect Victoria against any such foolishness


but who the hell is that so called "Lock the Gate anti-coal seam gas group?" are they for real? :D

You've been away too long. LTG is an alliance of the people living on the land being destroyed by fracking and mining

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2017, 09:13 AM
How about from the world's acadamies of science?


National academies of sciences from around the world have published formal statements and declarations acknowledging the state of climate science, the fact that climate is changing, the compelling evidence that humans are responsible, and the need to debate and implement strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Not a single national science academy disputes or denies the scientific consensus around human-caused climate change. ...

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2017/01/17/joint-statements-on-climate-change-from-national-academies-of-science-around-the-world/
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/)

Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever.

In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Patrick Byrom
01-07-2017, 09:23 AM
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/)

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
…Nobody is claiming that the sun isn't 93 million miles away, so there is no need to refer to a consensus. But we rely on the scientific consensus in all other areas, so we should also rely on it with AGW.

EDIT: If consensus is invoked "only" when the science is "not solid enough", is Capablanca-Fan claiming that the science of vaccine safety is not reliable: "Why doctors should convey the medical consensus on vaccine safety (https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/slinden/files/doctors.pdf)"?

According to Crichton, the fact that there is a scientific consensus on vaccine safety apparently demonstrates that vaccines are not safe!

Kaitlin
01-07-2017, 09:40 AM
Nobody is claiming that the sun isn't 93 million miles away, so there is no need to refer to a consensus. But we rely on the scientific consensus in all other areas, so we should also rely on it with AGW.

Everyone knows we're 93 million miles from the sun and 30 thousand light years from Glaxatic Central Point..

...from the intro to that Monty Python dvd .. rofl :lol:

MichaelBaron
01-07-2017, 12:18 PM
[QUOTE=Kaitlin;426122]Everyone knows we're 93 million miles from the sun and 30 thousand light years from Glaxatic Central Point..

...from the problem is...we are now taking it seriously...

Ian Murray
01-07-2017, 12:32 PM
Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/)

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world....

Crichton should have stuck to what he did best - writing science fiction and medical fiction thrillers (e.g. Jurassic Park). He grossly misrepresents the current concept of scientific consensus on climate change. There is no mutual admiration society of scientists all agreeing to agree. There are thousands of individual climate scientists of all disciplines conducting their own research, alone or conjointly with a handful of associates, and practically all arriving at the same conclusions - global warming is happening and changing the climate, and the only rational explanation to fit the observations is the injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humans.

A number of research studies have been conducted to quantify such climate research by assessing published papers by scientists active in climate research to determine whether or not each acknowledges climate change and attributes it to human activity, or is neutral on the issue. These studies found that 97% of the papers assessed were in the human activity camp. That 97% is what is now commonly known as the scientific consensus. It is not something mutually agreed by scientists, but only a tallying of their individual findings.

Based on his medical history Crichton singles out a few old-time doctors who fought against medical inertia of the times. The other side of the coin are the likes of Robert Kehoe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe), a doctor who spent his career as an 'expert' apologist for adding lead to petrol while working for the auto, oil and chemical industries, despite the mounting scientific evidence of its disastrous health effects (http://www.ethyl.environmentalhistory.org/?page_id=27). Thermal fuel industries continue fighting the mounting evidence of climate change, still using tame scientists to protect their profit margins.


Spotlight on Global Temperature (https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Hansen_Spotlight%5B1%5D.pdf)
by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Ken Lo, David Lea and Martin Medina-Elizalde

In a popular novel Michael Crichton (2004) suggests that observed global warming inferred from weather station measurements is dubious especially because of urban warming effects, and he asserts that, even if measured warming is accepted, climate model predictions made by James Hansen in congressional testimony in 1988 (based on Hansen et al. 1988) proved to be “wrong by 300 percent”. Although climate change discussion in a fictional novel might be easily dismissed, Crichton states that his references to real people are accurate. And Crichton’s views were welcomed as testimony to the United States Congress (Senate Testimony 2005) and in a personal meeting with President Bush at the White House (Barnes 2006). We study temperature change on El Nino to paleoclimate time scales, thus addressing Crichton’s assertions in a context that we hope has broader scientific interest. We first update our analysis of global temperature change, illustrating that the global pattern of warmth in the first half-decade of the 21st century is of the nature of a real climate change, not an artifact of measurement or data processing error. We next compare observed global temperature change with the predictions of transient global climate change that were made in the 1980s. We then show the pattern of current temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean, and we suggest that the planet may be on the verge of a super El Nino. By comparing paleoclimate and recent data, we infer that the Earth is now warmer than at any time in the Holocene and poised to reach the warmest level in the past million years. Finally we discuss implications for dangerous human-made climate change. ...

Desmond
01-07-2017, 06:02 PM
Wow, so Wiki is not regarded as serious evidence? It's a good place to start for people who have no idea about a topic, like yourself. You can drill into the primary sources as needed.


And how can the Ice Age happened then? :). I could ask what you're talking about but it's probably better for you to try skilling up on one thing at a time.


The part of the ''evidence'' that I doubt is the historic one as all we have of how the temperature was like in the past is assumptions.
You do realise that there are no reliable direct temperature records for the MWP right? All you have are assumptions, according to your own test. :lol:


From a practical perspective I am particularly entertained by the fact, that while people are debating validity of the global warming claim People are debating it just like people are debating that the world is 6,000 years old - and in a lot of cases it's the same people. :lol:

Ian Murray
01-07-2017, 06:43 PM
And how can the Ice Age happened then? ...

To talk sensibly about climate, you need to do a lot of homework first. To help you along a little, read a bit about the Milankovitch cycles
Ice ages have been linked to the Earth’s wobbly orbit – but when is the next one? (https://theconversation.com/ice-ages-have-been-linked-to-the-earths-wobbly-orbit-but-when-is-the-next-one-70069)


From a practical perspective I am particularly entertained by the fact, that while people are debating validity of the global warming claim - money is already being wasted on ''fighting the global warming''. I can think of better ways of spending the $$$.

When you accept that climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced, there is nothing on which money can be better spent than abatement and mitigation before it is too late

MichaelBaron
02-07-2017, 12:34 AM
To talk sensibly about climate, you need to do a lot of homework first. To help you along a little, read a bit about the Milankovitch cycles
Ice ages have been linked to the Earth’s wobbly orbit – but when is the next one? (https://theconversation.com/ice-ages-have-been-linked-to-the-earths-wobbly-orbit-but-when-is-the-next-one-70069)



When you accept that climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced, there is nothing on which money can be better spent than abatement and mitigation before it is too late

In Russia we used to say about the Communist Party '' When the Party can not feed the people well - it start talking about solving problems of the universe instead'' Does it ring the bell?

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2017, 05:04 AM
EDIT: If consensus is invoked "only" when the science is "not solid enough", is Capablanca-Fan claiming that the science of vaccine safety is not reliable: "Why doctors should convey the medical consensus on vaccine safety (https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/slinden/files/doctors.pdf)"?
Would rather discuss the actual empirical evidence that demonstrates that vaccination is both very safe (http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_safe) and very effective at preventing diseases (http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_effective). This is different from computer models predicting tiny temperature increases unless we impose all the taxes and regulations that leftists have long dreamed of.

ER
02-07-2017, 05:23 AM
In Russia we used to say about the Communist Party '' When the Party can not feed the people well - it start talking about solving problems of the universe instead'' Does it ring the bell?

well, that's because you didn't have the "Lock the Gate" anti-coal seam gas group in the USSR! :P :D

Kaitlin
02-07-2017, 08:24 AM
Scientists want to prove other scientists wrong, thats the purpose of experiments.

You don't get Nobel Peace Prizes for proving someone else was right.
Science isn't about consensus!

And a movie based on a sci-fi novel about world global warming probably wouldn't be a box office hit.



Such is the way of Science 2017. :(


ps. ..... your travelling across space and you see a tortise baking under a global warming planet ... would you stop to help it ... (nb. this is not a question about your mother) !

Ian Murray
02-07-2017, 10:10 AM
... This is different from computer models predicting tiny temperature increases unless we impose all the taxes and regulations that leftists have long dreamed of.

I'd have thought someone with some background in chemistry would have some idea of the heat involved in tiny temperature increases of a planet. Let's hear it from the people at NASA (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php), who know a bit about science:


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.

The full context:


The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.

The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

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.....

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer analysis program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperature anomalies relative to the average temperature for the same month during 1951-1980.

The objective, according to GISS scientists, is to provide an estimate of temperature change that could be compared with predictions of global climate change in response to atmospheric carbon dioxide, aerosols, and changes in solar activity.....

The opinions of the sceptics are now irrelevant. There are enough global leaders who accept the science and see what's at stake, and the world is now taking action to mitigate the damage being caused and to be caused by global warming (it's too late to stop the damage).

Even those greenies in the Pentagon can see what's happening, and are takng action.
Trump May Doubt Climate Change, Pentagon Sees It as Threat Multiplier (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/trump-may-doubt-climate-change-pentagon-sees-it-looming-threat.html)
military.com
2.6.17

President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement puts him at odds with the Pentagon, which has been warning for years that climate change poses a critical national security threat.....

Patrick Byrom
02-07-2017, 10:12 AM
Would rather discuss the actual empirical evidence that demonstrates that vaccination is both very safe (http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_safe) and very effective at preventing diseases (http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_effective). This is different from computer models predicting tiny temperature increases unless we impose all the taxes and regulations that leftists have long dreamed of.So you agree that claims of a vaccine consensus don't mean that vaccine science is unreliable, as Crichton is implying? Then the same should apply to climate change.

And I would love to discuss the empirical evidence for AGW with you, but every time I produce the evidence, you stop responding to my posts :( :(

Ian Murray
02-07-2017, 12:39 PM
And I would love to discuss the empirical evidence for AGW with you, but every time I produce the evidence, you stop responding to my posts :( :(

Let's chuck some in anyway. Using geology:

Our planet is heating - the empirical evidence (https://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-heating-the-empirical-evidence-63990)
The Conversation
16.8.16


...I pondered the question - what would I need to change my mind? After all, I should dearly love to be convinced that climate was not changing, or if it were, it were not due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would make things just so much easier, all round.

So what would make me change my mind?

There are two elements to this question. The first is the observational basis, and the question of empirical data, of a changing climate. The second relates to cause and effect, and the question of the greenhouse effect. ...

MichaelBaron
02-07-2017, 03:18 PM
Scientists want to prove other scientists wrong, thats the purpose of experiments.

You don't get Nobel Peace Prizes for proving someone else was right.
Science isn't about consensus!

And a movie based on a sci-fi novel about world global warming probably wouldn't be a box office hit.



Such is the way of Science 2017. :(


ps. ..... your travelling across space and you see a tortise baking under a global warming planet ... would you stop to help it ... (nb. this is not a question about your mother) !

You get Noble prizes for all kind of things...peace prizes in particular. Remember that Arafat (a proven terrorist) got one. Half of the Noble prizes for literature ..are hardly known to anyone while there are many well-recognized authors that never got the prize.

Rincewind
02-07-2017, 04:08 PM
You get Noble prizes for all kind of things...peace prizes in particular.

Kaitlin was obviously talking about the scientific Nobel prizes. Not the ones for Peace, Literature or Economics.

Ian Murray
02-07-2017, 05:18 PM
Wind Energy Has Officially Become Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels (https://futurism.com/wind-energy-has-officially-become-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels/)
Futurism
28.6.17

Bent Christensen, who is responsible for cost projection for Siemens’s wind power division, has estimated that Europe’s offshore wind industry has reached a milestone three to four years ahead of schedule: achieving wind energy at €100 ($113) per megawatt hour (MWh). This means that offshore wind farms could be built without government subsidy because they are economically viable without additional support.

In wind energy, there has been a fast reduction in price over the last three years, falling 27 percent since 2014. According to a Lazard survey in 2016, this means that the energy source has become either cheaper or equal to coal-fired generators, nuclear reactors, and rooftop solar arrays....

Wind power’s fall in price marks a major victory for renewable energy because it makes the power source attractive economically as well as environmentally, which is crucial for its widespread adoption. Other promising news that could advance the trend for adopting wind-power is Denmark providing all their power for a day using the source, and the development of record-breaking turbines capable of producing 216,000 kWh of energy in a 24 hour period.

The decreasing price of renewable energy, however, is not just reserved for wind-power: similar victories are also taking place in the solar energy sector. A recent report by Bloomberg has estimated that in four years solar will be cheaper than coal worldwide, having dropped in price by 58 percent within the last five years....

MichaelBaron
02-07-2017, 05:18 PM
Kaitlin was obviously talking about the scientific Nobel prizes. Not the ones for Peace, Literature or Economics.

So you seriously think that Nobel prizes in Science are given to the ''Greatest'' only?

Half of the names that won over the years...we hardly know who they are.
At the same time, no Nobel prize for the likes of Tesla

Ian Murray
02-07-2017, 07:01 PM
So you seriously think that Nobel prizes in Science are given to the ''Greatest'' only?


When did RW say that?

Patrick Byrom
02-07-2017, 07:03 PM
So you seriously think that Nobel prizes in Science are given to the ''Greatest'' only?Who said that they were?


Half of the names that won over the years...we hardly know who they are.Just because you've never heard of them, does not mean they aren't well known to experts in their field.


At the same time, no Nobel prize for the likes of TeslaTesla, like Edison, was not a scientist. Both were great inventors, and would have certainly got engineering Nobels, if they existed.

Rincewind
02-07-2017, 08:51 PM
This last few posts are basically Michael unreasonably misreads Kaitlin's post and when this is pointed out to him, totally misinterprets that post. The guy is just being a mendacious troll and should probably be ignored.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2017, 10:23 PM
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.


It would if people were seriously disputing it and those people were being seen by anyone who mattered as something other than crazy.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2017, 08:48 AM
And I would love to discuss the empirical evidence for AGW with you, but every time I produce the evidence, you stop responding to my posts :( :(
Do you think I need lessons from you about how to work out the vibrational modes of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc.? They are child's play compared to what I had to work out in my own research (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0584853994001766?via%3Dihub), with much more complicated molecules and Davydov splitting in the crystal (measured wavenumbers below in cm<sup>-1</sup>):


CO2 (D∞h symmetry): Σg+ 1373.01 (symmetric stretch), Σu+ 2438.1 (asymmetric stretch), Πu (doubly degenerate bend)—the first IR inactive, Raman active; others IR active (the stretch much more intense than the bend), Raman inactive (since the molecule has a centre of symmetry, no mode can be both).
H2O (C2v symmetry): A1 3703.03 (symmetric stretch), A1 1711.15 (bend), B1 3851.06 (asymmetric stretch, the most intense IR absorber)—all IR and Raman active.
CH4 (Td symmetry): A1 3054.37 (symmetric stretch, IR inactive, Raman active), E 1597.55 (doubly degenerate bend, IR inactive, Raman active), T2 (triply degenerate antisymmetric stretch, IR and Raman active), T2 (triply degenerate bend, IR and Raman active, and by far the more intense IR absorber)

Ian Murray
03-07-2017, 09:44 AM
Do you think I need lessons from you about how to work out the vibrational modes of CO2, H2O, CH4, etc.? They are child's play compared to what I had to work out in my own research (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0584853994001766?via%3Dihub), with much more complicated molecules and Davydov splitting in the crystal (measured wavenumbers below in cm<sup>-1</sup>):


CO2 (D∞h symmetry): Σg+ 1373.01 (symmetric stretch), Σu+ 2438.1 (asymmetric stretch), Πu (doubly degenerate bend)—the first IR inactive, Raman active; others IR active (the stretch much more intense than the bend), Raman inactive (since the molecule has a centre of symmetry, no mode can be both).
H2O (C2v symmetry): A1 3703.03 (symmetric stretch), A1 1711.15 (bend), B1 3851.06 (asymmetric stretch, the most intense IR absorber)—all IR and Raman active.
CH4 (Td symmetry): A1 3054.37 (symmetric stretch, IR inactive, Raman active), E 1597.55 (doubly degenerate bend, IR inactive, Raman active), T2 (triply degenerate antisymmetric stretch, IR and Raman active), T2 (triply degenerate bend, IR and Raman active, and by far the more intense IR absorber)


In layman's terms, molecules in the atmosphere with an odd number of atoms (e.g. H2O, CO2, NH4) have asymmetric stretch and bend vibrational modes that interact with infrared radiation (molecules with an even number do not). These 'greenhouse gases' absorb and re-emit, in random directions, IR radiation from the Earth's surface. Some goes back to the surface and gets re-absorbed, some goes towards space and some strikes other GHG molecules which repeats the process.

By increasing the volume of GHG in the atmosphere, the amount of IR radiation re-absorbed by the Earth's surface is increased, i.e. global warming.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2017, 10:58 AM
In layman's terms, molecules in the atmosphere with an odd number of atoms (e.g. H2O, CO2, NH4) have asymmetric stretch and bend vibrational modes that interact with infrared radiation (molecules with an even number do not).
No, odd v even is not the issue. Even-numbered molecules like HF, HCHO, and NH3 most definitely interact with IR. The issue is whether the vibration changes the electric dipole of the molecule. That's why the symmetric stretch of the water molecule (bent) is IR active, and that of the more symmetrical linear molecule CO2 is IR inactive, as are the vibrations of N2 and O2.


These 'greenhouse gases' absorb and re-emit, in random directions, IR radiation from the Earth's surface.
That's reasonable since we are talking about gas molecules.


Some goes back to the surface and gets re-absorbed, some goes towards space and some strikes other GHG molecules which repeats the process.
Yes, and the other thing is that different GHGs absorb in different regions of the spectrum. That's why IR spectroscopy is a good identification tool for various functional groups.


By increasing the volume of GHG in the atmosphere, the amount of IR radiation re-absorbed by the Earth's surface is increased, i.e. global warming.
Not so much the volumes but the partial pressures.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2017, 11:29 AM
It would if people were seriously disputing it and those people were being seen by anyone who mattered as something other than crazy.

That would probably be the wrong approach, compared to pointing out evidence. At least it would not be the approach I have used in a few issues I've argued elsewhere, e.g. refuting people who argue against the moon landings and vaccination, and for a flat earth.

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2017, 12:24 PM
That would probably be the wrong approach, compared to pointing out evidence. At least it would not be the approach I have used in a few issues I've argued elsewhere, e.g. refuting people who argue against the moon landings and vaccination, and for a flat earth.

Moon landing sceptics and flat-earthers are generally regarded as idiots so those are not really useful comparisons. For anti-vaxxers there will be cases of people arguing against them with evidence and also cases of pointing to scientific consensus, and cases of both. A quick google search turns up many examples of reference to scientific consensus on vaccines and even a paper seeking to scientifically test whether referring to scientific consensus on vaccines works (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669673/).

Crichton would presumably have accepted vaccination science; if so his claim that consensus is only invoked when the science is wrong is refuted by counterexample and exposed as a sloppy generalisation from cherry-picked cases.

Reference to consensus should never be a substitute for debate but it can be a useful addition to it.

Patrick Byrom
03-07-2017, 01:36 PM
Do you think I need lessons from you about how to work out the vibrational modes ... That's the part we agree on. It's the observable consequences of this that you refuse to accept.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2017, 02:47 PM
That's the part we agree on.
Good, which means that the pro-alarmists here now have a better idea what they're talking about, now that I've explained some basics of IR spectroscopy. They now know more than Gore, Rudd, Turnbull, Obama, etc.


It's the observable consequences of this that you refuse to accept.
Don't forget that there are also disagreements about what to do about the claimed warming.

Patrick Byrom
03-07-2017, 03:42 PM
Good, which means that the pro-alarmists here now have a better idea what they're talking about, now that I've explained some basics of IR spectroscopy. They now know more than Gore, Rudd, Turnbull, Obama, etc.The IR spectroscopy is irrelevant to understanding the physics of AGW - all you need to know is that carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas. And the so-called 'pro-alarmists' here all have scientific training, unlike their opponents - apart from you, of course.

Would you say that Trump or Abbott have a better scientific understanding than the politicians you mentioned? After all, Abbott infamously claimed that carbon dioxide is weightless!


Don't forget that there are also disagreements about what to do about the claimed warming.Of course there are. But most opponents of restricting warming (like Abbott) don't understand the physics.